Despite their status as mavericks, running on an anti-establishment ticket in the 2003 leadership contest, Anglu Farrugia and John Attard Montalto still managed to get 39% of the delegates’ vote – nearly twice the support garnered by a motion sponsored by the George Abela camp in last Friday’s MLP’s conference.
This suggests that Abela is heading for a trouncing defeat on June 5.
Yet gauging George Abela’s current standing among delegates just from the motion could be deceptive, as it ignores one important factor. On Friday, delegates were voting to divest themselves of one of the few powers that rewards the sacrifices they make for the party. Rather than reflecting lack of support for Abela, the vote could well reflect the delegates’ refusal to surrender a privilege they treasure.
Chris Agius’ comment that “he knew delegates who supported Abela who voted against the motion,” quoted in Illum, could be an indication that Abela’s support could be well above the 21% mark.
Other delegates could well have dismissed the motion for the simple reason that it posed an insurmountable logistical nightmare, which risked prolonging Labour’s post electoral agony. In fact Michael Cohen struck a chord among delegates by warning extending the vote to members would mean postponing the election to a later date – thus extending the “government’s honeymoon.”
But this reading of the balance of forces assumes that Muscat’s supporters voted en bloc against the motion to give members a vote. While Muscat’s support includes a solid block of inward looking party loyalists, it also includes less predictable younger delegates enamoured of Muscat’s appeal to the “winning generation.”
If Abela really enjoys a greater support among delegates than the motion proposed by his own camp, one would well ask: why did he propose the motion in the first place?
Surely a good tactician does not normally alienate his electors by trying to divest them of their exclusive power a few weeks before they cast their vote.
But Abela could well have banked on using this occasion to consolidate his position as Muscat’s main rival. The motion served to focus attention on Abela and stole the limelight from Muscat’s other main rival: Michael Falzon.
Abela could well be hoping that in the likely eventuality that Muscat falls short of the 50% required to get elected on the first round, he would clinch second place to face Joseph Muscat in a run-off.
Surely the conference reinforced the perception that the MLP administration is closing ranks to block Abela. More than the result of the vote itself, it was the atmosphere of closure and antipathy towards “the others” which gave this impression.
The frustration against the dominant clique, expressed by Labour MPs Adrian Vassallo and Stefan Buontempo following last Friday’s conference, bodes well for Abela.
Vassallo whose arch conservative views on moral issues already puts him at odds with Muscat’s more secular stance on issues like divorce, had attended George Abela’s first public activity in the Cospicua Regatta Club.
But when asked by MaltaToday a month ago, Vassallo refused to declare himself in favour of any of the candidates contesting for the top post, limiting himself to express support for the petition to enfranchise members.
The maverick MP went further in comments he gave to newspaper Illum on Friday.
“I am irked by the intolerance which exists in the party. I was irked by certain comments. Because of this I was tempted to ditch my delegate card and leave the conference…”
Even more significant were comments by Stefan Bountempo: the baby faced mainstream Labour MP. While holding on to the view that election involving all party members posed a logistical nightmare for the MLP, he lamented of being ostracised by the Alfred Sant clique adding that his vote was still in the balance. “I suffered under the Alfred Sant clique and I was even isolated by the MLP media.”
Abela’s trump card could well be that of uniting an ideologically disparate coalition of all those excluded by the Sant camp in the last decade by insinuating that Muscat represents continuity with the dominant clique.
On the other hand Muscat is in a Catch-22 situation: while the support of the party’s establishment could win him the first place on June 5, this support could not be enough to avoid a run off with George Abela or Michael Falzon.
Although Muscat starts as a favourite in a run-off with either two contenders, the perception that he is still “Sant’s poodle” could be Muscat’s greatest liability in the eventuality of a second round.
Truly, Muscat had distanced himself from Jason Micallef’s disparaging comments on Abela. He has also condemned any attempt to exclude him from the race. He is also reported to have called on former MLP leader Alfred Sant to “lay off”, warning that any political comeback by Sant would be interpreted as a sign of support for Muscat.
Yet how far can Muscat go to distance himself from Micallef without risking loss of support among delegates loyal to the present secretary-general?
Appealing to the delegates instincts to rally around the favourite and dispel rumours of a potential split in the party, could be Muscat’s trump card with delegates on June 5. If this sentiment prevails Muscat may well avoid a run off which could further divide the party. After all Muscat’s position of front-runner has never been in doubt.
Even among MLP voters George Abela was soundly beaten by Muscat by 19% - an indication that Muscat would have won even if the contest was widened to party members.
Yet among MLP voters Abela still managed to clinch second place, 13% ahead of Falzon. Probably Falzon is stronger among delegates because of his vital role in the party’s electoral machine. But the likelihood of Abela making it to the second round is no longer a remote possibility. In that eventuality Falzon’s only consolation would be that of becoming the party’s kingmaker.
To a lesser extent, even voters for Coleiro Preca and Evarist Bartolo would play a vital role. Surely such an eventuality would leave Falzon’s voters bitter against Abela for spoiling Falzon’s chances. Resentment against Abela in the Falzon camp has grown in the past weeks, as Abela made inroads at the latter’s expense.
But knowing that there was no love lost between Falzon and the “Alfred Sant clique” they may well see the hidden hand of the party’s general secretary in Falzon’s demise.
If trounced in third place, the 60-year-old Abela risks emerging from the contest as a spent force; but if he clinches the second place he may well remain a force to be reckoned with by the party’s younger leader.
Whether Abela will lead a current within the party or remain a thorn in the side by working outside the party remains to be seen.
For the defeated motion could well serve another purpose: that of undermining the legitimacy of the new leader.