It is difficult not to draw a parallel between tomorrow’s election for the new leader of the Malta Labour Party, and the ongoing race for the Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate ahead of the US election in November.
Today’s front-page story suggests that, as in the case of the Clinton/Obama duel, the MLP leadership contest is now very much a race between only two candidates, Joseph Muscat and George Abela, with none of the three remaining candidates entertaining any serious chance of emerging a surprise victor on 5 June.
But similarities go beyond the number of likely candidates still in the running. In the United States, the sensation among non-committed citizens is that history is about to be made, regardless of who actually wins the Democratic nomination. With the choice now between a woman and an African-American man, the Democratic Party (and the United States itself, should the Democrats go on to win the election) is either way about to witness a historic “first”.
Admittedly a slightly different situation reigns over the Malta Labour Party, but it must be said that both Abela and Muscat, for different reasons, will almost certainly usher in a much-needed process of change within the organisation.
Veteran George Abela would mark the closest thing to a total break with Labour’s recent history, which (unfortunately for that party’s electoral chances) has been too intricately intertwined with the persona of its former leader, Alfred Sant, and his entourage. Abela himself might not represent a radically different political style to the traditional Labour way of doing politics – except perhaps in his attitude towards the European issue, which in many ways cost him his previous position within the party. But his immediate impact is almost certain to boost the Labour party’s standing among moderate Nationalist voters. For this, the charismatic Qormi lawyer can ironically thank the PN machinery itself, which has for the past decade at least invested much of its energy and resources into building him up as an antidote to Labour’s ancien regime. (Of course, one could also argue that this was done specifically to sabotage his chances of actually winning in the first place).
Joseph Muscat’s appeal, on the other hand, is somewhat different. Certainly he has been done no favours by the government-friendly media, and instead seems to enjoy the blessing of the ancien regime itself. But few would deny the man’s quintessentially European credentials, and those few would do so at the risk of their own personal credibility. Muscat is now part of the furniture in the European parliament, and even if there remains a shadow of proximity of the much-maligned party administration, a victory for the 34-year-old economist would doubtless move the Malta Labour Party infinitely closer to the family of European Socialist parties... in which Labour, unfortunately, has been something of an embarrassing distant cousin in recent decades.
Our analysis of recent polls also suggest that of all five contenders, Muscat is likeliest to finally break the iron curtain that has kept the crucial category of first-time voters from choosing Labour.
At a stretch, and to be generous to the remaining contenders, even in the extremely unlikely event of a surprise victory for Michael Falzon, Marie-Louise Coleiro or Evarist Bartolo, the MLP would nonetheless stand to change radically. This is after all natural: a political party which loses six elections and a referendum in less than 30 years must acknowledge that it needs to change, or consign itself to an eternity in Opposition.
Hence the analogy with the US Democratic nomination: for apart from boosting its own electoral chances, a more credible Opposition party would also be a mammoth victory for the state of democracy in Malta.
The strength of any democracy is in some respects measured by the strength of the party/parties in opposition. The March 8 election result, with its diminished majority for the incumbent party, suggests that a growing segment of the electorate is dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, but simply could not bring itself to trust Labour. The danger here is that the country risks condemning itself to an aeon of Nationalist rule by default. Not only would this semi-permanence almost certainly engender corruption and nepotism; but it would also rob the reigning party of any external impetus to change. Ultimately, this is a recipe for political stagnation.
From this perspective, tomorrow’s election is crucial both for the Malta Labour Party and for Malta as a whole. Whoever wins will have to restructure the party and rid it of 16 years’ worth of baggage; but the new leader will also have a responsibility towards the nation’s peace of mind, by reinventing Labour as a party that can be trusted with the reins of government for the good of all concerned.
When all is said and done, this is not exactly an impossible task.