I am no Marisa Micallef and have no desire to become a consultant for Joseph Muscat, but it is becoming more and more obvious that he really is not doing what needs to be done with the result that that many voters that are dissatisfied with the current administration will once again find that they will have to vote for the PN for lack of a real option.
This is not a happy situation for Malta. At the end of the day, it is in the interest of everybody, including PN supporters, for Malta to have a change of administration. Twenty-five years – interrupted by a mere 22 months – are already too a long time; 30 would really be too much. Yet, political observers are now sensing that Labour will never gain a majority of votes unless they move to the centre-right without alienating the left.
This may seem an impossible task to many, but there should be no doubt that this can be done. In fact this has been done in several countries. In Malta it was done by the PN, albeit in the opposite direction.
One look at the formidable 1981 PN political manifesto, drawn up under the leadership of Eddie Fenech Adami with the strong influence of a brilliant left-leaning philosopher-priest, shows how the PN – up to then considered by many to be a motley collection of privileged upper class segments supported by ignorant religious bigots and manipulated by medieval clerics determined to preserve the status quo – moved to a left-leaning stance underpinned by strong Christian values. This repositioning of the PN is the basic strategic reason that explains Labour’s twenty-five years in Opposition. It swept the carpet from under the feet of the Labour Party that is still tottering to this very day.
It is now evident to all, particularly the thinking Left, that since the departure of Mintoff and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, Labour has become a party without an ideology. It has assiduously tried to please the popular majority at every opportunity while hardly realising that popular majorities shift according to the issues at stake and that, in the long run, this opportunistic approach will mean alienating too many social segments. Not to mention the confusion it has created in all those who could be enticed to the left again.
But what does Joseph Muscat have to do to convince some of the reluctant PN supporters to trust him?
To my mind, he has to perform three tactical moves. Muscat has to come clean on the issue of Labour’s use of violence as a legitimate political tool; give a credible reason why it resisted Malta’s obvious European destiny – EU membership – for so long; and decimate the old guard: Labour’s General Conference delegates and the people that run its media.
The apology made by Muscat for the violence perpetrated for so long by Labour is probably his worse strategic mistake since he assumed the party’s leadership. Political violence was in fact official Labour Party policy, to the extent that it was one of the six points that Mintoff wanted to enshrine in our Independence constitution. Nobody believed Muscat when he apologised. The victims did not accept it and his closest followers unwittingly did their best to undermine his good intentions regularly on the party’s media by hopelessly attempting to justify the ‘state’ violence perpetrated under Labour. The approach to this basic issue should have been different.
Although in rare circumstances political violence is justified, this was practically never the case in Malta. Violence would have been surely justified if the British colonial masters did not accede to our call for independence in order to keep their military base forever and at no cost. Or if the PN, having lost the 1971 election, found some excuse to ask for the help of foreigners to remain in power. And what would have happened if Mintoff and the PN lost their battle to ensure the basic democratic right of majority rule? But these circumstances were happily avoided.
What is really needed is a simple declaration by Joseph Muscat that political violence is no longer considered to be a legitimate political tool by Labour. End of story.
The unbelievable stand by Labour regarding EU membership still baffles many Maltese. What motivated Alfred Sant to act like he did? I have heard many theories but none are convincing. Was it sheer political pique, just to differentiate Labour from the PN – a strategy that had worked well in the case of the VAT issue?
Did Alfred Sant want to strike a more advantageous deal with his beloved USA? Perhaps Sant’s Labour, having obtained ‘our freedom’, wanted absolutely no one to ‘interfere’ in our own affairs, as the EU does today, mostly to our own benefit?
We will never know unless Alfred Sant tells us. What Sant said for sure is that the real story of the Cottonera Marina vote has still to be written. He is probably right. Perhaps this is the time for the people to know. Otherwise we will all keep wondering whether Labour will go nuts again. That vote, of course, put an end to Sant’s short-lived administration and ‘unwittingly’ re-opened the door for negotiations on Malta’s EU membership.
Decimating the ‘old guard’ is likely to be the most unpleasant job for Joseph. They are middle aged, badly educated party card-holders and have caused Labour nothing but problems by resisting change. Their list of foolish decisions has no end. Choosing Jason Micallef, Alex Sceberras Trigona and Anglu Farrugia are just a few. No reluctant PN supporter will vote Labour with such people in the party’s leading positions. The delegates’ short-sightedness reached a peak when they had to elect a new leader after Alfred Sant finally resigned. George Abela was the only candidate who could take on and beat Gonzi. Many, in fact, believe that this is the real reason why Gonzi shrewdly chose him to become President of the Republic – a political move that may have well lengthened the life of the PN in power by a further five years. What better leader could Labour have? A true Christian Socialist, a winning combination reflecting the values of the majority in Malta.
As to the Labour media, it keeps on acting in the same unethical and destructive ways that have proved to be a major liability over the years. Why Joseph Muscat carries on leading Labour with the same media people who constantly undermine his efforts to depict a fresh new ‘Labour’ is beyond me.
I have no idea how Joseph can dispose of those who elected him but he really has no choice if he wants his party to win the next election.
When reading this article some PN supporters – and even insiders – will probably wonder why I am giving this ‘advice’ to Joseph Muscat. The answer is simple. I am convinced that Labour is unable to execute the move that the PN has and embrace change while at the same time successfully repositioning.
When he was elected Labour leader, the silent majority gave Joseph the benefit of the doubt. Since then, it has been kept waiting in vain for his announced earthquake. He has now taken over the Labour Party more than a year ago and nothing seems to have changed in the popular perception of his party.
Time is running out fast and, I am afraid, it does look as if the odds are again starting to stack against him.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
