The Malta Independent on Sunday
Defining a splinter organisation that has been set up to oppose the mainstream management of the Malta Labour Party as a gimmick or a joke seems panic dressed up with over-confidence.
In a country where the difference between government and opposition could be a mere handful of votes no political party can afford to treat with disdain any splinter organisation that can challenge the mainstream and that even if not successful in its own right, could be effective enough to distract votes that turn a majority into a minority.
As a genuine Labourite, I consider the creation of splinter organisations as a serious cause for concern. I personally have had my own differences within Labour with the Leader and with the Board of Discipline and Vigilance. My criticism in the summer of 2003 proved too much for them to stomach and they threatened me with disciplinary measures unless I tone it down. Owing nothing to anybody I decided that I could not stay inside an organisation that rather than face criticism, prefers to muzzle it.
However I still have Labour Party`s interest and basic principles very much to heart and would not act in any way that challenges Labour`s prospects for electoral success.` Once I cannot work within the present version of Labour I opted out of politics altogether.
The right of others who cannot find shelter within Labour to form their own grouping cannot however be denied.` Their being labelled as a gimmick or a joke does not help to keep open possibilities of re-integration in good time to ensure that Labour faces the next general election as a single united front.
I do not share the ideals of the new MLP grouping that seems to have been set principally to oppose the mainstream MLP approach to vote in favour of the EU Constitution even though international events seem to have rendered such Constitution as dead in the water. I concur with the mainstream Labour decision to vote in favour of the Constitution irrespective of its eventual fate, and this out of respect to the sovereign decision taken by the Maltese electorate in March/April of 2003.
Yet what I find, as genuine labourite, truly sickening is the way the leadership who used to describe EU membership in `allahares` (God forbid) terms before April 2003 now expect to preserve their own personal credibility whilst pedalling policies which they had vehemently opposed before the election. What I find as gimmicks is the way the party resources were abused between April 14th 2003 and May 1st 2003 to give a very unfair advantage to the incumbent leader to beat his actual and potential challengers in the leadership contest.
What I find as a sick joke is making the national executive decide in favour of instant election for party leader before a proper analysis of the reasons for the electoral defeat, on the basis of public declarations by the incumbent leader that he will not be seeking re-election, and for this to change without the national executive ever being given the opportunity to review its decision taken on the wrong premise through misrepresentation by the incumbent leader. What is even more sickening is that the eventual report of analysis of the electoral defeat which laid blame mostly on the leadership, so much so that it called for a mid-term reconsideration of the leadership positions, was instantly buried away without any access being given to party delegates, let alone the general public.
The present Labour leadership would do well if they stop calling dissenters names and instead make a critical analysis of what is causing so much internal dissent. My view is that the dissent is caused mostly because grass root labourites are having difficulty to understand how diametrically opposed policies could be digested when propelled by the same faces who used to vehemently oppose positions that now are being described as reasonable and acceptable.
Echoing the pains of all such labourites, why I ask, was it therefore necessary to lose an election on the principle of EU membership Why was it considered` so blasphemous before April 2003 to accept the people`s verdict about EU membership in a referendum and we kept insisting, in purely kamikaze terms, that only the verdict in a general election` would be conclusive in this respect`
If we find it easy to change policies after an election defeat why could we not change policies after a referendum defeat in order to give us a fair chance of winning the election`
The problem with the Labour Party today is one of credibility. It is obviously natural for a party to review its policies and change them, if necessary, following an election defeat, especially if such defeats come in monotonous succession.` But new policies can only be credible if promoted by new faces.` Hence why the statute of Party calls for leadership election after every general election and hence why it is necessary and logical to conduct such elections only after a proper analysis of the causes of the electoral defeat, especially if the incumbent leader is seeking confirmation.
What credibility can there be if the same leader who used to describe EU membership in allaharesqatt terms before April 2003, in spite of internal questioning of such policies by many including yours truly, now would have us subscribe to the EU constitution as if he were a new kid on the block`
My judgement is that the creation of various splinter groupings in the left wing of Malta`s political spectrum is the symptom not the cause of such division. The cause is that Labour has refreshed its policies without refreshing its leadership.` That makes it impossible for people like me to continue militating in the ranks of the Labour Party. Out of loyalty to the underlying principles of the Party I can stay out of politics completely but others who have politics in their blood stream are being forced to exert their political energies in groupings created in parallel to the Labour party.` In the process they are weakening the chances of the political left` to score when it matters.
I don`t condone their actions but I will not call them a gimmick or a joke.` May be a tragedy would be a more appropriate definition of the situation; a tragedy sourced by the inability of the people who matter to understand that people in politics should not regard themselves as a permanent fixture and new policies need new faces if they are to be accepted willingly and convincingly without causing cracks and friction. A tragedy that, if goodwill and good sense prevails, can still be avoided.
Defining a splinter organisation that has been set up to oppose the mainstream management of the Malta Labour Party as a gimmick or a joke seems panic dressed up with over-confidence.
In a country where the difference between government and opposition could be a mere handful of votes no political party can afford to treat with disdain any splinter organisation that can challenge the mainstream and that even if not successful in its own right, could be effective enough to distract votes that turn a majority into a minority.
As a genuine Labourite, I consider the creation of splinter organisations as a serious cause for concern. I personally have had my own differences within Labour with the Leader and with the Board of Discipline and Vigilance. My criticism in the summer of 2003 proved too much for them to stomach and they threatened me with disciplinary measures unless I tone it down. Owing nothing to anybody I decided that I could not stay inside an organisation that rather than face criticism, prefers to muzzle it.
However I still have Labour Party`s interest and basic principles very much to heart and would not act in any way that challenges Labour`s prospects for electoral success.` Once I cannot work within the present version of Labour I opted out of politics altogether.
The right of others who cannot find shelter within Labour to form their own grouping cannot however be denied.` Their being labelled as a gimmick or a joke does not help to keep open possibilities of re-integration in good time to ensure that Labour faces the next general election as a single united front.
I do not share the ideals of the new MLP grouping that seems to have been set principally to oppose the mainstream MLP approach to vote in favour of the EU Constitution even though international events seem to have rendered such Constitution as dead in the water. I concur with the mainstream Labour decision to vote in favour of the Constitution irrespective of its eventual fate, and this out of respect to the sovereign decision taken by the Maltese electorate in March/April of 2003.
Yet what I find, as genuine labourite, truly sickening is the way the leadership who used to describe EU membership in `allahares` (God forbid) terms before April 2003 now expect to preserve their own personal credibility whilst pedalling policies which they had vehemently opposed before the election. What I find as gimmicks is the way the party resources were abused between April 14th 2003 and May 1st 2003 to give a very unfair advantage to the incumbent leader to beat his actual and potential challengers in the leadership contest.
What I find as a sick joke is making the national executive decide in favour of instant election for party leader before a proper analysis of the reasons for the electoral defeat, on the basis of public declarations by the incumbent leader that he will not be seeking re-election, and for this to change without the national executive ever being given the opportunity to review its decision taken on the wrong premise through misrepresentation by the incumbent leader. What is even more sickening is that the eventual report of analysis of the electoral defeat which laid blame mostly on the leadership, so much so that it called for a mid-term reconsideration of the leadership positions, was instantly buried away without any access being given to party delegates, let alone the general public.
The present Labour leadership would do well if they stop calling dissenters names and instead make a critical analysis of what is causing so much internal dissent. My view is that the dissent is caused mostly because grass root labourites are having difficulty to understand how diametrically opposed policies could be digested when propelled by the same faces who used to vehemently oppose positions that now are being described as reasonable and acceptable.
Echoing the pains of all such labourites, why I ask, was it therefore necessary to lose an election on the principle of EU membership Why was it considered` so blasphemous before April 2003 to accept the people`s verdict about EU membership in a referendum and we kept insisting, in purely kamikaze terms, that only the verdict in a general election` would be conclusive in this respect`
If we find it easy to change policies after an election defeat why could we not change policies after a referendum defeat in order to give us a fair chance of winning the election`
The problem with the Labour Party today is one of credibility. It is obviously natural for a party to review its policies and change them, if necessary, following an election defeat, especially if such defeats come in monotonous succession.` But new policies can only be credible if promoted by new faces.` Hence why the statute of Party calls for leadership election after every general election and hence why it is necessary and logical to conduct such elections only after a proper analysis of the causes of the electoral defeat, especially if the incumbent leader is seeking confirmation.
What credibility can there be if the same leader who used to describe EU membership in allaharesqatt terms before April 2003, in spite of internal questioning of such policies by many including yours truly, now would have us subscribe to the EU constitution as if he were a new kid on the block`
My judgement is that the creation of various splinter groupings in the left wing of Malta`s political spectrum is the symptom not the cause of such division. The cause is that Labour has refreshed its policies without refreshing its leadership.` That makes it impossible for people like me to continue militating in the ranks of the Labour Party. Out of loyalty to the underlying principles of the Party I can stay out of politics completely but others who have politics in their blood stream are being forced to exert their political energies in groupings created in parallel to the Labour party.` In the process they are weakening the chances of the political left` to score when it matters.
I don`t condone their actions but I will not call them a gimmick or a joke.` May be a tragedy would be a more appropriate definition of the situation; a tragedy sourced by the inability of the people who matter to understand that people in politics should not regard themselves as a permanent fixture and new policies need new faces if they are to be accepted willingly and convincingly without causing cracks and friction. A tragedy that, if goodwill and good sense prevails, can still be avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment