A Strange Paradox

^6th April 2008
The Malta Independent On Sunday

The  process leading to the election of Labour’s new leader is caught up in a strange paradox.

Is electing Labour’s leader simply an internal Labour affair, which people outside the party should watch over without undue interest and without comment? Or is it the election of a potential future Prime Minister and accordingly the process becomes everybody’s business as the elected person could very well be tasked to making decisions that could affect everybody’s life?

In principle the answer should be pretty obvious. Labour has every interest to ensure that when making their choice they pick the person that gives the strongest reassurance of victory at the next general election. Losing six out of the last seven general elections, and being unable to properly execute the mandate of the only election won in the last quarter century, makes it critically important for Labour to lose no more. Intelligent Nationalist sympathisers on the other hand are clever enough to appreciate that whether they like it or not Labour will in the end make it to government. They therefore should have some interest in ensuring that Labour elects a leader who will not scare away investment by sharp u-turns in crucial policies that demand better execution rather a new beginning. In short, no more removal of VAT or renegotiation of EU arrangements fancies, but a Labour government that can promise continuation of business friendly policies and more social conscience in the delivery of social services.

In practice, unfortunately, it does not work out that way. Many in the Labour camp somehow consider the leadership election process as an internal affair that is nobody else’s business. They do not take kindly to any suggestions coming from external sources and indeed consider it very suspicious that sources with a track record of being critical of Labour should show the audacity to make any suggestions. Indeed any names so suggested should, according to such thinking, be excluded merely on the basis of their being promoted by sources normally hostile to Labour and who therefore cannot have Labour’s best interest in mind when making such suggestions.

The paradox is that one is hard put to decipher whether the gratuitous advice from sources normally hostile to Labour is motivated by genuine interest for Labour to become a credible electable alternative, or whether they do it in a devious exercise of reverse psychology forcing Labour to choose less worthy candidates by having the most worthy excluded merely for being promoted by such sources normally hostile to Labour.

Let’s be more specific. I have been openly supporting George Abela’s bid for leadership. I made clear that I consider Abela as offering the best prospects for making Labour electable again purely because he commands the highest respect among the narrow but decisive floating voter segment of the electorate. Daphne Caruana Galizia (DCG) is also clearly suggesting that Labour’s only hope for offering PN a real challenge is through the election of George Abela as their next leader. In truth we are both saying the same thing, using the same reasoning to arrive at the same rational conclusion.

My motivation is absolutely altruistic. I am not contesting for any position and I am busy enough as I am and really cannot complain of suffering any financial distress under PN administrations. I work hard; I take calculated business risks and reap reasonable rewards, which thankfully help me need no favours from any political quarters. Having espoused Labour principle in my youth I want Labour to spend their fair time in government in line with democratic principles and I consider losing six out of the last seven elections as an aberration which is not in harmony with Labour’s glorious past where it was at the avant-garde of the country’s social progress.

DCG professes her motivations for supporting George Abela stating that while she will probably always put her weight behind the PN’s bid for re-election, it would save her many anxious moments if she knows that should the PN fail, the country will be in the hands of someone who can maintain confidence in continuity and refreshed execution. This may well be so. But it is hard to exclude that she could also be motivated by blind loyalty to the PN and consequently is promoting George Abela’ s bid for leadership knowing that it is the best tool to ensure that Labour, in defiance, will not choose Abela but will choose instead the candidate she criticises most.

It would be the paradox of all paradoxes if Labour’s next leader were indirectly chosen by the likes of DCG in a devious exercise of reverse psychology.

Don’t for a moment think that I am letting my imagination run away with me. I have first hand experience of it. My ascendancy in Labour’s ranks was fouled up and eventually aborted not when the PN criticised me, but when they flattered me as being more logical than my leader. That’s how political parties work, unfortunately! How else could one explain JPO being elected from two districts when in actual fact his party was a whisker away from losing the election thanks to him?

What DCG’s bottom line motivations are for promoting George Abela’s bid and berating that of Joseph Muscat only DCG would know. In 2008 one cannot expect to draw any red lines around areas that should be out of bounds for journalists and columnists. It is up to Labour’s delegates not to let themselves be unduly influenced but to make their own conscientious judgement irrespective of what friendly or hostile sources suggest.

As the list of contestants for Labour top post is populated with more and more names, even though most of them must know they don’t stand a chance in hell of being elected, it would do Labour no harm if each of the contestants uses his or her imagination to fast forward five years and ask why floating voters should prefer him or her over Gonzi, especially if voters experience a fairly good performance achieved the new legislature about to start. If they need advice they can seek it from sources with better credentials for having Labour’s best interest at heart than DCG, even though they may well get the same reply.