4th April 2008
The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom
Encarta
dictionary defines loyalty as “a feeling of devotion, duty, or attachment to
somebody or something” while Oxford
As the line-up of candidates for Labour leadership starts taking shape, I find it illogical that some contestants are sporting proclaimed loyalty as a worthy qualification for the post.
Firstly it should be established to whom is loyalty due. Should one be loyal to the organisation or to its leader?
It is true that often this is one and the same thing. But this is not always the case. Certainly it was not the case in Labour’s fold following Alfred Sant’s re-election as leader in 2003. It was clear that Alfred Sant over-used his power of incumbency to get himself re-elected by excluding more promising contestants. To name but a few I can vouch that George Abela and Evarist Bartolo, among others, would have contested if the post was not being reclaimed by Sant with the unfair advantage of his incumbency.
I had to take a decision. I was forced to choose between being loyal to the leader and disloyal to Labour or being loyal to Labour and disloyal to the leader who himself was being disloyal to the organisation which he was supposed to lead by example. How could the incumbent honestly contest leadership when the report of analysis for the 2003 election defeat had not yet started?
I made my choice. I never had any doubt that loyalty to the organisation was supreme to anything else. I openly criticised the manner in which Sant got re-elected, and how his actions were compromising Labour’s chances to win the 2008 elections as his personality denied credibility to Labour’s adopted EU policies.
For remaining loyal to the organisation and trying to defend it from what eventually cost it dearly in electoral terms, I was threatened with discipline if I did not accept to be muzzled like all the rest so readily accepted. In loyalty to the organisation I refused to be muzzled, and continued on my quest to avoid Labour’s third consecutive crash.
How can anyone who accepted to be muzzled consider themselves as being endowed with the attribute of loyalty, when in fact their submissiveness and silence is more typical of disloyalty by putting their personal political career before the party’s interest?
Is it not funny how many contestants are now professing their internal disagreement with Sant, and are distancing themselves from responsibility for Labour’s third defeat by claiming they were not allowed to voice their opinions and were not being informed of what was actually happening and who was taking real decisions on the campaign strategy?
By so doing they are all showing their lack of leadership attributes. Leadership means leading, not just following. Leadership was what Mintoff did to Boffa in 1949. Leadership was what Fenech Adami did in 1974 to his then leader Borg Olivier, by isolating him in voting in favour of the republican constitution. Were Mintoff and Fenech Adami being disloyal to the organisation they eventually led so successfully, or where they showing their leadership skills by standing up to be counted when it mattered and not just when it is convenient?
Was George Abela’s quitting deputy leadership in 1998 (when against his advice it was decided to go for early elections, rather than continue to explore a compromise solution, a decision which brought Labour’s downfall from which it still has to recover) an act of disloyalty, or a heroic act of loyalty to self-sacrifice rather than participate on a route to disaster?
Labour delegates have a grave responsibility to consider this matter seriously, so that they choose true leaders and not lesser mortals at the helm of the party. Ultimately whoever is elected will stand or fall by the choice of the wider electorate – who certainly can distinguish between true leaders and mere followers who have difficulty in distinguishing between abilities of coordination and qualities of leadership.
Furthermore, whoever is chosen as the new Labour leader should readily accept to submit his/her performance for review by the general conference at the mid-term of this legislature. Winning local elections is not enough! By then the new leader must command a substantial lead in the opinion polls, both for the party and for own personality. Failing this Labour would again be heading for disaster. Incumbent governments normally reach a low point in popularity mid-term through the legislature, so unless Labour can gain a good lead in popularity at such a point it would not augur well for eventual success at the end of the legislature.
Prime Minister Gonzi also has a severe test to prove his leadership qualities. Managing a thin parliamentary majority needs much more skill than managing government with a comfortable majority. His handling of the JPO affair will make a mark for his leadership. True leaders would not rest before JPO is forced to resign for having lied bare-faced to the electorate – and possibly to his own party – about his involvement in the Mistra development affair. Irrespective of whether or not something illegal happened in this case, what makes JPO’s position as representative of the people untenable is his political dishonesty; now proved with documentary evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.
If Gonzi compromises in accepting JPO to stay on as his party’s representative in parliament purely to protect his thin majority, then even Gonzi will start confusing priorities for his loyalty. His loyalty to the electorate should precede loyalty to PN’s interests. Alfred Sant remains a model in this regard.
The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom
As the line-up of candidates for Labour leadership starts taking shape, I find it illogical that some contestants are sporting proclaimed loyalty as a worthy qualification for the post.
Firstly it should be established to whom is loyalty due. Should one be loyal to the organisation or to its leader?
It is true that often this is one and the same thing. But this is not always the case. Certainly it was not the case in Labour’s fold following Alfred Sant’s re-election as leader in 2003. It was clear that Alfred Sant over-used his power of incumbency to get himself re-elected by excluding more promising contestants. To name but a few I can vouch that George Abela and Evarist Bartolo, among others, would have contested if the post was not being reclaimed by Sant with the unfair advantage of his incumbency.
I had to take a decision. I was forced to choose between being loyal to the leader and disloyal to Labour or being loyal to Labour and disloyal to the leader who himself was being disloyal to the organisation which he was supposed to lead by example. How could the incumbent honestly contest leadership when the report of analysis for the 2003 election defeat had not yet started?
I made my choice. I never had any doubt that loyalty to the organisation was supreme to anything else. I openly criticised the manner in which Sant got re-elected, and how his actions were compromising Labour’s chances to win the 2008 elections as his personality denied credibility to Labour’s adopted EU policies.
For remaining loyal to the organisation and trying to defend it from what eventually cost it dearly in electoral terms, I was threatened with discipline if I did not accept to be muzzled like all the rest so readily accepted. In loyalty to the organisation I refused to be muzzled, and continued on my quest to avoid Labour’s third consecutive crash.
How can anyone who accepted to be muzzled consider themselves as being endowed with the attribute of loyalty, when in fact their submissiveness and silence is more typical of disloyalty by putting their personal political career before the party’s interest?
Is it not funny how many contestants are now professing their internal disagreement with Sant, and are distancing themselves from responsibility for Labour’s third defeat by claiming they were not allowed to voice their opinions and were not being informed of what was actually happening and who was taking real decisions on the campaign strategy?
By so doing they are all showing their lack of leadership attributes. Leadership means leading, not just following. Leadership was what Mintoff did to Boffa in 1949. Leadership was what Fenech Adami did in 1974 to his then leader Borg Olivier, by isolating him in voting in favour of the republican constitution. Were Mintoff and Fenech Adami being disloyal to the organisation they eventually led so successfully, or where they showing their leadership skills by standing up to be counted when it mattered and not just when it is convenient?
Was George Abela’s quitting deputy leadership in 1998 (when against his advice it was decided to go for early elections, rather than continue to explore a compromise solution, a decision which brought Labour’s downfall from which it still has to recover) an act of disloyalty, or a heroic act of loyalty to self-sacrifice rather than participate on a route to disaster?
Labour delegates have a grave responsibility to consider this matter seriously, so that they choose true leaders and not lesser mortals at the helm of the party. Ultimately whoever is elected will stand or fall by the choice of the wider electorate – who certainly can distinguish between true leaders and mere followers who have difficulty in distinguishing between abilities of coordination and qualities of leadership.
Furthermore, whoever is chosen as the new Labour leader should readily accept to submit his/her performance for review by the general conference at the mid-term of this legislature. Winning local elections is not enough! By then the new leader must command a substantial lead in the opinion polls, both for the party and for own personality. Failing this Labour would again be heading for disaster. Incumbent governments normally reach a low point in popularity mid-term through the legislature, so unless Labour can gain a good lead in popularity at such a point it would not augur well for eventual success at the end of the legislature.
Prime Minister Gonzi also has a severe test to prove his leadership qualities. Managing a thin parliamentary majority needs much more skill than managing government with a comfortable majority. His handling of the JPO affair will make a mark for his leadership. True leaders would not rest before JPO is forced to resign for having lied bare-faced to the electorate – and possibly to his own party – about his involvement in the Mistra development affair. Irrespective of whether or not something illegal happened in this case, what makes JPO’s position as representative of the people untenable is his political dishonesty; now proved with documentary evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.
If Gonzi compromises in accepting JPO to stay on as his party’s representative in parliament purely to protect his thin majority, then even Gonzi will start confusing priorities for his loyalty. His loyalty to the electorate should precede loyalty to PN’s interests. Alfred Sant remains a model in this regard.
No comments:
Post a Comment