Dawn or Doom

30^th May 2008

The Malta Independent – Friday Wisdom

The report authored by the special commission tasked to prepare a critical analysis of what led to Labour’s third successive election defeat makes painful reading.

It is mostly a collection of contributory factors for the defeat without much analysis to distinguish between cause and effect. Still it is bold and deserves credit for pulling very few punches.

The publication is in stark contrast with the way things were done following the defeat of 2003. In fact the ways things were done in 2003 probably represents the single most important contributor to the defeat of 2008, even if the 2008 report does not go as far as saying it so explicitly.

Following the defeat in the election of 12 April 2003 Labour quickly proceeded to hold the election for its leader on 15 May 2003. The special commission appointed to report on the 2003 election defeat had then not even started working on its task.

The quick leader’s election in 2003 was decided at a time when the incumbent had announced his intention not to re-contest. The general thinking was that once the leader was retiring, detailed analysis of the defeat could wait until the voting in of a new leader who would then decide upon the recommendations of the special commission. When Alfred Sant decided to change his position and announced on 1 May 2003 his intention to re-contest leadership, this logic of the calendar of events was nullified.

Because I complained loudly about the re-election of the incumbent leader before the analysis report had even started, I was officially disciplined by the party’s board of vigilance, following which I just resigned. This board of vigilance was supposed to guard against abuse of the power of incumbency rather sanction those forthright enough to complain against such abuse.

The special commission 2008 report states clearly “(lack of code of ethics) led to people being disciplined unnecessarily while others were allowed (with impunity) to impose their will on the party.”

Furthermore in confirmation of the validity of my criticism, which led to my being unfairly disciplined, the special commission 2008 report says “The defeat of 2003 and the confirmation of Alfred Sant as party leader created an ambience of antipathy towards the leader. In time this developed the organisational context as one full of suspicions and paranoia. Internal piques between rival cliques threw the party’s overall vision out of focus...”

The 2008 special commission report goes further in one of the few instances where it gives a word of advice to the incoming leader, beyond policy issues. It counsels that “The new leader... has to be tough with those who think that they own the party, or even worse, those who think that the party is indebted to them. The party has to cleanse itself from such infantile cliques before its professions of inclusiveness can be taken seriously.”

Hard words indeed! But it hurts to see the glorious Labour Party humiliated so much in public. Unfortunately this is the legacy being left by 16 years of Alfred Sant’s leadership. A legacy of catastrophic election losses, unsustainable policies leading to colossal U-turns that chip away credibility, internal financial ruin and cliques opposing each other rather than their political adversary.

Labour has developed a habit of doing the right thing at the wrong time. They should have published the 2003 report when the incumbent leader sought confirmation. Not only did they not do this, but they glaringly ignored most of the recommendations made in that report. Now that the leader has irrevocably resigned, the need to publish this detailed and damning 2008 report was much less evident. Only Michael Falzon’s contesting the leadership seems to justify its publication. The party’s interests would have been served much better by his not contesting leadership. The 2008 special commission report would have survived only for internal consumption, at least until the new leader decides whether or not the party’s best interest would be best served by publication. In the face of the fact that the outgoing leadership trio would have all resigned, Labour could have been spared this humiliation.

This could well be Labour’s darkest hour before a new dawn.

If the delegates use their minds and engage with the views of the general electorate (as re-confirmed by the findings of The Malta Independent on Sunday survey last Sunday) then George Abela should be their automatic choice.

Clearly he is the candidate most evidently free of connections with internal cliques and the one who carries the moral authority and the leadership skills needed to re-build the organisation into shape to offer a real challenge to Gonzi by 2013.

If instead the delegates continue to decide in total disengagement with the views of the general electorate, then they would be sowing as of now the seeds for the next defeat just as the seeds of the 2008 defeat were sowed in 2003.

Labour has a clear choice between dawn or doom.