4th May 2008
The Malta Independent on Sunday
The Malta Independent on Sunday
As the contest to
elect Labour’s new leader enters its final month, the role being played by
ex-leaders in the process is giving rise for concern.
To appreciate the situation one has to be familiar with the fierce sense of loyalty to the leader that exists in political organisations where he is considered as second only to God but equally infallible. Anybody who dares to disagree, externally especially but not only, is regarded as a renegade and disloyal, irrespective of the validity or robustness of the dissenter’s views which are often validated by the passage of time.
With Labour, in particular, there is the curse of the ex-leaders. Rather than make space for their successors, they somehow continue to shadow the new leader often putting obstacles in his way. Boffa left to form his own party. Mintoff aggressively kept interfering in the choice of his successors and finally voted against the only Labour government elected after he stepped down from the leadership. Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici desperately keeps trying to impose on the MLP his narrow view of the outside world. He even thought it fit to nominate his successor, who refused the appointment but always projected a shadow of moral authority on the next leader for ceding the throne. Sant did not leave after his strong anti-EU membership policies were rejected by the electorate and stayed on as leader, thrusting on the party lack of credibility for its adopted post-EU membership policies that led to its third successive electoral defeat in 2008.
Within the PN, the role of ex-leaders in the choice of their successors seems much more muted. Certainly Borg Olivier played no part in Fenech Adami’s election to leadership in 1977, and Fenech Adami’s role in the election of Gonzi was, on the surface at least, minor.
It is difficult to understand the popularity of the five Labour contestants within the narrow segment of the eight hundred or so delegates of the general conference, but on the wider national platform the race seems to have come down to two front runners who are being supported by ex-leaders. Joseph Muscat (JM) has the open endorsement of George Vella and the silent one of Alfred Sant who, by putting his weight against George Abela (GA), automatically favours JM. Dom Mintoff has officially endorsed GA.
Considering that Vella and Sant still walk the corridors at Hamrun and still command the reverential respect of the “party machinery”, their endorsement carries much more weight than that of Mintoff who is still a persona non grata at Hamrun. In fact, while Vella’s (and by implication Sant’s) endorsement of JM has been sought and cherished by the candidate it is doubtful whether GA has actively sought Mintoff’s endorsement and whether this will be a help or a hindrance for GA’s bid. Certainly JM stands to benefit much more than GA from the endorsements of these ex-leaders.
Personally, I feel the role of ex-leaders in the leadership should be zero, especially when the change of leadership is instigated by lack of success rather than too much of it. Whether intended or not, their involvement influences, positively or negatively, the leadership race and could lead to an undesirable situation where the new leader will have moral obligations to the elders that endorsed him rather than to the grass roots that elected him.
In Mintoff’s case this risk is minimal if at all. At 91 Mintoff has no strings to pull and in any case GA’s personality at age 60 can withstand any such attempts, however unlikely they may be. In fact, GA declared as much emphatically in Mintoff’s presence.
I have always maintained that there are two versions of Mintoff, the one before 1979 and the one after it (refer to my article ‘Mintoff vs. Mintoff’ published on 9 July 2000 in Il-KULLHADD – available through the search facility on my personal website). It is human nature to be kind in old age and remain thankful for the great things he did before 1979 and forgiving for the shocking things he did after. Whether in the remaining last years of his life or after his death, Mintoff will be rehabilitated by Labour. So the most Mintoff can gain from endorsing a future leader is rehabilitation in his lifetime, which is small fry for Labour but understandably a big thing for Mintoff.
However, in Sant’s and Vella’s case there is much more to gain or to lose from their endorsement of JM and obstruction of GA. Can you imagine the situation if GA becomes the new Labour leader and wins the next election? How would this impinge on the legacy of Sant and Vella? It would seem that during their tenure Labour only won the 1996 election when GA was in the leadership trio. They lost the next three elections on their own when Sant was leader in all three and Vella was deputy in two and a major spokesman in the third. If GA wins the 2013 election as leader, the legacy of Sant and Vella will be miniaturized. If GA loses the next election their legacy survives but it is too big a risk to pin their political legacy on the failure of a successor.
If JM is elected Sant and Vella stand to win, whether JM wins or loses. If JM wins they share the glory for having anointed him. If JM loses, their legacy of losses is shared by their successor.
It has always been quite unorthodox that after Vella declined the leadership offered to him on a silver platter by Mifsud Bonnici in 1992 he accepted the position of senior Deputy Leader. In so doing he kept Sant’s leadership under the shadow of Vella’s moral authority for having ceded him the throne. It was difficult for Sant to go against Vella’s views and this was particularly evident and damaging in the evolution of Labour’s policy against EU membership, which morphed from partnership better than membership to one defining membership as a sure road to hell (Allaharesqatt!).
It is highly undesirable that yet again the new Labour leader would appear morally indebted for his post to ex-leaders who need to protect their place in history. If it were up to me ex-leaders would be just that. They have already written their place in history and nothing can change that. They should let the party move forward under new leadership that is not obliged to anyone or anything except Labour’s own principles.
To appreciate the situation one has to be familiar with the fierce sense of loyalty to the leader that exists in political organisations where he is considered as second only to God but equally infallible. Anybody who dares to disagree, externally especially but not only, is regarded as a renegade and disloyal, irrespective of the validity or robustness of the dissenter’s views which are often validated by the passage of time.
With Labour, in particular, there is the curse of the ex-leaders. Rather than make space for their successors, they somehow continue to shadow the new leader often putting obstacles in his way. Boffa left to form his own party. Mintoff aggressively kept interfering in the choice of his successors and finally voted against the only Labour government elected after he stepped down from the leadership. Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici desperately keeps trying to impose on the MLP his narrow view of the outside world. He even thought it fit to nominate his successor, who refused the appointment but always projected a shadow of moral authority on the next leader for ceding the throne. Sant did not leave after his strong anti-EU membership policies were rejected by the electorate and stayed on as leader, thrusting on the party lack of credibility for its adopted post-EU membership policies that led to its third successive electoral defeat in 2008.
Within the PN, the role of ex-leaders in the choice of their successors seems much more muted. Certainly Borg Olivier played no part in Fenech Adami’s election to leadership in 1977, and Fenech Adami’s role in the election of Gonzi was, on the surface at least, minor.
It is difficult to understand the popularity of the five Labour contestants within the narrow segment of the eight hundred or so delegates of the general conference, but on the wider national platform the race seems to have come down to two front runners who are being supported by ex-leaders. Joseph Muscat (JM) has the open endorsement of George Vella and the silent one of Alfred Sant who, by putting his weight against George Abela (GA), automatically favours JM. Dom Mintoff has officially endorsed GA.
Considering that Vella and Sant still walk the corridors at Hamrun and still command the reverential respect of the “party machinery”, their endorsement carries much more weight than that of Mintoff who is still a persona non grata at Hamrun. In fact, while Vella’s (and by implication Sant’s) endorsement of JM has been sought and cherished by the candidate it is doubtful whether GA has actively sought Mintoff’s endorsement and whether this will be a help or a hindrance for GA’s bid. Certainly JM stands to benefit much more than GA from the endorsements of these ex-leaders.
Personally, I feel the role of ex-leaders in the leadership should be zero, especially when the change of leadership is instigated by lack of success rather than too much of it. Whether intended or not, their involvement influences, positively or negatively, the leadership race and could lead to an undesirable situation where the new leader will have moral obligations to the elders that endorsed him rather than to the grass roots that elected him.
In Mintoff’s case this risk is minimal if at all. At 91 Mintoff has no strings to pull and in any case GA’s personality at age 60 can withstand any such attempts, however unlikely they may be. In fact, GA declared as much emphatically in Mintoff’s presence.
I have always maintained that there are two versions of Mintoff, the one before 1979 and the one after it (refer to my article ‘Mintoff vs. Mintoff’ published on 9 July 2000 in Il-KULLHADD – available through the search facility on my personal website). It is human nature to be kind in old age and remain thankful for the great things he did before 1979 and forgiving for the shocking things he did after. Whether in the remaining last years of his life or after his death, Mintoff will be rehabilitated by Labour. So the most Mintoff can gain from endorsing a future leader is rehabilitation in his lifetime, which is small fry for Labour but understandably a big thing for Mintoff.
However, in Sant’s and Vella’s case there is much more to gain or to lose from their endorsement of JM and obstruction of GA. Can you imagine the situation if GA becomes the new Labour leader and wins the next election? How would this impinge on the legacy of Sant and Vella? It would seem that during their tenure Labour only won the 1996 election when GA was in the leadership trio. They lost the next three elections on their own when Sant was leader in all three and Vella was deputy in two and a major spokesman in the third. If GA wins the 2013 election as leader, the legacy of Sant and Vella will be miniaturized. If GA loses the next election their legacy survives but it is too big a risk to pin their political legacy on the failure of a successor.
If JM is elected Sant and Vella stand to win, whether JM wins or loses. If JM wins they share the glory for having anointed him. If JM loses, their legacy of losses is shared by their successor.
It has always been quite unorthodox that after Vella declined the leadership offered to him on a silver platter by Mifsud Bonnici in 1992 he accepted the position of senior Deputy Leader. In so doing he kept Sant’s leadership under the shadow of Vella’s moral authority for having ceded him the throne. It was difficult for Sant to go against Vella’s views and this was particularly evident and damaging in the evolution of Labour’s policy against EU membership, which morphed from partnership better than membership to one defining membership as a sure road to hell (Allaharesqatt!).
It is highly undesirable that yet again the new Labour leader would appear morally indebted for his post to ex-leaders who need to protect their place in history. If it were up to me ex-leaders would be just that. They have already written their place in history and nothing can change that. They should let the party move forward under new leadership that is not obliged to anyone or anything except Labour’s own principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment