The day(s) after

The election results have shown very clearly that the absolute majority of the voters who took part in the election want Malta to join the European Union.

Without doubt this issue was not decided only on purely partisan grounds but a substantial number of traditional Labour voters gave their first preference to a Nationalist Party candidate and then continued voting on the Labour candidates.

This was very evident every time a PN candidate's votes were transferred to other candidates.

In this manner, these Labour voters gave their first preference to Malta's bid to join the EU and put their traditional preference for Labour candidates second.

On the basis of this result, it is clear that the Labour Party did not convince the majority of the electorate that it had the best vision for Malta in our present circumstances. In my opinion, there are three main factors why this may have happened.

The vision that the MLP was proposing did not satisfy the aspirations of the majority of the electorate. Labour put forward a vision whereby, while giving considerable importance to our relationship with the EU, it is solely up to the Maltese people to ensure economic progress, exploiting our potential both in terms of the physical assets of our country as well as of our people.

By retaining our full sovereignty, we would be able to take decisions which suit us best in our particular circumstances.

To beef up its vision, the MLP put together a very detailed electoral manifesto, in most instances proposing innovative and fresh solutions to old problems, problems which have been studied over and over again but to which no solution has ever been implemented.

Labour went one step further and its leadership signed a contract with the Maltese people stating that if the MLP did not deliver on its promises, then they will literally disappear from the political scene.

It is useless having the most perfect vision if one cannot put it across to the electorate. For this reason, the media play a most important part in any election campaign.

The English language media had declared very early that they favoured Malta's bid to join the EU. Although the newspapers have a right to their views, in my opinion they practically blocked out the messages the MLP was trying to pass on to the electorate to explain its vision for the future of our country. They were therefore a disservice to their readers.

The public broadcasting service was even more partisan in its transmissions. Not only were the MLP views on the various issues hardly ever reported but PBS was used by the PN government to blatantly promote Malta's bid to join the EU as if this were the only alternative available to us. The impression was given that, if Malta were to decide not to join, we would all find ourselves in limbo!

In this manner, the MLP was given little chance of getting its vision across in that sector of the media normally considered as being independent.

People who did not bother to tune in to Super One radio and television or read KullHadd, or did not read the GWU daily, l-orizzont, could not possibly understand the vision Labour was proposing for our country's future.

One might have full access to the best media for his vision but in spite of this the electorate might decide not to believe what the leadership of the party are proposing since they have no faith in the persons forming the leadership.

The PN understood this very well and it is for this reason that they embarked on the character assassination of the MLP leaders and, in particular, of Alfred Sant.

One might trace back this attack by the PN media to the very day Dr Sant took over the leadership of the MLP but it intensified during the time he was prime minister.

The running theme was that you could not trust, or cooperate with, Dr Sant because he would not even work with his own colleagues.

Although this tactic worked both with Labour and Nationalist supporters in the 1998 election, from my own personal experience this time round it had a very minimal effect with disillusioned Labour voters.

On the other hand, it might have been more effective on dissatisfied Nationalist voters who were thinking of voting Labour. This ferocious personal attack on Dr Sant might have persuaded them to stay within the PN fold.

The MLP now needs to conduct a serious post mortem. Definitely it is not to be done in a hurry but decisions need to be taken after all factors are considered.

If one takes the wrong decision at this stage, one might be condemning the MLP to another electoral defeat in the next election.

The MLP is still a very strong party enjoying the support of more than 47 per cent of the electorate.

Let us by all means analyse in an honest manner what went wrong and propose solutions of how to overcome our shortcomings. Let us build on our strengths. If we do so calmly without rushing to implement easy solutions I am convinced the MLP will once again become the strongest political party in Malta.