This is being written on Wednesday morning, a day before the election of the leader of the Labour Party. You will be reading it when the result is known. It is, therefore, not meant to influence any opinion that has a vote in the race.

This is the first time that a political party has a challenge to the incumbent leader, although after the election of 1976, a mini-coup was organised in the Nationalist Party, and it was evident that the main contender had gathered his troops well in advance.

On that occasion there were two factions, the challenging one having the majority. In the case of the Labour Party, the statute lays down, since time immemorial, that there should be a ballot to confirm, change or appoint the leader.

The agenda was immediately set when Dr John Attard Montalto decided to contest, indicating himself as a suitable candidate. Dr Alfred Sant retorted that he had little intention of presenting himself again. He was not cheating, as he had expressed that thought in private well before the elections. That public announcement brought Dr Anglu Farrugia, who needs little prodding, on the racetrack.

I did not agree that Dr Sant should automatically go. In 1996, when I was absolutely independent in my thinking, without any party label, there was an attempt to oust Dr Fenech Adami, I wrote in The Times stating my views that our country cannot afford to dump politicians who are in politics not for personal gain. One may not agree with a politician, but is not entitled to lie about him.

That same thinking applied in 2003, when Dr Sant was the defeated leader. Some tried to interpret this stand as an attempt at personal survival, which is not the case.

John...

I got to know John Attard Montalto better on our recent visit to China. He is a likable character and, on a personal basis, can be the best company. At the same time, he was erratic in his behaviour, and he admitted that on radio when interviewed about the visit. He could be a real headache, only to change within seconds and become as playful as a child. He had no qualms that we were guests. Our hosts formed the same opinion. It was difficult to tie him down to any schedule, as within a moment he could change his mood and mind.

Recently he triggered a debate in the executive committee of the party, and he said that he could go on arguing until three in the morning. I knew he could. Then he decided to cut it shorter and we went home at one in the morning, with everyone laughing about his admissions of how naughty he can be. And he can be that.

After one of the last mass meetings during the electoral campaign, he almost threw me down from the platform as he wanted centre stage. On another occasion he was standing behind me at the door on the Palace, with the press present, and he was persistently tickling me. He knows my weak point!

He can be a very pleasant personality but certainly lacks the self-discipline that is a characteristic which he did not mention, in his schedule of required leadership qualities, when interviewed by The Times.

Anglu...

Dr AnGlu Farrugia has an "aspiring" personality. When he was in the police force, it was no secret that he was aspiring to become commissioner. Many of his colleagues said that at the time. In 1998 he immediately contested Dr George Vella as deputy leader for parliamentary affairs, although he had been in Parliament for just two years.

Naturally now he is aspiring even higher. After May Day, I happened to meet him in the rooms of the Chamber of Advocates, and said that he was going to contest as Dr Sant had stated that anyone with valid attributes should not be shy to enter the leadership race. So Anglu qualifies... That seems, for Anglu, to have been the only valid thing that Dr Sant said during these last five years.

Alfred...

Dr Sant lacks one thing. He is too strict with himself, and considers that all abide by the same rules, friends and foes. I am referring especially to institutional matters. He not only respects the institutions, but is ready to suffer for them. His short term as Prime Minister bears me out. The allegations that he is undemocratic and a threat to democracy cannot be further from the truth.

His ethical and human elements are the least known. He is a man who easily forgives and forgets. He is touched, and deeply so, by human misery of any sort, but he does not show it, flamboyantly and visibly. Hatred is alien to him. "Fairness" is persistently on his lips.

Another aspect is that you will not hear him say one thing in private and then differently in public, or vice-versa. Cheating is not in his nature, and you will not find him a party to any back-stabbing tactics, whether you are his colleague or his adversary. This time, in my view, it was the Labour voter that appreciated these qualities,even at the time of defeat. Next time, it will again be the electorate. So you know my choice...