When is the last time Labour governed serenely, for a full term, without challenges to its legitimacy? 1977 to 1981 is the incredible answer.

This means that when the next opportunity comes along, in 2013, the party representing almost half the population of these islands would have spent 32 years in political wilderness. The 22 months the party spent in government were political mayhem which meant that the aspirations of its voters could not, yet again, be properly represented.

None of the above is new, nor is it lost on any of the pretenders to the throne of Alfred Sant. Some of these may think that the post they are really about to contest is prime minister-in waiting because, "Hey, now its our turn to win".

That attitude will fail to deliver what our democracy needs: an MLP leader who can reassuringly secure an alternation of power.

No one wants to live in a one-party state forever but nor is Labour ever going to win an election without first winning the trust of its protagonists: the people.

Sant simply failed to do that. All that talk of re-opening the EU accession package gave pause to the very voters that had abandoned him in 2003, and were looking forward to return to the fold.

Then the flip flops on the reception class, with policy changes being made in real time, gave the jitters to many voters who had children.

So, when Lawrence Gonzi was sworn in for the second time the feeling of satisfaction was accompanied by palpable relief that it was him not Sant declaring loyalty to the Constitution.

The challenge of providing the circumstances for selecting the person most deserving to lead the Labour Party is, at first glance, one incumbent upon the administration of the party.

It cannot be so. For all of us that make up this democracy, that decision is too important to be left to the general secretary of the Labour Party and its delegates.

To quote, they should not be allowed to enjoy the 'power of incumbency'.

The former has long lost the confidence of the general public, while the latter are viewed as loyal to their party rather than the country. Yet a proper and fair election process is in the public interest and not limited to the interest of Jason Micallef, his supporters and his supportees.

As George Abela pointed out on TV on Friday evening, when confirming he would make a bid for the leadership, this decision must reflect the choice of the Labour Party's members and not the far smaller group of party delegates. The fact that this call to fairness was immediately quashed by the party's administration is ample evidence of the well-foundedness of Abela's fears.

Why facilitate the election of someone who could snatch power away from the Nationalist Party in five years? Why would I be lobbying for a level playing field in Labour's internal matters ?

The simple answer is that, in my view, we have reached a stage where this election is no longer simply an internal matter of the Labour Party. Its strong democratic credentials concern us all, because their weakening is a weakening of our democracy.

Time has come for politicians, journalists, commentators and citizens generally who are not part of the Labour movement to carefully judge our words and deeds. Nothing should be done to justify those who hold the Labour Party in their thrall to turn in upon themselves, to raise drawbridges and allow the choice of king to become the fruit of a siege mentality.

It would be so easy to throw our weight behind he or she who would become our weakest adversary. If instead, we facilitate the choice of whoever is best in Labour, we would have expressed the best in us.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.