Now that Alfred Sant has finally asked what he can do for his country, the search is on. In practice many will wish, for devious reasons of their own, that Labour will yet again make the wrong choice. In principle, however, it's in the interest of all of us, irrespective of partisan leanings, that it be a productive one. Balance of power and potential alternation are key requisites of a healthy polity, and the following is intended in this spirit.

There are two pitfalls that Labour should be particularly wary of. First, denial. In his press conference on Monday, Sant made two points which rather worried me. He said that the Labour Party is a political force to be reckoned with, and mused that the election result was in part the result of the 'power of incumbency' of the Nationalist government. How right was he? On both counts, not very. On the power of incumbency, it is true that a party in government, through its control over the timing of people's access to state resources, is well placed to whip up a feel-good factor when it needs it most. This, however, is hardly a valid excuse, since surely any party in opposition must contest elections under these circumstances. Which means that Sant misplaced the question by talking about the nature of elections in general, rather than the particular circumstances of the case in question.

As for the strength of the Labour Party, there can be no doubt that 48.8 per cent is a fulsome stack of laurels to rest on. Most parties in Europe and indeed the world can but dream of such figures. Notable exceptions include the Nationalist Party of Malta, which is rather unfortunate for Labour. The question that needs to be asked of Labour is therefore not 'Is the party strong?' but 'How electable is it?'. The answer to that is as unpalatable - I repeat, ideally to all of us - as it is essential.

Historical fact is that Labour hasn't managed to rope in a feasible majority since 1976, when a flat in Gozo was a contradiction in terms and a mouse a little furry creature. I say 'feasible' because of what happened in 1996, when Labour swept the majority off their feet with promises of economic reward it couldn't keep. (It's worth bearing in mind that the Mintoff crisis brought about the snap election, not the result.) The majority was quickly lost and hasn't been recovered since. To my mind, Labour at present may be strong but it is hardly electable. It's close, very close, but not close enough.

The reasons for this are many and complex. One of them is Sant's lack of political acumen, which I needn't go into now that he has bowed out. (I say this with much respect for Sant - he has not a whiff of ill intention about him, and in any case there's more to a man than political shrewdness.) Another is what one might call an 'opposition mindset' that opposes everything seemingly for the sake of it. In this sense parties in opposition might learn a thing or two from car racing, where one basic rule is never to end up 'tailing' the car ahead of you; Pavlov's experiments with dogs provide another model to avoid.

Perhaps more importantly, Labour's poor electoral record is linked to rising standards of living in post-war Malta, in part and most ironically a result of social welfare programmes championed by the MLP itself. The upshot is that, as more and more people aspire to and actually achieve genteel middle class lifestyles, demography becomes willy nilly the main problem of a movement that styles itself as working class.

In other words, arriviste claims and socialist rhetoric do not happily cohabit. This is a thorny one. On one hand, history is what it is and one cannot expect Labour to indulge in some sort of collective amnesia. On the other, if demography will not go to Labour ... you know the rest.

Where does one start the vaguely Platonic job of looking for a leader who is charismatic and politically wise, who opposes proactively, and who shakes off silly Leftist triumphalism (of which enough is left, notably on One Radio) to represent aspiration and middle class achievement? Not easy to say, but I suspect the answer may not be 'within'.

Sant's antagonistic political personality, coupled with the depressing image he at least reinforced for Labour, means that the party has for several years now been victim to a pincer moving crisis of human resources. First, it has suffered massive haemorrhage and lost a number of people at all levels of its structure, from local agent to ministerial material. Second, it has failed to attract the new pick of the crop. All of which means that papal (not to be confused with 'valid') material is rather thin on the ground within the party.

It follows that the last thing the MLP needs is a retreat. The conclave model (and this is the second pitfall) will simply not deliver the goods. Rather, it might want to consider a broad recruiting process which engages with society and leaves all options open.

This will take time, even if the temptation is to have the management up and running as fast as possible. I also suspect that the cloak-and-dagger ambience of the General Conference will have to give precedence to a more serene ambit of a specialised task force made up of individuals who mean well, but are not necessarily part of the inner sanctum.

Make no mistake, the Labour Party is in a serious crisis which risks spiralling downwards. It has clearly not been enough to hope to win elections by default, as it were, on the grounds of statistical chances of alternation. One may or may not vote for it next time round, but an electable opposition is something we simply can't do without.

mafalzon@hotmail.com

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.