Ex-MLP official calls for long succession process

JOHN SCERRI

Mar 17th 2008, 20:36

Success lies on a team effort not on a single person.
It is of no use to have a leader without him or her having full support from the whole team.
Dominic Fenech's sentence stating that ,quote ' MLP's new leader will not only have to make sure the party wins the next election... ' unquote is somewhat too demanding on the responsiblity of the new leader .
Will this be part of the new leader's job description ?
Must one assume that if the new leader fails to win the next election he or she should resign... yet again??

Michael Farrugia

Mar 17th 2008, 18:38

Keith Grech, or otherwise elect someone from inside the Labour party and we could remain as left as you can possibly be happy with.....but ETERNALLY IN OPPOSITION....Politics is not about the idealogy any longer....its about ideas, orginal ideas, and the credibility that the persons having these ideas have with the general public, in having them implemented....

John Rizzo

Mar 17th 2008, 18:31

If the MLP is to change all leadership and administration shoudl resign. Jason Micallef is the first one who should offer hsi resignation...his place is untenable.

E.gRIMA

Mar 17th 2008, 18:23

Mr. Fenech... you will not get rid of Jason Micallef that easy many labourites still want him. Imagine he resigned how you would have wrote stories about how he washed his hands from the party! Its his first and last loss, not a lot for a young person.

Bill Millam

Mar 17th 2008, 18:03

I just wanted to correct a typo in my last post. I meant to type 1996-1998 not 2006-2008.

Bill Millam
Los Angeles
USA

Keith Grech

Mar 17th 2008, 17:07

Get George ABela and we will have 2 nationalist parties!!!! I guess its true that all democracies come down with an overwhelming applause.

Bill Millam

Mar 17th 2008, 16:38

Comments such as those by Mr James Sultana only reinforce my observation that unless Labourites adjourn themselves and their antiquated ideas into the 21st Century, their party is doomed to remain in opposition for eternity. Arguments like his only go toward helping Labour dig a deeper and deeper hole to be buried in. Want any further proof? By the end of this new administration, Labour would have been in opposition for nearly 25 consecutive years (with the exception of 2006-2008). If they are happy with their current system, more power to them!!!!

Bill Millam
Los Angeles
USA

J Azzopardi

Mar 17th 2008, 16:22

The system may be used by both PN and the MLP, however the PN delegates have to be congratulated for the good choice they made four years ago, unlike the confirmation election of the MLP delegates a few months earlier. Today we have the tragic result of the stubbornness of certain individuals, using and manipulating the same system being defended by the present MLP officials. To err is human but to persist in errror is diabolical....is it not obvious that we need to broaden our vision and not continue to dig deeper into our "hofra"

James Sultana

Mar 17th 2008, 15:53

It is incredible how all of a sudden we are full of experts in democracy ! We even have suggestions - which sound more like "this is the only way to go" - coming from countries which are surely no experts in this matter, considering they have a president who is in charge having "won" an election which practically had a perverse result similar to ours in 1981 and in which a recount was stopped half-way through (only to find out that with that recount the president today would have been a different person !).

Anyway, back to the topic. Irrespective of the many suggestions so that the leader is elected by all the party members instead of just the delegates, those who join the party know well enough that their is a statute to which one has to abide, which is part and parcel of the membership. The system is that the paid party members elect the delegates in the locality and district elections, and then these delegates take the decisions at the higher level - including the election of party officials, leaders and deputies. And for those who are trying to give some other kind of impression, THIS SYSTEM IS USED BY BOTH THE MLP AND THE PN.

Unfortunately for him, whether this system is good for Dr. George Abela or not, that`s the way the political parties work: after all, I don`t recall Dr. Abela complaining about the system, or insisting for it to be changed when he was Deputy Leader for Party Affairs ..... a post he occupied after being elected via the same system which today he is complaining about.

I don`t recall any "big" party in Malta allowing all the paid members to chose the leader - after all the most recent party leadership election in Malta was held just 4 years ago - and using the general council delegates system.

After all, allowing all the party members to chose a leader still doesn`t mean that the chosen person will be electable and appealing to the floating voter or those who voted for the other party.

This "democracy-teaching" exercise is more ironic when it comes from those who stand on the opposite side of the political sphere. A look down memory lane will help to refresh their minds of how leaders are chosen : either in a late-night meeting which has all the ingredients of back-stabbing, or else practically imposed by a "foreign-based Maltese political-guru" .... so much for democracy lessons !! Doesn`t it sound strange that the two persons who were on the losing side of the last PN leadership contest, one was forced to resign after unfounded allegations and the other failed to get elected this time round ?

A Tonna

Mar 17th 2008, 15:51

Giving party members a say in the selection process would be ideal. But be careful not to fall in the same trap of the US system, where one candidate in the Democratic Party is still in the race because thanks to being voted for by Republican electors, probably because, as one authorative magazine put it, this candidate is more beatable than the other one still in the race. Point is, if the MLP wants to go down this route it would be ideal, but the party must be absolutely certain the PN cannot get a chance to interfere in the process.

And, by the way, I also agree that Mr Jason Micallef should seek re-confirmation from the MLP General Meeting. Everybody should assume their responsibilities. Fact is, whether the MLP won or lost electoral contests when Jimmy Magro was Secretary General, they were always meticulously prepared.

Bill Millam

Mar 17th 2008, 14:43

Here's an idea for the MLP administration: If you guys want to show how democratic your party truly is, open the election of the new leader to ALL card carrying members of the MLP. Only then will the new leader truly reflect the people's choice. Anyone who thinks this is a far-fetched idea is insulting the intelligence of the Maltese people and just adding insult to injury to the humilating 3rd loss in a row suffered at the polls by the MLP.
Until the party adjourns itself to the 21st century and cleanse itself from the ideas instilled by the dictator Dom Mintoff, they are doomed to remain in opposition.

Bill MIllam
Los Angeles
USA

saviour cahia

Mar 17th 2008, 14:20

The election aftermath really had put the Labour Party on the path of 'bidu gdid'. Unfortunately not in Government but in seeking a way to seriously look to the future. Beyond doubt tomorrow's meeting of the national executive and the parliamentary group is paramount at this delicate stage.
As member and supporter of the MLP, I augur that following an objective discussion, the meeting will give us some consolation; the 'serhan il-mohh' that we really need. Yes a new beginning in the way the party handle its affair , first and foremost for the best benefit of the party and not individuals.
The actual mechanism seems not to be holding water anymore in the face of three consecutive defeats. Yes we need a new beginning, a beginning in which as members we should have our say. I stress I have my opinion whom I see fit to lead the party for the coming years, but that is not all. I really look for a positive outcome from tomorrow's meeting, whereby both groups (executive and parliamentary) will agree about concrete proposals on various issues: the changes needed after going totally astray in the parties predication of victory, a new procedure to be followed for the election of the new leader, and a sound basis that will revive the enthusiasm and confidence that always abounded within the party, even in this sad period. Not overconfidence, but cautious steps that will lead to a fair and balanced set-up for all those who will be forwarding their nomination for leader of the party.
I dare to suggest the following;
1. a motion by both groups that will widen the participation of all updated members and not soley the delegates as per deadline set on every members subscription position as per 31st December,2007.
2. An election procedure by which the members will first select a trio that will form the leadership.
3. The new leader will then be elected from these three persons, chosen as a result to the number of votes gained during the first stage.
4. Should any of those chosen by the members object in working with any members of the resultant trio, he has every right to
withdraw from the contest and be replaced by the runner-up.
At the moment in time, it is not that important who the new leader might be. But that he will be a person that will not only have the support of at least 65% of the paid-up members, but a person with the capabilities to unite the party once again and offering prospects of leading in a way that will make the MLP more credible and welcomed by the so called floating voters or the not so small chunk of new voters in the 2013 election.
From the bottom of my heart, in the best interest of the party, I augur that the national executive and the parliamentary group feel that 'il-mument huwa issa', the party before the individual. Come on, give 'il bidu gdid' a chance!

J Azzopardi

Mar 17th 2008, 12:40

I fully agree with Prof. Fenech and other ex-MLP officials or ex-high-profile members who are openly expressing the wish to extend the choice of the next MLP leader beyond the list of delegates. A similar choice five years ago by a substantial majority of the delegates proved to be wanting, to say the least. It would be interesting to see how the present MLP statute can be somehow put on hold so that certain rules that can inhibit or shackle the choice of the right leader with the required credentials to become Malta's next prime minister after Gonzi can be worked out to ensure that the person that can attract back the required majority can be found. The actual process to elect the new leader should reflect the "Bidu Gdid" that is urgently required. The wrong choice now will ensure another sure defeat at the polls in five long years from now.....

Derek Fenech

Mar 17th 2008, 12:01

The MLP leadership shouldn't be the only position to be contested. The events that have unfolded since Sunday have shown that Jason should shoulder the responsibility of the Labour Party defeat, respond to the feelings of the Labour supporters that are hurt and leave the Labour Party to evolve. And unfortunately he is hindering such process. Mr. Micallef should be accountable for the party not being prepared for this election when compared to the Nationalist Party and he definitely doesn't deserve any laurels like Dr. Sant who was responsible enough to resign after the defeat. Mr. Micallef it's about time you call it a day and stop disappointing your supporters. You were responsible for the defeat and for a majority of Labourites that voted PN in this election.

L Borg

Mar 17th 2008, 11:34

I think MLP should first put its' priorities first, and see who is best suited to implement the changes required. A genuine public survey, of whom should become leader would give a very good direction, and not turn the leader position into a personal contest again.