The politics of perception

There are surely many factors which collectively contributed to the Nationalist Party's success and Labour's defeat in the general election. But I feel that one factor overwhelmed all others: Perception.

I am no marketing expert, but experience and common sense have taught me that more often than not, it's not merely down to how able a person is but to how capable he is of portraying a good image. It's a question of empathy. Many are those candidates who enjoy positive attributes and hold excellent academic qualifications but unfortunately, come election time, they fare dismally because they lack the most essential attribute - the ability to instil trust.

It is on account of this alone that many capable and worthy personalities refrain from joining the political fray since they know only too well the realities of political perception. Political charisma, in fact, doesn't necessarily signify political acumen but more so political shrewdness. In this area, the Nationalist Party scored more points. Unfortunately for the electorate, substance tends to give way to style and demeanour.

In the 1996 election, the newly reorganised Labour party enjoyed more than its fair share of empathy. We had a new leader whose image contrasted greatly with that of his immediate predecessor and an energised new team which managed to convey the right perception. Unfortunately, over the years, due to certain factors, we lost a certain sympathy and once you lose it, it is extremely difficult to win it back.

To my mind, and I say this out of experience, Alfred Sant did manage to perform excellently and gave his best in this campaign. Furthermore, he succeeded to a certain extent in strengthening the Labour party's performance. On the whole, however, the Labour Party's propaganda machine did not fully succeed, as it had done in 1996, in restructuring its image. The right aura, which would have created the right perception, was simply missing. The Labour Party's propaganda machine was at times too focused on drumming up enthusiasm and support within its own rank and file and this approach was evident in the election result.

Over the years, Labour has learnt a lot from past mistakes and made genuine effort to portray itself as being more inclusive in its policies, but this did not prove to be enough. Old faces reminiscent of old Labour slowly but surely managed to infiltrate and later dominate the party's media and this, in my opinion, had a negative effect.

Furthermore, I feel that though justifiable, Labour's criticism over the years was at times too negative and overbearing. Times change and we have to learn how to change with them. The new breed of voters is surely more apt to be inspired by positive criticism. Though it is the inalienable right and even duty of the opposition to criticise and oppose the government of the day, it has become of paramount importance, on the right issues, to pursue the politics of consensus.

Unfortunately, it has been the tendency of the party in opposition to refrain from speaking positively on certain matters when thumbs up were due instead. In the past this was acceptable. Today, in a more emancipated society, this is no longer the case.

In order for the party to move on and look ahead it must act in the same fashion it did back in 1996, and that is to embrace change. We now have the best opportunity to do so. Undoubtedly, the most important asset for any party is its leader. The latter is the alternative Prime Minister who in a parliamentary democracy is not merely the primus inter pares; he is much more since he controls the government. In its choice of new leader, the Labour Party must be very careful indeed.

The delegates must look beyond party sympathies and affiliations. Simply stated, the party should choose a person who has empathy and who would create the right general perception. If Labour fails to choose someone with such charisma, the consequences could be disastrous.

Dr Herrera is a Labour MP.