Saturday, 10th May 2008
Members denied right to vote for party leader
Party delegates collecting ballot papers yesterday. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier
A big majority of Labour Party delegates yesterday voted against a proposal to change the party's statute to allow paid-up members to vote for the new party leader on June 5.
The result showed 165 votes for the motion and 620 against. There were 793 eligible votes, one abstention and seven invalid ballots.
The five contenders for the leadership post - George Abela, Joseph Muscat, Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, Michael Falzon and Evarist Bartolo - attended yesterday's extraordinary general meeting at the party headquarters in Ħamrun.
The motion was proposed by newly-elected MP Marlene Pullicino who, opening the hour-long debate, said the motion is a fresh idea which will show the party is really renewing itself following three consecutive electoral defeats. She insisted that the idea to allow paid-up members to choose the leader had been discussed before.
This time, however, it held greater significance because 122 delegates had voted in favour of a petition for this motion to be discussed.
"I believe in inclusivity. We will be setting the example for other parties around the world. This change would also lead to unity within the party.
"When were Labourites ever scared of change? The aim is to have a strong leader who will lead us to a victory to get the PN out of office. Use your minds and not your hearts," she said, as grunts by those opposing the motion continued to spread.
The conference was addressed by eight delegates. Four spoke in favour of the motion and the rest against. Those in favour were constantly disturbed by murmuring and comments from the floor while those who spoke against were met with a deafening applause.
Local Councils' Association president Michael Cohen and Tarxien mayor Paul Farrugia were the strongest speakers against the motion.
They were the ones who had proposed amendments to the original motion but withdrew them so that the voting would be "more plain sailing".
Mr Cohen and Mr Farrugia, who were both welcomed with applause, said that it was logistically impossible for the MLP's electoral commission to organise an election for 19,000 members in only 27 days.
Mr Cohen said he respected the party members, adding it was the delegates who suffered legislature after legislature and, in the past, delegates had taken the important decisions.
"I urge delegates to vote against the motion and if we need to change the statute, we can do it at our own pace. There is a process to elect the leadership and we should apply that process," he said.
Mr Farrugia said delegates are elected by the party members and the delegates vote on their behalf. He proposed that party members should be involved in discussions on party policies.
KullĦadd journalist Aleander Balzan said those who proposed the motion only started the campaign after the general election and that Dr Pullicino is isolated.
In the past decisions were always taken by the delegates, he said.
Joe Fsadni said that if the motion was approved, the party would lose its direction.
"Let us vote against it. Otherwise we will be washing our hands from the responsibility, like Pontius Pilate did of Christ," he said.
The speakers in favour of the motion included David Caruana, who is assisting George Abela in his campaign.
He urged delegates to back the motion because other decisions taken in the past such as allowing females to vote during the general conference were as courageous as this one.
Duncan Mifsud and Darlene Zerafa also spoke in favour, saying this was the golden opportunity for the MLP to show that it is really starting to renew itself.
Ms Zerafa said the MLP needed to approve the motion which was a new and fresh idea.
"Everyone is valid and everyone can contribute to the party and its future, including members. Hearing that members are not part of the party disgusts me," she said. MLP president Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi chaired the conference, during which former leader Alfred Sant, who was not present, was given a standing ovation.
RSS
Comments
@ Daniel Diacono
Bahri tal-bnazzi Abela abandoned the party when it was in a difficult time? Who created the difficulty? Had he been a fair weather sailor he would have stayed, compromised his principles and became yet another 'yes man' like many still are in the MLP with the repetitive negative results.
The proposition of the ongoing argument seems to be based on the idea that the next party leader should have the widest possible legitimacy by allowing the party membership at large to vote.
The most ideal situation would be that all the contenders for the MLP leadership positions should have been the ones to push for the widening of the appointment to the party rank and file! But this is sounds like utopian political music!
This would have been a landmark in the political history of Malta and set an example for others to follow.
In the same time, one must not forget that history teaches us that dictators were able to exploit rules of the democratic game only to gain power and then afterwards use it against democracy!
But now that the choice is set to remain tributary of the established system which produced the known past results, if the party delegates voted and are happy with their record, they should be left to do their work. It is only those who appoint them who should know better and take the necessary action(s).
But how does one become a party delegate anyway? Or delegates themselves are planted by some skilled politicians to serve their own ambitions? If this is the case, it is the process of appointment of delegates which should be revisited!
In the meantime, while it seems that many have not yet recovered from the hangover of their victory or defeat at the polls, the winning party should be let to implement its electoral programmes and be judged from its delivery on its promises and overall performance.
The opposition and governmentmaker floaters will have the opportunity to give their verdict again at the polls in five years times: that is democracy, a luxury for some and a dream for others around the world!
We shouldny changing our statut because mr bahri tal bnazzi abela said so. After all he left us when our party was in a difficult time, now he comes back 10 yrs later and want things done his way because he knows labour delegates still arent at peace of heart with him for what he has done to us
It is a pitty that a minority of people(delagates) will decide for the others.
If PN done something wrong in the past in the electing their leader this must not be copied.
the problem remais that the PN with their choice won the past elections and with nearly the same MLP delagates who chose again Dr Sant lost the past elections.
I really think that this should have been the time to show all the country that the MLP believes in the potential of people and would have given the PN a lesson.
Maybe the delagates were more concerned not to loose their power of their vote rather to give the chance to give their members the chance to have their say.
This is a missed opportunity, chosing the wrong person as MLP leader would mean giving an advantage to the PN, who after last election saw their leader winning against 3 political parties which is not a joke.
If the new MLP leader will lead MLP to a secure victory this is still to see considering that in the general election the choice is given to anybody who is eligible to vote and not to party delagates only.
For those who said that the PN was intefering with MLP's internal business, this shows how people still think that they are in an untouchable position, do you think that those how do not support MLP don' t have the right to show their opinion.
I conclude that I think that the new leader is already been choosen from the the old MLP's leadership because they were concerned that if somebody outside of their circle will be elected they would lose their post.
You have a long way to wait my friends.
This has nothing to do with the Partit Nazzjonalist and how it conducts its governance. The MLP should do the right thing and allow all their members to elect their leader. Anything else is nothing but a sham!
Secondly, dear Bill, maybe the MLP should elect the next leader using the same system the gonzipn, formerly the PN, used when they "elected" E. F. Adami, while Dr. Giorgio Borg Olivier was still leader.
There's a lot to be said in favour and AGAINST members of a party electing their party leader. Only the Conservatives in Britain do it and the first time they did it they elected Iain Duncan Smith who was so pathetic they removed him after two years!
So it's not necessarily the best way to elect a party leader. The way it is and will remain, there's more contact and discussion between the candidates and 900 delegates - much more so than with 19,000 paid-up members.
The problem with a motion like this is also that those who voted would have actually been disenfranchising themselves of a very important vote if they had voted in favour. It would have been naive to expect turkeys to vote for Christmas.
I am pleased with the delegates' decision.
The candidate who party members like best isn't necessarily the best choice. Staunch Labour supporters will vote for MLP regardless of who the leader is. They voted for Sant in 1998, 2003, and 2008 - did Labour win? Labourites alone aren't enough to get Labour into government. The person who might win the elections for MLP in 5 years time is the one who goes down best with floating voters and people who usually vote for PN - even if it's not the candidate whom party members like best. Therefore, delegates should be better than party members at choosing who this person is.
The problem lies with delegates having an agenda.
Anyway, party members will always prefer the person the party machine (delegates) wants them to like. Just check out the recent survey. Whether the party members can vote or not, it won't make a difference - the same person will get elected.
I really don`t know whether i should feel sorry for you and your likes, or just take a laugh of my life, and switch off my computer...!!!!!!!!
I guess you are a `nazzjonalist`, or a `demokristjan`, or what ever ehhhh.....
My friend, haven`t you realised by now, that both political parties are literally living in `GLASS HOUSE` Kwartieri now.....???
How can the p.n. tell, or even dictate..(!!!) to the m.l.p. how to run it`s internal business, when their system of electing their leaders, executive representatives etc. is EVEN WORSE, with much less eligible to vote.....!!!!!!!!!!!
The rest of your comment, is all rhetoric... bla... bla.... bla.... bhall tal-pappagall...