As contenders for the post of Labour Party leader and two deputy leaders bend over backwards to impress their own people of the need for change, uncommitted voters are left wondering if the new leadership would after all bring about the new beginning to the party's fortunes they are promising today. The prospects so far are not all that bright. On the contrary, the indications suggest that, despite all the nice words the contenders are using, the MLP is heading towards the status quo once again.
A choice quote from a speech made by one of the leading contenders gives a clue to a mentality that does not go well with the promise of change. Joseph Muscat, tipped as the favourite candidate to the party's top post, feels it would be unacceptable for Lawrence Gonzi to use the price hikes of oil and cereals as an excuse for him not to implement what he had promised in the election campaign. He argued that these had been all too clear before the election when the PN made its promises. On Thursday, a day before a meeting of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, the MLP issued a statement making a similar argument. So, interpreting their view, there should be no escape route for Dr Gonzi!
This is precisely the kind of language that puts off uncommitted voters, the people the party so badly needs to draw to its side. It is the height of political immaturity to argue, as Dr Muscat and the MLP seem to be implying, that a party has to carry out what it promises irrespective of any changing scenario. True, when the PN made its income tax promises, for example, the price of crude and food was already shooting up. Its calculations were obviously made on the situation prevailing then and, presumably, on forecasts, too. But what if forecasts go haywire? Should the government, any government for that matter, go ahead and ignore changing circumstances in the implementation of its programme?
Alfred Sant spoke in the same vein when as Leader of the Opposition he said in Parliament that the government was being overly pessimistic regarding the international situation. He asked: Was this in preparation for a big U-turn on its electoral promises? Dr Sant sounds as if he is unaware of the impact the sharp rise in the price of crude oil and food is having on the cost of living everywhere. True, political parties may get carried away in an election campaign, showering voters with a countless number of promises. The electorate would not have forgotten, for instance, how many times Labour promised to do this and that within just six months of being elected. It even promised to do things that had already been done!
The point is that if Labour wants to attract new voters, as it needs to if it wants to get back to govern again, it would have to be convincing in its arguments all the time. Rather, than closing both eyes to reality, the government is indeed expected to take changing economic circumstances well into consideration before implementing its promises. That is what national interests dictate. Lambasting a government for failing to keep to its promises is usually par for the course in politics but doing so haphazardly could be very counter-productive.