Editorial

Never mind the gaffes made by Alfred Sant, Charles Mangion and Michael Falzon during the election campaign, what counts most for the Labour Party now is whether or not it would be able to recover from the internal turbulence it is going through at present. A commission charged with analysing the party's third election defeat in a row rips the party apart for its shortcomings but, surely, two of the most damning reasons it gives for the defeat are the fragmentation and the "self-destructive" dynamic of the different party cliques.

Hardly any party or organisation is immune to internal trouble or the inbreeding of cliques but, when the pull of such trouble or cliques strengthens itself to a proportion that affects the central unifying force, it often leads to derailment. This is what has happened to the MLP as it aimlessly struggled to get out of the mess it put itself into when, facing internal trouble, it went to the polls in 1998 after less than two years in government. It then went headlong into a bigger political mess when it so badly misjudged the island's political destiny and wrongly opted to fight against membership of the European Union.

One would have thought that losing one election after another would have made the party wiser. It did not. Yes, in the light of its 2003 election defeat, Labour did change its policy over EU membership but then top party men, including the leader, tripped over their feet when they made certain remarks during the election campaign that suggested that the party was not all that convinced in the reversal of their policy after all. At least this is the impression they had given the electorate before March 8. This, and so many other half-baked ideas in their programme, instilled very strong doubts as to the party's readiness to take over the country's administration.

One would have thought, too, that Labour had had enough time to strengthen its organisational structures and to draw up policies that really made sense.

Once again, it flopped badly. The report on the party's defeat at the polls speaks of a disorganised party machine and, worse, an organisational setting characterised by suspicion and paranoia. All this, and more, it said, reinforced the perception that if the party could not run a campaign, it could hardly be fit to run the country, which is what the Nationalist Party leader, Lawrence Gonzi, had so often remarked during the campaign.

The fact that there are no fewer than five contestants to the post of leader does not make any party rehabilitation programme easier, more so now when so close to the leadership election, one contestant has been given a push by the European Socialists' head, Martin Schulz, a move seen by the other contestants as deeply offensive, totally irregular and highly unethical. These are very strong words, not easily brushed aside in such a hotly-contested leadership election.

Indeed, the choice of the new leader is the biggest dilemma facing the party now, especially in view of the fact that George Abela is considered by many, including outsiders, as the candidate best suited to rehabilitate the party and make it electable again while the majority of party delegates appear to prefer Joseph Muscat. The party's future lies in the delegates' hands.