Editorial

The Labour Party cannot seem to get anything right. Ever since its decision to go for an early election in 1998, the party has been on a slippery slope to irrelevance. The most shocking element of its decline, however, has been its resolute determination not to take a number of obvious exits - such as coming in line with EU membership when the 'yes' argument had been proved beyond reasonable doubt; such as failing to replace Alfred Sant as leader in 2003; such as... the list could run off this page.

It was not unreasonable to expect that the MLP's crushing - in political rather than numerical terms - defeat in the March 8 election would lead to internal recriminations.

This is part of the grieving process and was only natural after the leadership, who unwisely alienated some loyal lieutenants, greatly exaggerated reports of a Labour victory. But who in his right mind would contrive to ensure the level of unrest reaches its zenith, and so publicly, just days before a new party leader is selected? That divisive report into the election defeat which takes clear aim at Michael Falzon but misses several other prime targets, and that mistimed endorsement of Joseph Muscat by the head of the European Socialists and its aftermath, have exemplified the poor judgment that has blighted Labour for a number of years.

One might question the wisdom of choosing a leader in this most hostile of climates. But choose the MLP will, or rather, and perhaps significantly for the wrong reasons, its delegates will on Thursday.

Although Evarist Bartolo is a brain within the party, Dr Falzon a heart, and Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca a soul, it is prodigal son George Abela and heir-apparent Dr Muscat whose uneasy heads seem most likely to wear the crown.

Dr Abela, who has shown mettle and desire in the way he has conducted his campaign - all the more difficult since he started on the outside - is currently the closest thing Labour has to its nemesis, Lawrence Gonzi.

He has pledged to perform the essential task of reorganising the party and win back both the traditional Labour voter as well as the floater.

There is little doubt he possesses the qualities to make this happen since he has in his make-up that most important of ingredients: electability. However, he is not without baggage, and some in the party still believe he abandoned them in their hour of need.

Dr Muscat is more of an unknown quantity and his inexperience in the upper echelons of local politics is not a factor in his favour. But he has proved himself as a capable MEP, not through meaningless sound bites but by taking up issues and running with them, as well as a moderate one which could endear him to the wider electorate.

Dr Muscat has also given the impression that he will take a markedly different approach to Dr Sant and, commendably, has been playing a conciliatory tune. If he can cope with the steep learning curve of leadership, it is these latter points that will make or break him. He must change the party's administration in mentality and substance, not just style, to start the process of healing the party's gaping wounds and convince everyone else that Labour is ready to govern.

The delegates cannot afford to get this one wrong, since if they do the only exit that remains open for Labour to miss is oblivion. And if the party is not careful, this one may just suck it in.