Transforming the Labour Party

The Labour Party (no longer MLP, so PL from now on) is on the move. There are early signs that the new leadership is little by little preparing building blocks which, if put in place with due care and diligence, could help change the political landscape over the coming five years. There are still clearer signs that this is also the reading of the Nationalist Party. These are evident in the manner that Nationalists are attacking Labour's new leader, Joseph Muscat, and whatever goes on in the party.

There is no place for naiveté in politics - leaders are invariably attacked, whoever they might be. On the Labour side Sir Paul Boffa, Dom Mintoff, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and Alfred Sant were mercilessly lambasted by the Nationalists from the day they took office. Similarly, the Labour side relentlessly targeted Nerik Mizzi, George Borg Olivier and Eddie Fenech Adami. During both processes there were light pauses. Initially the Nationalists were puzzled by Alfred Sant's make up. On their part Labourites scratched their head about how to tackle Lawrence Gonzi, with his initial above-politics aura. Neither was a chip off the old block.

The puzzlement did not last. The party bazookas were soon firing away. It lasted even less in the case of Muscat. His early readiness to admit that Labour had erred in the past, that he himself was mistaken to oppose EU membership, as well as his promise to be different, in particular by ditching automatic negatives in favour of a more studied stance, were on the face of it welcomed by Nationalists.

In reality the PN immediately saw them as the threat that they really were. In no time at all they started lampooning Muscat, as well as his two deputy leaders. They had been democratically elected by Labour delegates, in the same manner that Nationalist councillors had democratically elected their deputy leader. Internal opponents and external observers might have had different preferences in both cases. But democracy works on majority votes. It does not go by what the minority might think. That is democracy's imperfection and strength.

The more the Nationalists are attacking Muscat, so viciously and so early on, the stronger the message they convey that they see him as an unmistakable threat. Paradoxically, by attacking and trying to ridicule him, they strengthen his position within the Labour Party. Carried to an excess, they also make the less impassioned non-Labourites wonder and question why the Nationalists are so worried.

There is a different kind of threat to Muscat. It is that he may not move ahead in the best direction and the highest possible speed. Using early hyperbole he promised an earthquake within the PL. None can really take place because of the way politics works and the measured level of tolerance to sudden change inherent in democratic parties.

I do not have Muscat's confidence nor can I read his mind. I would say, however, that he would have been more at ease with different individuals in the deputy leaders and general secretary position. But the delegates decreed. He had to move on and look ahead. The threat inherent in the way the Nationalists attack him lies in the fact that he may not be as bold as he needs to be, at least not soon enough, in some regards.

It takes little effort to agree to recommendations to do away with Labour youth brigade and opt for proper political education instead; to dismantle the anachronistic Discipline and Vigilance Board, in favour of a thorough code of ethics overseen by the highest party collective authority. It is much bolder to agree that the Labour leader should be elected by a broadened mechanism to bring into play seasoned party members. But the truly bold steps would be to publish and openly implement the report on the party media, and to start shaking out some of the old hands in the party machine.

Rather than do the latter, Muscat has gone for consolidation and even reinstatement. As for media reform, he has expressed himself in favour, but has not followed up in a manner that is evident - in the media product itself.

In this latter regard the Labour leader has a basic problem. Once the Nationalist media remain such a bag of spin and bias, should the Labour media really be any different? The answer is yes, for that would be the best way to penetrate the uncommitted, while retaining the correct balance to keep the committed grassroots informed and motivated. Cleverly functioning media and education of activists would constitute a major set of building blocks in the restructuring that has to take place in the Labour Party. If the Nationalists are not clever enough to follow suit, so much the better for Labour.

A modernised Labour Party can eventually become unrecognisable in style from that which became a serial loser up to last March, while it sticks to and hones its fundamental social democratic principles and trains activists to practise and articulate them. That is the transformation that can determine the outcome of the next general election.