Editorial

Labour leader Joseph Muscat may soon find that he might have gone a bit over the top in his political rhetoric over what he called as the birth of a new progressive movement. Yet, some of the remarks he made immediately after his party polled the largest number of first-count votes in the European Parliament election call for reflection, particularly in view of the fact that he had already been using the term "progressive" repeatedly during the election campaign. He is now refining his political language and, on the basis of the EP election outcome, is claiming that a new progressive movement has been born.

The term "progressive" may have been used by groups or movements in the time of the socialist government of Dom Mintoff but not, it appears, in the way it is now being trotted out in local politics by Dr Muscat.

Mabel Strickland had called the party she set up in 1953 Progressive Constitutional Party, using the term "progressive" to mean advancement, not left wing. (Her father, Lord Strickland, had first wanted to call the party he set up to contest the first elections under the 1921 Constitution Progressive Party but later changed his mind and called it Anglo-Maltese Party. But he used Progress as name for his first political newspaper.) Even today there are parties called progressive that are not linked to left-wing politics.

To some politicians abroad, "progressive" sounds more attractive than "socialist". Maybe this has become the case too with the new leadership of the Labour Party. Or maybe Dr Muscat is simply only interested in using the term "progressive" for advancement, seeing it as an attractive umbrella that could draw to his "movement" people from other parties or movements and those seeking new civil rights, which, they presume, only Labour could bring about.

At last Sunday's victory rally, Dr Muscat said the people had made a clear choice between yesterday's political parties and tomorrow's progressive movement. "There are no blues or reds, no 'yes' or 'no' votes, but a coalition of people ready for change..." There is no ideological pull there, is there? Note the other new word he is using, coalition. Perhaps, in the light of this, Dr Muscat may also be thinking of changing the name of the party again, to, for instance, Malta Progressive Movement. Labour does seem to have come a very long way since the time Mr Mintoff used to openly scold party stalwarts whenever they failed to use the term socialist when describing the party.

Could the outcome of the European Parliament election be used by Labour as an indication of the shape of things to come? Obviously, Labour would want to believe that people have become more politically mature and are starting to vote with their minds rather than with their hearts. This is actually what the country badly needs, an ever-growing segment of uncommitted voters, big enough for the political parties to change the crude way they have been doing politics for so long.

Clearly, a good number of those who had deserted Labour under Alfred Sant, particularly in the time of the EU referendum in 2003 and in the subsequent general election, are now returning to Labour but there is no denying either that protest voters have had a strong say in this EP election. However, whatever the case, Labour has yet to prove it merits the trust of the people in a general election.