Contrasting party ideologies
For quite some time now, the prevalent perception was that there no longer existed any significant divergence in ideology professed by both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party in government. The fact that the PN had swerved to the left while the PL did likewise but to the right contributed a great deal to this general feeling. In the aftermath of the political struggles regarding the major national issues, such as those about European Union membership, politics became mundane and people complained of not seeing any noteworthy differences in the creed of the two major parties. Time, however, would prove us wrong.
Once elected to the helm of the PL, the new leader faced the eventful task of underlining Labour’s ideology. He immediately pledged radical reforms and clearly stressed the way ahead. There was a time when the party in government demeaned all this talk of change and even ridiculed what the Leader of the Opposition had earlier referred to as the coming storm. Eventually, however, the result of all this was the emergence of a wide movement encompassing people with moderate or progressive outlooks. In essence, the PL asserted itself as liberal.
This new attitude led to the prioritising of minority rights, thereby making the party far more inclusive and more European. Soon, it became all too evident that what the Leader of the Opposition had declared earlier on during his tenure was not mere rhetoric but hard facts. Senior Labour exponents have not shied away from taking the lead in affirming this political philosophy. Labour has been resolute in insisting on the secularity of our country and on the clear distinction between state and Church. This approach has prompted the party into taking a clear view on issues such as in vitro fertilisation, moral ethics, gay rights and censorship.
In sharp contrast to this approach, the PN has been lagging behind and is showing its true colours. Few doubt that the Nationalist Cabinet, as a whole, is today, oddly enough, composed of ultra conservatives who resist renovation and scorn what is liberal and secular. The Nationalist members of Parliament who entertain diverse opinions are a minority. It is becoming only too noticeable that the purported drive to the left was only one of convenience and that at heart. The PN has remained very much entrenched in antiquated ideals.
Unfortunately for the government, today, the Maltese are far more unregimented and forward-looking than those of times gone by. No doubt, they will no longer tolerate dogmatism and will not put up with a paternalistic government that expects to dictate from above what is to be considered as values.
Ultimately, however, the PN leadership seems to have noted the persistent haemorrhage of its supporters. As happened in the 1970s, a major U-turn is about to happen. Reading between the lines and analysing what has been said in the last PN general council, we realise that, in a subtle fashion, the party is intent on opening a window to more liberal views, hoping to curtail further decline in the support enjoyed by the party.
This is reminiscent of what happened in the 1970s. Back then, the PN actually prided itself on being conservative and proudly embraced the motto of patria et religio.
Seeing the masses turning against them, the party strode to the left, trying to entice a broader spectrum of support.
On the other hand, this sudden change of attitude seems artificial and may only be intended to accommodate political exigencies. Regrettably for the party, the top brass are all too well known. The beliefs of such individuals are definitely well anchored in conservatism and the status quo serves them only too well. An eventual retreat will risk portraying the PN as opportunistic and, in all likelihood, such a gimmick will backfire.
The electorate, will, this time round, be facing two major political parties with visibly defined principles. The choice will be either to vote for a liberal, inclusive and secular political movement or for a retro party epitomising anachronistic values. This, to me, will be a defining moment.
Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament and spokesman on justice.
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jul 7th 2011, 14:30
Dr Herrera,
rather than commenting on your adversaries,
(which is really a very empty exercise
as you can never be independent)
please tell us Labour No voters,
what the party should mean to us
and what we mean to the party.
I get the impression
that we mean nothing for the Labour Party
and that we are better represented
by principled Nationalist MPs.
.
Jon Vercellono
Jul 8th 2011, 12:44
Ms Camenzuli,
And those "principled" Nationalist MP's would be whom exactly? You imply that you believe that not all are principled.
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jul 7th 2011, 14:25
"Once elected to the helm of the PL, the new leader faced the eventful task of underlining Labour’s ideology"
by inviting back in all the dinosaur elements Alfred Sant had got rid of!
Dr Herrera,
do you really believe people are taken in by your empty slogans?
Who is going to represent people like me,
a usual Labour voter,
who is against divorce?
22,000 of us (estimated by none other than the Labour Executive)
have suddenly vanished off your radar, Dr Herrera.
Liberty means pluralism and the ability to still voice our opinion
even if the Yes camp 'won' the referendum,
getting an 'impressive' 38% of the electorate.
Unfortunately, the only MPs allowed to represent us
sit on the Nationalist benches.
.
MaryJo Camenzuli
Jul 7th 2011, 14:19
"liberal, inclusive and secular political movement"
riding the racist bandwagon in the immigration issue.
Dr Herrera, do you really believe your own slogans?
.
Mr Joe Micallef
Jul 6th 2011, 10:38
"Once elected to the helm of the PL, the new leader faced the eventful task of underlining Labour’s ideology. He immediately pledged radical reforms and clearly stressed the way ahead".
Ha ha haaa iiiii hahaaaaa hhaa ha haaa ha ha!
"This approach has prompted the party into taking a clear view on issues such as in vitro fertilisation, moral ethics, gay rights and censorship"
Ha ha haaa hiiiii ahaaaaa haa ha haaa ha ha ha haaa iiiii hahaaaaa hhaa ha haaa ha ha!
Sorry I have to stop reading - cramps are to much to bear. Herrera do you really believe your baloney!
Malta must be in real dire straits. A government that is leaking and a government in waiting going bonkers
Jacques René Zammit
Jul 6th 2011, 10:22
Will the honourable member kindly explain how the "liberal, inclusive and secular political movement" failed to take a clear position on divorce? Sure the PN gets to be labelled as a "retro party epitomising anachronistic values" for having taken an official party position against the introduction of divorce. Then again can we choose between "chicken" or "opportunist" to describe PL's stance on the issue rather than bluff about being liberal and inclusive?
Emanuel Muscat
Jul 6th 2011, 09:19
So now we have become 'liberal' : divorce will make us free?In vitro fertilisation is needed because we have become mostly infertile? LGBT will increase or decrease the population?Moral ethics as if ethics is not moral enough?Censorship,who cares,we want to be free!
Coming from a prospective minister of justice,the mind boggles:have all the lawyers gone bellies up,in their quest for power?No wonder the UoM lawyers' course needs upgrading:too many of them desperately seeking clients?
What about the working classes who support our daily lives?
All they need is liberty and liberalism:to do what I say?
Revolt,of course,and the new Robespierre will rule the waves?
In maltese we have a saying:Alla qabel ma joqtol ,igennen!
Mr Karl Consiglio
Jul 6th 2011, 08:37
Nonsense, both parties are ultra conservative, at the cost that Malta doesn't even know what "to be liberal" means yet.
Mr ALBERT LEONE GANADO
Jul 6th 2011, 10:38
I tend to agree with KC that this is just a load of empty words. The truth is that in the last few years both parties have been pragmatic and parasitic opportunists only interested in maintaining their power or in achieving it at all costs. Serious and deep social and economical problems have only been tackled superficially if at all and in a blind partisan way. Perhaps the only issue which has forced some reflection on party values and ideology especially within the PN party has been the divorce question and even here I think that stances have more to do with cynical calculation of voter loyalty than with political principles and values.
Mr Albert Dimech
Jul 6th 2011, 08:30
Finally, a piece of writing that clearly exposes the PN for what it really is. A long series of apologists tried desperately to convince many a reader that the PN was still the political cocktail that stands for everything and nothing at the same time. The truth is that the PN was, and still is, fundamentally conservative with a 'liberal' left wing make-up that cannot any longer hide the wrinkles and sagging skin. The power insatiable internal circles are now advocating a miraculous cosmetic facelift.
Alfred Zahra De Domenico
Jul 6th 2011, 13:11
Ever since its foundation the PN has always harboured a spectrum of opinions or currents which have always worked together in harmony for the benefit of the country. Who has never heard of Mons. Panzavecchia and Sir Ugo Mifsud who headed currents other than that headed by Enrico Mizzi and who to their credit worked in harmony with Enrico Mizzi in the furthurance of our constitutional status and social betterment. Our first primeminister under the 1921 constiution, Giuseppe Howard, came from the current headed by Mons. Panzavecchia.
It should be of no surprise that in a two party system the parties envelope a range of opinions. In the case of the LP it ranges from true red socialists, pink socialists, Prague and E. German trained communists, opportunists and a varied band of others. Which current do you belong to?
Please choose the reason of your report below: