Monday, 2nd March 2009
With the benefit of hindsight
A year after the General Election of 8th March, 2008, it is worthwhile, with the advantage of hindsight, to reflect on how it was possible for the Labour Party (PL) to suffer three electoral defeats in succession, i.e. in 1998, 2003 and 2008. One hopes that these defeats will help to avoid repeating the same mistakes and will help to ensure victory for the Labour Party at the next General Election.
I sometimes think that it would have been better for the Labour Party if it had been defeated in 1996 instead of achieving what many still regard as a surprising and unexpected victory at the polls. Let’s face it, few people expected Labour to win in 1996. The Nationalist Government of the time was not so unpopular but the fact that Labour had a new leadership team which was highly respected, as well as the Value-Added Tax controversy seem to have turned the tables, resulting in an impressive Labour victory.
The negative side of the 1996 Labour victory lies in the fact that it bred a sense of over-confidence in many Labourites. How many times did I hear people saying “we’ll beat the PN again as we did in 1996”? What many Labourites seemed to have forgotten is the fact that circumstances change and the particular political situation prevailing in all the last three General Elections was quite different from that before the 1996 General Election.
With Labour in Government, problems cropped up. The new Alfred Sant administration inherited a public finances mess and the measures it took to redress this highly undesirable situation proved to be very unpopular with the general public.
Sant also tried to introduce the noble concept of treating all citizens alike, irrespective of political colour. I think that he was a man ahead of his time. In Malta, clientelism is ingrained in the way we go about practising politics. When a particular political party is victorious at a General Election, its activists expect, almost by right, that they should be “rewarded” for their efforts. Several Labour activists were shocked that the new Prime Minister left many Nationalist sympathizers in their top posts which they held under the previous PN Government. Unfortunately, a good number of these pro-PN officials would go on to let Sant down in the twenty-two months of his administration.
Then came the clash with Dom Mintoff. By the summer of 1998, Alfred Sant was already very unpopular with several Labourites because of the clientelism issue mentioned above. “Why are we not taking care of our own people?”, many were asking. When Mintoff rebelled against his own Prime Minister and against his own political party, he found many Labourites, especially the hard-core and the more advanced in age, who quickly rallied to his cause. It was here that Alfred Sant perhaps made some mistakes which were to cost him dear. I believe that he under-estimated how popular Mintoff still was with many Labourites. Indeed, I believe that on that particular day in 1998 when he called Mintoff a “traitor”, he sealed his own political fate.
I am of the opinion that few Labourites really realized the extent of the swing towards the Nationalist Party which was swiftly taking place during the twenty-two months of the Labour administration. The extent of the PN victory in September, 1998 was a surprise to all. Could Alfred Sant have gone on governing without calling a General Election? I have my doubts about this. The situation had degenerated to such an extent that I believe that this was impossible. The Labour Party’s greatest misfortune was that, in the years after, it failed to heal the rift between Alfred Sant and Dom Mintoff, with fatal consequences for its political future for several years to come.
Then came the European Union membership debate which dominated Maltese politics right up to the 2003 General Election. Labour found itself divided over this issue since there were many Labourites who were in favour of EU membership. Perhaps Labour’s cardinal mistake was that it did not realize, until too late, the extent of the support which European Union membership enjoyed with the electorate. The result was another electoral defeat at the General Election of 2003. Should Alfred Sant have resigned as Labour Leader after this defeat? Would Labour have won in 2008 if he had done so? These questions remain open to debate. Personally, I agree that he stayed on and I am doubtful if Labour would have won in 2008 without him.
What really harmed Labour’s chances in the period after the 2003 General Election were the leakages from Labour Headquarters and the regular reports of internal squabbles in the media. The Nationalist Government was very unpopular by 2008 but, then, Labour threw away its chances of electoral victory through a serious of mistakes.
The “reception class” proposal was a colossal blunder, not because the proposal did not have its educational merits but because it provided the Nationalists with an invaluable tool to scare voters by misinforming them on this issue through labelling the “reception class” as a “repeaters’ class”. Let’s be frank, several parents were afraid of this proposed educational change, having been influenced by PN propaganda.
Over-confidence was the last nail in the Labour coffin. Many, including several opinionists like myself, thought that the Nationalist Government was so unpopular that a Labour victory at the polls could be taken for granted. We were mistaken because the PN Government of Dr Lawrence Gonzi made excellent use of its power of incumbency and exploited to the utmost the vulnerability of many Maltese voters to the fruits of clientelism. The result was a narrow victory for the PN and another defeat for Labour.
That Alfred Sant will never be Prime Minister again I’ll regret to the day I die because he was a leader of great calibre and tremendous potential. Let’s hope that his successor, Dr Joseph Muscat, will continue his outstanding performance as Labour Leader and that the Labour Party will avoid the pitfalls it fell into in the past, so that a Labour victory will be assured at the next General Election.
RSS
Comments
But before I do tthat I have to ask my sister first of all if she has supported Il-Perit, then as to why after having seven kids she was contemplating divorce.
@ Demartino
Who dug you out?
With all due respect Laurence, they are wasting your time. The 1960’s events were so base and degrading for the anti Labour side that the PN are now denying their then alliance with Gonzi’s church after they had been the main beneficiaries. As if the PN didn’t enjoy the comforts and special privileges of ‘Taht L-umbrella’ erected and maintained by ‘The Gunta Diocesan’. As if the bell-tolling and stone throwing during MLP public meetings were not instigated and executed by PN strategists and activists.
And the church’s apologists are now saying that they had nothing to do with the disruptions of Meetings while the PN are denying their involvement. What a circus!
Historical facts clearly show that the PN always won power thanks to their alliance with the church and\or the lack of good strategy by the Labour Party to win elections.
Essentially the big majority of the Maltese people regard the PN as arrogant as confirmed recently by members within the same PN Parliamentary group.
The PL, at long last, now has a leader loved and admired by the people. The upcoming MEP elections and the next general election would prove my point and they know it too.
First of all, leaving the 70s and 80s aside, the 60s were tough for more than one reason. In fact I would include the late 50s as well.
Malta was at a cross roads. Still dominated by a Colonialist power for a mere pittance and fresh out of a war, which btw was NOT our war, strictly speaking, As it is today, the political scene was dominated mainly by the same parties of today - the MLP and the NP.
The NP, from time immemorial always preached 'Dominion Status' - a form of Independence, while the MLP started to preach Integration. So far, so good. We had Mintoff, obviously pro-British, a Sir Bishop who mingled well with the Imperial representatives and on the 'other' side we had Nerik Mizzi with the fresh memory of all who were unjustly interned, and his successor Dr. Borg Olivier.
Up to that point, the Church remained silent but when the details started to emerge and the British insistence that upon integration ALL British laws would apply (and why not?), and those laws included divorce and others unacceptable to the Church, it had no option but to intervene.
Continued
Mintoff, being the stubborn person that he was(is), bulldozed on and Archbishop Sir Michael Gonzi chose, quite naturally, opted to defend the Church's position.
The NP had not even started its campaign leading to Independence, and if you do some serious research, you would find that it (NP) was quite apprehensive about the Interdett etc because it could see that it would be automatically labeled as pro-church, therefore anti-Labour, which in Mintoff's days was enough to warrant a beating or worse.Later events proved my point.
With regards to Ellul Mercer and many other cases such as the Sacristy baptisms etc, neither the NP nor I approved, and the recent apology by the present Church officials acknowledges that in retrospect, it was not the smartest thing to do although ultimately, it too turned out to be a blessing.
As for your sister, ' ...being refused absolution after spending 17 years of her life as an active member of the Catholic Action...', puzzles me because as a member of the CA she should have known that at that time, divorce and Church did not mix, so her dispute must have been the result of obstinacy ala Mintoff.
I`m talking about two thirds of our ego-inflated columnists,these are the culprits as to why so much hate is still being strewn about in this country,the gullibles still believe and digest every word that is printed.
OK, I admit the 70`s and the 80`s were bad times, I am not in a position to apologise for what happened in his era, but please do try and remember that the 60`s weren`t rosy days either,
the excomunications, the marrying and baptisms in the sacristy, the burials without blessing, Ellull-Mercer buried in a tip, my sister refused absolution after spending 17 years of her life as an active member of the Catholic Action and brining up seven kids. Why? because her husband voted labour, there`s more, but what`s the use, it`s all part of life and growing up, it is all forgotten, I do not hold anything in my heart against anyone or anybody, I live for today for life is very short.
Was the article in The Independent you refer to published before the MLP billboards accusing the whole cabinet as corrupt?
Was it published before or after the meeting in Birzebbugia?
Was it before or after Dr. Sant posed in front of the Police HQ demanding that the Prime Minister report the JPO case to the Commissioner, only to find out later that Dr. Gonzi beat him to it by several hours?
Come on Laurence, I can go on, but what's the use?
Before the MLP voted for a new leader many, including myself, sincerely wished that the MLP (now LP) would turn around the corner and act like a serious contender. Instead we are being fed the same stuff of yore. The stuff which keeps the LP in Opposition.
I read a piece by Dr. Muscat in the other English paper - yes I suffered through it - and what first came to mind was that he may have written the original himself, but someone else must have done some serious editing.
continued
The style, the tone, are so familiar but remarkably he boasts of being positive "ever since taking over the helm of the Labour Party"! Dr. Muscat may very well have taken the helm of the Labour Party, but surely someone else is steering the boat!
Now to get back to the beginning of your comment that, "... but I`m afraid that you are not well informed on how hurtful politics can be in this country" - oh yes I do! So much so that the hurts of decades ago are still imprinted in my mind and never for one day did my absence from my country of birth, prevent me from following closely what goes on each day. I am a frequent visitor so I can see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears - from both sides and I am old enough and hopefully wise enough to distinguish between utopia and hell.
My estimation is that the truth lies somewhere in between, which by any standard, is way better than what other much larger countries are experiencing these days.
In politics one can never please everybody, but for goodness sakes let's be realistic!
Sorry to barge in again, but I`m afraid that you are not well informed on how hurtful politics can be in this country, I`m not talking about the politicians as a group (on both sides).
It started in 1996, when Lou Bondi came out with his caricature of the man (to belittle him) with a headline reading "Can you trust this Man" In an election campaign maybe this was passable.
NET TV has got a lot to answer for. The demonising of Alfred Sant came mostly from columnists. His whole case on his legal separation was splashed all over this very paper, it was so venomous that the columnist was barred ever to write on this paper again.
The Malta Independent saw fit a few weeks prior to the last election to allow a personal attack on Alfred Sant by the same columnist, it was so petty to me (but maybe not to the man) ridiculing him for wearing a wig, amongst other names that this person managed to cramp in a full page oozing of hatred. And the dignity of this man showed when not a word to condemn or otherwise was uttered in response.
Are you serious man ??? Maltese of good will??? Do you know anything about the way some of these ''Maltese of good will'' have been treathening the Maltese having Blue DNA prior to the last election when they thought it was a sure win for MLP. ''Progressive Politics''.......??????? since when ???? We can't even talk about the wolf shedding his fur as all we see is familiar 20 year plus old faces. ''Moderate Politics'' ??? Thats really funny!!!!! hehehehe u leeeee!!!!!!!
There is hardly a person who demonizes Dr. Alfred Sant (the person). He is no doubt a decent person, author, well educated and affable. But that's the private side of him and there he gets full marks.
But when the private person goes public he exposes himself to unrelenting criticism, not of his persona but his policies which are concocted by the party whose responsibility ultimately weighs on his shoulders. Furthermore when he himself chooses to personally attack his opponent, then it is hard to separate the private person from the politician.
Remember the meeting in Birzebbugia? Can you not read the reference to Dr. Gonzi by most Labour supporters as gonzipn? We happen to be talking about Dr. Sant - how about Dr. Muscat, addressing the Prime Minister as Laurence in spite of the fact that Dr. Gonzi kept addressing him as Dr. Muscat?
This is an indication that the party itself has fashioned a systematic campaign solely aimed at debasing Dr. Gonzi and the LP leader should take responsibility of such childish behaviour and correct it. He will never earn the respect of those he so keenly pursues.
Continued
I do not know how you can justify your statement that Dr. Sant, 'treated everyone alike, irrespective of political colour' unless you are referring to when he introduced taxes across the board affecting everybody alike during his brief stint as Prime Minister. Again, we are talking about the then Prime Minister - the politician by choice.
How did the Nationalists destroy Dr. Sant's political career? By not rolling the red carpet to Castille, without debate, without contesting, without pointing out the glaring errors and deception in his party's electoral programme?
Dr. Sant destroyed his own political career when he played to the gallery in JPO's case, posing in front of the Police HQ, when he ran away from the PBS programme rather than answering a couple of questions from whom he tried to destroy a few days prior to the election.
There are a few things everyone should thank Dr. Sant for and not the least was his success at controlling the thugs who destroyed the Labour Party and I pray that Dr. Muscat will continue to emulate his predecessor.
In a few years time, historians will have a scant 22 months on which to judge his performance.
No need for an apology, this like a game of chess,you make your move and I counter,or vice-versa. At the said time he was not charing the entrants committee.
@ C. Ripard.
Sorry I couldn`t make head or tails of what you are on about. Alfred Sant did not lie, he said he will abolish VAT and he did, I personally didn`t agree with him, but he didn`t lie.
Your memory serves you well. Dr Afred Sant was not actually on the board that deprived Eddie Fenech Adami's son access to a University carreer but he was very intimately involved in the set up that deprived many students of merit from pursuing their studies at the decimated University of Malta. I did not even bother to try to have my own daughter apply because of the obstacles put in her way and she had to proceed with her studies abroad at great expense and almost unsurmountable difficulties to transfer the necessary funds to her because of the stringent foreign exchange regulations then in force.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority got shot of Dr Sant at the first opportunity, having realised that VAT removal was a chimera, a mirage - a political lie. That Mintoff was onside was also clearly a political lie. As for Dr Fenech Adami - and I certainly do not condone him - he told a lie too. But if YOU want to be honest, it was hardly the cornerstone of PN policy! (Remember who educated him). A personal foible at worst.
Despite his many political failings, I have no problem praising Dr Sant as a person. I did not know him personally but he is a cultured, affable intellectual by all accounts. I wish him well, just as I wish all persons of goodwill well.
Don't confuse petty personal issues with national politics. Or is that what drives you?
[SIC]
Would Labour have won in 2008 if he had done so? These questions remain open to debate. Personally, I agree that he stayed on and I am doubtful if Labour would have won in 2008 without him.
Reply: That is why Labour is still in opposition. People like you still think it was a mistake Alfred Sant stayed in PL leadership back then
[SIC]
That Alfred Sant will never be Prime Minister again I’ll regret to the day I die because he was a leader of great calibre and tremendous potential.
[Reply] That is why Labour is still in opposition. People like you still think Alfred Sant was the solution.
Are you part of the 'Generazzjoni Rebbieha' DZM? Hope not cos otherwise that means the generazzjoni is just the same recycle bunch of old labourites. Ready for another loss then?
If you want to spar ok. So I will be right to say that the 1989 election was won by the big lie uttured on TV by Fenech Adami on the eve of the election, with no time for Alfred Sant to give an answer. Although vindicated in court, a lie is a lie, that is one thing that Alfred Sant will never be accused of. Honesty where is due.
"...the Labour Party appeals to all Maltese of goodwill, is open to everyone and has progressive and moderate policies"
Does this mean that all Labour supporters are of good will and Nationalists are of ill will?
"...progressive and moderate policies..." - like No Pairing - No way?!
Hallina DZM!
I am all in favour of the alternation of power as befits any true democracy. What is objectionable is change for its own sake without a suitable alternative being provided first . There is not much prospect of that up to now. Take note of the list of Labour worthies mentioned by you and who were unceremoniously discarded by the LP and compare them with some relics from the MLP's violent past who are being elevated to top positions in their stead.
Like all edifices built on sand - a little bad weather and it crumbled.
The Proportional Representation System, when invented, worked on seat majority not on vote majority and the amendments created a hybrid of two systems that have different aims.
As the amended Article 52(1) stands today the system may still automatically transform itself into a ‘Seat Majority’ system if a government-side-member decides to cross the floor.
If, for argument’s sake, one PN MP sides with the PL the President would call Joseph Muscat to form a new government and all the previous amendments would go overboard to give us back a seat majority system.
This is what could happen today or tomorrow and if it does, will we amend the constitution again?
In true democracies, people vote for the individual member not for their party, in Malta today only the MPs can make that happen.
Although you gave the correct facts about the 1996 election results, a person who is not familiar with our STV system could conclude that Labour got 4 additional seats for 6,000 extra vote’s full stop.
Article 52(1) as amended, provided for one seat more than that party which won the majority of seats but failed to garner 50% + 1 vote to the party which won more than 50% votes irrespective of the quantum. That amendment failed to give an equitable answer to a proportional representation as the opposition still managed to get more seats for its votes to the detriment of the other party. And the last election gave an extra seat to the PN for only 1500 votes more than the PL.
In my opinion, in 1981 Labour should never have governed.
@Dr Francis Saliba
Labour paid a very dear price for their past mistakes and for what happened in 1998. We've seen valid individuals (Alfred Sant, Lino Spiteri, George Abela) leaving politics for good when they could have contributed a lot to our nation. It's time to move on, though, as the Nationalist Party cannot continue to govern forever.
Not only is the MLP past record atrocious but it has never been condemned categorically, except for some oblique and vague reference to the possibility that the MLP may have made some mistakes. Prominent MLP leaders intimately connected with that cruel and violent past are gaining prominence again in Joseph Muscat's LP.
The MLP had a one seat majority because of the gerrymandering of districts. With 6,000 votes you should have at least 2/3 seats more than the opposition.
The MLP in 1996 obtained 50%+1 of the total votes and was allocated 4 additional parliamentary seats in virtue of Article 52(1) of the Constitution of Malta.
Check the facts.
1500 or 6000 MLP still had a one seat majority hence its sudden demise when 'savior or traitor' Mintoff withdrew his support and voted against his own party in government.
The fact is 'no regrets' Dr. Sant continues to be his old pathetic self still trying to attribute faults to the government in a futile effort to cover his 'regrets'.
Il-Partit tal-Le still has elements which excel in negativity and is not the least interested in anything else except to regain power which it frittered away in 1998 due to the stubbornness of its leader.
'Several Labour activists were shocked that the new Prime Minister left many Nationalist sympathizers in their top posts which they held under the previous PN Government.'
I have heard this statement often enough and it would be interesting know which top posts were retained by Nationalist sympatisers (i am getting old and my memory is not what it was)
You call the 1996 Labour victory a "slim margin"? A 6,000+ vote majority, after losing by 12,000 votes in 1992 is no mean feat for a political party. A "slim majority" is the 1,580 relative majority of the present government. In 1998, Labour lost the elections because its government was hijacked by Dom Mintoff, who didn't want another leader to be as successful as him - Labour went into political oblivion since then, in part thanks to him. There wouldn't have been a general election if such events did not occur. A government which collapses, usually is not elected again, take as an example the centre-left coalition of Prodi in Italy.