I do not envy individuals commissioned by political parties to analyse electoral defeats. Theirs is often a thankless job, sleepless weeks, walking on eggshells as they sift e-mails and conduct interviews.

The exercise will entail finger-pointing as, indeed, victory has a thousand parents but defeat remains an orphan.

Such reports are always criticised that they are not adequately incisive or dismissed as ‘adding nothing we did not know already’. While the authors of the reports may lack the perspective and detachment of historians, in the short run their conclusions facilitate intra-party reflection and change. They also spur wounded egos to move on and shaken structures to restore.

An analysis of successive defeat reports will reveal some common findings.

Voters want open debates. They stop supporting parties that fail to turn dissenting ideas into opportunities for corrective measures. Party members do not want disagreement to degenerate into destructive rebellion.

Voters react to politicians who insulate themselves in ivory towers to engage in group-think. There, criticism is not welcome, civil society activists are deemed to be idiosyncratic individuals, failures are dismissed as mere ‘perceptions’, all political others are enemies.

Constituents want two-way communication; door-stepping remains vital. They do not like rumours that parliamentarians, especially backbenchers, are sidelined; that parliamentary groups do not convene regularly and of poor synergy among Cabinet and shadow Cabinet members.

Defeat reports tend to quickly fade from the public limelight

Voters expect good governance even when they expect to be served in the face of massive bureaucratic hurdles, shortages like waiting lists for hospitals and old people’s homes and redressto injustices.

They punish lack of transparency as in the cases of Delimara II, the ministers’ honorarium and serious corruption allegations like that of oil procurement.

While a sense of leadership is expected, voters will not want politicians to bulldoze their proposals while ignoring public anxieties, as in the cases of ARMS Ltd, Mepa and Arriva.

Negative political campaigning does not work on the eve of elections. Then voters want to learn how parties are proposing to improve their lives and assess parties’ potential to deliver.

Media communication will only help if used wisely. Turning public broadcasting into a government PR machine is likely to backfire. The frequent use of ‘no comment’ or efforts to stop the press asking inconvenient questions will have adverse effects. Blatant party propaganda is not money well spent.

While party members know that party-owned media are useful tools to ensure pluralism, there is also awareness that these should not erode party finances. ‘New media’ and blogging positively extended debates beyond party propaganda but the Nationalist Party report underlined the negative backlash against personal attacks in specific blogs.

The lessons that can be learnt from defeat reports are endless. While the 2008 Labour report was crucial, because it had followed numerous slim electoral beatings, the latest one by the PN took place within the context of the most crushing result for this party since Independence.

This report was published after all key appointments were decided and this significantly limits its impact. In its critical assessment, the 2013 commission selectively names individuals who are no longer in the PN picture. It was not a surprise that Simon Busuttil was not probed.

Moreover, it boldly celebrates the role of Lawrence Gonzi as a “statista” who turned Malta into “one of the nicest places in the world to live in”. Although it is useless crying over spilt milk, the report hardly delves into his responsibility in holding on to power in spite of a year-long political crisis and a Budget defeat in Parliament or his subsequent decision to opt for the longest electoral campaign in Maltese history.

There are points in this report which, I hope, the PN is not tempted to follow.

First, there is a statement that Labour supporters undermined the previous Administration.

This implies that unless you are a supporter, you are likely to sabotage government policy, an insult to hard-working and loyal public service employees and many professionals.

The report hints that the PN lost votes because of illegal immigration. While parties cannot afford to ignore public sentiment, it would be a real shame if the Opposition regresses into xenophobia. It should not underestimate the Labour Party’s proposal for inter-communitarian representation.

There is a sexist implication that, in local elections, Labour fielded “attractive females” as a vote-catching tactic. In a country that struggles to increase female participation in politics, the last thing we need is the reinforcement of old stereotypes.

The report blames “anti-Catholic culture” for Gonzi’s conservative image. Secularisation processes should not be equated with ‘anti-religion’ when we are struggling to find the correct model to follow in this regard.

Defeat reports tend to quickly fade from the public limelight as political parties pick up the pieces to reassert their position. However, their useful recommendations should not be shelved and controversial points should trigger healthy debates in this much-needed soul-searching exercise.

Carmen Sammut is a senior lecturer at the University of Malta and formed part of the Labour Party 2008 defeat report commission.