Missing the bus usually means a delay of a few minutes. But deliberately forcing others to miss Xarabank (bus in Maltese and the title of a weekly TV chat show) means much more. Such a decision by the electoral commission of the Malta Labour Party betrays a mentality that does not tally at all with the attitude of openness to the media expected today of any political party. It reflects an attitude more consonant with countries where democracy is a scarce commodity than with a country or party where democracy should be alive and vibrant.
The electoral commission's decision is tantamount to censorship especially when seen in the light of the commission's media-hostile attitude. It had at first ordered the leadership contestants to refrain from giving interviews. This appalling decision was resisted and the commission was forced to eat humble pie. More recently, it directed the newsroom of One TV to censor the presence and comments of Martin Shultz, head of the Socialist Parliamentary Group at the European Parliament, during a joint press conference held with Joe Muscat.
The cherry on the cake is the decision concerning Xarabank. The commission said that the contestants should not be allowed to take part in a debate with each other. The Nationalist Party had made the same restriction on the candidates running for leadership after the resignation of Eddie Fenech Adami. A compromise was reached and there was a debate between representatives of the candidates. It seems that this was not acceptable to the MLP and Xarabank offered to have one-on-one interviews with the candidates instead of a debate. The commission then insisted such interviews should not be held during a live audience. They should be recorded and the commission would view the programme and have the right to censor what the candidates said.
What a shameful and undemocratic attitude! The attitude of the commission shows a lot of distrust in the contestants and party followers. Does the commission believe they are not up to holding a civil debate between them? What is really worrying the commission? Does the commission have such a dim view of the contestants that it thinks they cannot face a group of people?
The candidates will, in a few years' time, face the electorate and ask for its trust and vote so that they lead the country. Are we to understand that those who want to lead the country are not mature enough for public debate? One would like to think that all the contestants would have handled the occasion well and that the contrast created would have helped the delegates to make the right choice.
The Labour Party is in a very painful but important moment in its history. It wants to show the country that it has learned its lessons from the recent defeat and that it is ready to change and face the future. So long as the Labour Party keeps on giving positions of trust to persons such as those sitting on the electoral commission it will be sending the message that it is not the party of change but stagnation, not the party of dialogue but diktat. The electoral commission's decisions have done untold damage to the new image that the Labour Party wants and needs to project.