I well remember the successful strategy adopted by Labour during the first term of Alfred Sant as leader of the opposition between 1992 and 1996. It was a strategy of non-confrontation to the execution of government’s policy. Instead, it focused all scarce resources on building incrementally alternative policies which would, in the fullness of time and come the next election, persuade the majority to back a New Labour government.
This strategy had two advantages. Firstly, it allowed the government to carry on with its work, making many mistakes in the process – such as introducing VAT in the year before the election rather than in the year following the election – without having anyone else to blame for its failings. Secondly, it gave the PN government a false sense of security and over-confidence thinking it had a weak opposition that could be taken for granted.
Little did government then realise that the non-confrontational style of Labour’s opposition in 1992-1996 was allowing it to build its internal structures (the new headquarters, electoral research and capillary planning to get out the vote on a street by street basis) which, together with its fresh look and no-nonsense policies, offered a better alternative to a fatigued government which had executed the two full terms normally accorded by the electorate before desiring a change at the helm of the country.
It worked. Labour’s 1996 election victory went beyond our wildest dreams and the PN’s worst nightmares. The problem is that Labour has forgotten the message. Rather than building on the successful strategy of 1992- 1996, Labour is somehow gripped by the failed policy of negativism it adopted between 1998 and 2003.
This is hard to understand or explain. Take the Sea Malta affair as an example. Criticising the government for the lack of transparency in the privatisation process and for not getting the best value for a national asset is certainly an obligation of the opposition which, if done properly and effectively, will be appreciated by the public at large.
Nobody gives government much credit for its knack of sooting rather than burnishing its own assets in the process of privatisation. This has happened again in the Sea Malta process, when the minister responsible publicly stated that he did not agree that the market value of a vessel could go up rather than down, thinking that a commercial vessel is like a private car the value of which depreciates every year.
The business world teaches that the market value of most assets used to generate revenue largely depends on the magnitude of revenue they can generate and that it is quite normal for ship values to increase if freight rates go up, due to shortage of shipping capacity caused by increasing international trade.
However, saying that, when and if re-elected, a Labour government would create another Sea Malta does precious little to gain the confidence of that sector of the electorate that is tired of the PN but is not persuaded that Labour can offer better.
The world is moving towards leaner and meaner governments whose primary role is to ensure proper regulation for the conduct of fair and competitive business and whose prime function is the creation of a fiscal, regulatory and economic environment that stimulates and attracts private productive investments. The creation by government of new enterprises to compete as an operator with private businesses does not sit well in the globalisation model we have no option but to embrace. Taxpayers unavoidably interpret such policies as an attempt to protect inefficient work practices that can only survive at the taxpayers’ expense.
In this case its “privileged” GWU partner is not helping Labour’s tarnished image. Admittedly, the GWU has been caught between a rock and a hard place when the sea-going employees, enjoying the benefits of uncompetitive work practices that the new owners want to eject, would not change their non-consent, in spite of the overall majority of employees being in favour of the new arrangements. In such a case, when it is impossible to find a compromise that pleases everybody, it is obvious that the will of the majority has to prevail.
In trying to find an impossible compromise to satisfy all sides the GWU finished pleasing no one and played into the hands of the new owners, who are now getting a carte blanche to start a new operation by picking and choosing employees on their set terms rather than taking on the whole Sea Malta operation as a going concern and respecting the seniority benefits of employees.
In all this there is one sure winner – the PN government. The avoidable confrontation on the subject of Sea Malta has buried the public perception of the hefty increases in utility rates, which have disappeared from the headlines in less than a week despite their harsh effects on consumers. When Labour announced analogous utility increases in November 1997 the PN and its friendly media kept the issue alive right up to the election of September 1998 depicting the Labour government as cruel and without a social conscience. What a difference in media management!
An awful budget for 2006 that fails to deliver what is most needed – economic growth – passes almost as a non-event and without any damage to the popularity of the government or the PM himself which, according to recent surveys published in the media, are still superior to both MLP and the leader of the opposition respectively. The Sea Malta affair has provided the government with a unique opportunity to divert attention from issues that could damage it, and to depict Labour and the GWU as the best reason to stick to the PN, warts and all.
Labour should not forget the successful policies of 1992-1996 rather than cling to the policies of failure of 1998-2003.
The price of forgetting would be prohibitive, not only for Labour but also for Malta – which desperately needs a credible alternative to a fatigued PN government.
www.alfredmifsud.com