It has now become the custom for Malta Labour Party leader Alfred Sant to give his ratings on “promises fulfilled” by the various local councils again due to face their electorate.
As local elections draw nearer, Dr Sant visits localities whose residents will be going to the polls, giving marks like examiners do to students.
Dr Sant has been amply criticised for the practice and yet continues to dish out his ratings or percentages in what is seen by many as a simplistic way of gauging the work carried out by the different councils. What local councils do or do not do goes beyond the marks given by Dr Sant.
What stands out in all this is that those councils which have a Labour majority and which are therefore led by a Labour mayor, somehow always do much better, for Dr Sant, than those councils which are led by a Nationalist majority, and therefore have a Nationalist mayor. Labour councils get marks close to 100 while those led by the Nationalists always get marks closer to 50.
The Labour Party has still to explain how these percentages are worked out, and on what grounds these so-called points are given. Dr Sant defends the practice by repeatedly arguing that Labour-led councils are able to perform better simply because they only promise what they can achieve, whereas Nationalist-led councils promise much more but then do not manage to deliver much.
There can be an angle to that argument which Dr Sant might not acknowledge. Perhaps Labour-led councils promise only what they can achieve because their idea of achievement is weak, perhaps they are unimaginative, unambitious, and lack drive. And, on the other hand, the Nationalists promise heaven on earth believing they can achieve it, only to come up against that insurmountable hurdle of the human factor: pleasing a body of residents will likely displease another equally strong body of other residents, and so not much can be done.
Writing in this newspaper last week, Nationalist MP Robert Arrigo pointed out that if a PN-led council promises 10 projects and manages five, it is technically doing more than a Labour-led council that promises four projects and does three, although in terms of percentages a Labour-led council would get a higher rating. As Mr Arrigo said, “scoring good points does not mean delivery”.
And so the tit-for-tat continues, and it is likely to go on until the votes are cast. It is, of course, natural for the Nationalists to speak about the progress that has been achieved in localities led by a PN mayor, while pointing out the deficiencies in the Labour-led councils, and for Labour to do the opposite.
But Dr Sant’s percentages, while being well-received by the Labour media and the staunch Labour followers, do little to attract the neutral voters, those who shift from one party to another, more so in local polls when the stakes are not as high as in a general election.
This is because it is quite strange that, for Dr Sant, only Labour-led councils get 80-plus marks, sometimes even 90-plus marks, whereas the Nationalist-led local councils barely get a pass-mark, and some fail too. Can it really be that only councils where there is a Labour mayor achieve so much, whereas all the Nationalist-led councils fail miserably?
It does sound strange, doesn’t it?
Dr Sant’s practice would gain credibility if one, just one, Nationalist-led council, “obtains” an 80-plus mark, while a Labour-led council just makes it. But no, for Dr Sant only Labour-led councils do well.
Yes, it is true that some local councils have worked more than others. It is true that a few of them have excelled and transformed their locality, while others have not managed to do much. It is true that some mayors and some councillors have been there for too long and that changes are necessary.
Yet, at the same time, it must be said that there have been “successes” and “failures” – to use Dr Sant’s system – at both ends of the political
spectrum.
Dr Sant has every right to promote Labour-led councils, believing that they have worked the hardest and deserve the residents’ support. But his practice of giving percentages does little to aid his cause.