From Mr A. A. Farrugia

It remains to be seen whether history will repeat itself on Thursday week, and whether the Labour delegates will commit the same error and select the wrong person for the party leadership.

In 1992, the delegates, who should have known better, deprived Lino Spiteri of the Labour leadership. In retrospect, it is clear that Lino Spiteri had better judgement than the elected leader on the main political issues concerning Malta, including Value Added Tax and European Union membership.

Three weeks ago (Monday 12 May) in the House of Representatives, Dr Alfred Sant accused the government that it was living a lie, because it only had a relative majority. It appears that it was the Labour Party under Dr Sant’s leadership between 1992 and 1996 that was living a lie, not to mention the earlier period of 1981-1987 under a former leader. In 1996 the Labour Party won the general election with a clear majority because it promoted an image of a party led by a team of three valid political leaders.

This image was shattered soon after the election of 1996, when it became clear that it was easy to use stunts and gimmicks from the Opposition benches to impress the electorate, but it was not so easy to govern once elected. Equally seriously, it became evident that under Dr Sant, deputy leaders were there as a stepping-stone to the office in Castille. Their advice and suggestions were no longer needed when in office, and could be ignored!

Moving to 2008, we have just seen that practically all the election campaign slogans of the Labour Party applied perfectly to itself. The need for change and a new beginning could not have been prophesied more accurately! What Malta needed was to continue to build on the progress that had been achieved so far.

On the contrary, the Labour Party really needs change and a new beginning. If the predictions or projections are correct, this is not likely to happen any time soon. Another intelligent young contestant seems to have found favour with the party machine that seems bent on making every effort not to change.

Ironically, the Labour Party, which that had conceived the idea of a Foreign Interference Act in 1982 (Act XI, as amended by Act I of 1987, Chapter 300), had found it expedient to invite the president of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament to endorse one of the Labour candidates for leadership. It is surprising that given Martin Schultz’ confidence in Joseph Muscat, he has not recommended the latter for the vacant post of Deputy Secretary General of the Party of European Socialists, which closes on 12 June.

I have no doubt that with further maturity and experience Dr Joseph Muscat would make a good Labour leader in the future, but I believe that at present the Labour Party needs a leader of the calibre of Dr George Abela.

A number of Labour delegates cannot understand why so called floating voters and moderate Nationalist supporters seem to have a preference for Dr Abela. Unlike Dr Sant’s suspicious mind, there is no hidden agenda for such a preference. There is a very simple explanation.

If floating voters and moderate Nationalist supporters were to be given the opportunity of a choice, they would like to see a potential Labour Prime Minister they could eventually live with. Although they are fully aware of his different ideological beliefs, they have seen Dr Abela fight for the common worker with a fair sense of justice.

Among the other contestants for the Labour Party leadership, Dr Abela is one of the few, if not the only one, who has not succumbed to opportunism, and is the one who has consistently given evidence of a correct sense of judgement.

While Nationalist supporters would obviously prefer to have a Nationalist Prime Minister, if developments are such that the Labour Party wins an election, they would rather have a Prime Minister that is fair and objective. They are reluctant to see a carbon copy of the last Labour leadership where process was given more importance than substance.

Dr Sant has an interest in continuity and the status quo. He evidently does not wish to see a Labour leader who could prove that politics in Malta could be conducted successfully and in a different way than the way he conducted Labour’s business.

The Labour delegates need to decide whether they wish to thank Dr Sant for his services, which did not produce the desired results most of the time, and let him go, and move in a different direction; or to continue to have more of the same under Dr Muscat.

Dr Abela promises a period of fresh air to the Labour Party. If given the opportunity, he is likely to steer the party in the same direction that Lino Spiteri might have led the party in 1992 or 1996.

There is no doubt that all the Labour contestants mean well. The question is who is likely to deliver the best result to the party and to Malta. In these little islands there is no room for experiments. Whoever leads any one of the main political parties needs to have a sound judgement and a clear vision of the next development stages for this country. More importantly he needs to have the capacity of turning into practice the well being of the whole population without unnecessary political bias or divisions.

Malta does not have the luxury of larger countries, where one could take care of himself or herself, in spite of the policies of the political leaders. Wrong decisions taken at the top have quick and direct consequences at grass roots level, among families and individuals. Labour delegates have a huge responsibility to make the right selection for their party and for Malta.

Alfred A. Farrugia

CHEVY CHASE

USA