Next Thursday’s contest to select the new leader of the Labour Party is no fashion show, no Eurovision song contest, nor any gladiatorial fight-to-the-finish.
So much of the hype surrounding this contest has become a sorry farce, what with a media out to create stories about feuds, cliques, including, unfortunately, the media of the Nationalist Party, which should be doing something else, and with the country and the party base driven to interpret every grimace, every inflection as denoting blood-letting galore at The Glass House.
To this the candidates themselves have contributed in no mean manner, or at least some of them have with their rather trigger-happy approach to the campaign. There have also been inspired or less inspired leaks to the press, though so far not at 1992 levels.
As a result, while the country watched, bemused, and as the delegates got more and more anxious and angry, all the issues were clouded over.
The party itself then contributed to the hara-kiri atmosphere by pushing transparency to the point of madness – commissioning what must undoubtedly be the worst inside report of a defeat ever to be made public. All this had the country shaking its head and the Nationalists smirking and guffawing.
On our part, we fault the candidates more than anyone else. For apart from smiling, running here and there, and repeating Vote for me! Vote for me! they never talked politics, they never suggested initiatives, they seemed completely afraid of announcing any real policy initiatives, perhaps out of fear that such an initiative would have alienated some potential voters. It is precisely this that is most disturbing and worrying: for a real leader would not be afraid of coming out with a policy initiative and those who are afraid to do so are those who do not possess leadership material.
Many times, the name of Tony Blair has been mentioned in the context of the present contest. But surely it is apposite to remind one and all that the first thing Mr Blair did in his first speech to the Labour conference was to announce the party had to do away with Clause 4 (commitment to nationalisation) and thus provide the clearest signal that this was New Labour, not Old Labour any longer.
It says much about the state of politics in Malta, and inside Labour itself, that many still think in terms of soundbites and wall-to-wall coverage by One News as substitutes for real policy initiatives. Many, including some candidates, still see politics in terms of power rather than through policy initiatives in which the fate of the citizens could be improved.
For better or for worse the contest has been turned into a contest between who’s in and who’s out, with the delegates already showing clear signs that they favour the who’s in candidates. This then translates into speaking to those who are in, for it’s easier this way. And this will once again condemn the party to speak to those who are in – the same mistake it committed in 2003 and 2008.
Actually, and the report rightly mentions this, there was a part of the party’s grass roots that no Bidu Gdid or ballet girls on the billboards could persuade them to go out and vote. So for all the posturing about speaking to the middle ground and bringing in new votes, there is still much hard work even to as much as getting the party’s entire base to agree with the party.
The catch of course is that this is going to be one decision where there should have been several. With just one vote, the delegates will not just be choosing the new leader but also providing their justifiable reaction to exact justice for the faults, defects, can one mention the unmentionable word, sabotage, the crass shallowness, the presumption and pride that victory was assured, and the sheer lack of hard work that characterized the defective campaign. The two issues should have been separated, but the fear now is that those who were the real culprits are hiding behind the candidacies and everything is getting clouded over thus ensuring that justice is not carried out.
Regardless of what happens on Thursday, the party has come out of this badly mauled, exposed for what it is, and with no real centre, no figure of ‘super partes’ authority which could and should bring the candidates together even at the cost of breaking a few heads. By siding and abetting this or that candidate, the party’s figures of authority became partisans and shed their limited authority.
Whoever is elected on Thursday, or Friday, must work hard, very, very hard. It will not be easy to get the party round the new leader, to break down the walls that have been erected, to inspire trust and courage, and to learn how to use all available resources. This does not include the far harder work to make the party electable. Actually, as many have found to their cost, the easier thing is to become leader. The hard work begins later.