A race is a race is a race.
Whether it be a school race on Sports Day at the end of the year or whether it is a race for a post in any organization, it is still, nevertheless, a race.
One will win and all the others will lose.
It is only in inconsequential races that competitive spirit is tepid and contestants say with de Coubertin that taking part is more important than winning.
In all other races, the spirit of competition enhances the competitive spirit and this differentiates between the candidates, especially when the choice is done by the people, the members.
Handled badly, a race may be divisive and leave lasting effects.
It would seem the present race for the post of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party is very consciously avoiding these pitfalls. Yesterday’s strange TV appearance, compered by the party leader himself, gave every impression of stage-managed affair with the accent being this is an issue between three friends who will remain friends whoever wins. It was almost as if telling the party delegates it did not matter, after all, who won, and who they voted for. They might as well have stuck a pin on the ballot paper with eyes closed.
On the contrary, however, as we all know, the contest is between real people with their very own personal take on the way forward for the party. We cannot say the contest is between different sides of the party, such as the Right vs the Left. Such nomenclatures have long become obsolete in the party. Nor can we distinguish them as being part of the Core as against being part of the Moviment, that is the new section added by Joseph Muscat before the last election and made up of dissatisfied PN voters and people not normally committed to one or other party. The three candidates are all uniformly, as much as we can see, Core members.
This should make it easier for the delegates, but in fact it makes the choice harder. On another level, the choice can become one between different circles of friends or of delegates, and friends of friends. It can also become a race between the different areas of Malta (except of course there is no candidate from Gozo).
The three candidates have striven so much to eliminate any difference between them they have almost become clones of each other.
However, who is chosen by the party delegates matters, if for nothing what happens to the post he leaves behind. In other words, will there be another Cabinet reshuffle if the winner is one of the two Cabinet ministers? Or will the two who will not win return to their posts as if nothing has happened?
One must remember this contest has been caused by the resignation of Minister Konrad Mizzi who had been almost unanimously voted for the post despite, or rather in spite of, the allegations which surfaced on the same day of the contest.
One must also remember that this contest was caused by the allegations contained in the Panama Papers which said Konrad Mizzi is the only minister from any EU member state to have been found with a mention in the Panama Papers.
Whatever the Labour Party says in its statements (and whatever the party members say in their hearts) the fact this contest is being held at all is one result of the Panama Papers.