Momentum's post-election review has concluded that the party remains too heavily dependent on its founder and leader Arnold Cassola, while also identifying weaknesses in its candidates, campaign strategy and public image.
The eight-page report was drawn up following a "vision circle" discussion held on June 27 to assess Momentum's performance in the May 30 general election and consider the party's future direction.
One of the report's main concerns is the extent to which Momentum's identity remains tied to Cassola. The party acknowledges that its public image is so closely associated with its founder that voters continue to ask: "Without Arnold, what does Momentum represent?"
The review says Momentum needs to develop a stronger organisation and broaden its representation if it is to move beyond its dependence on a single prominent figure.
It also highlights the limited pool of candidates available to the party and acknowledges that Momentum fielded no women candidates in the general election.
The report says candidate preparation was not sufficient, with vetting, district preparation and crisis-management training all identified as areas requiring improvement. This, it says, left candidates vulnerable during televised debates.
Momentum fielded seven candidates in the election and obtained 4,700 first-count votes, slightly more than the 3,996 votes secured by ADPD. The result represented around 1.5% of the vote but was not enough for the party to elect a member of parliament.
The review also questions aspects of Momentum's manifesto and campaign strategy. It says the manifesto included commitments that a third-party MP would not realistically have been able to deliver, while some policy positions risked alienating more conservative voters.
The campaign itself was described as relying too heavily on negative attacks, while lacking a sufficient physical presence on the ground. The party also found itself operating within social media "echo chambers", reaching mainly people who already supported or agreed with its positions.
Another difficulty identified by the review is Momentum's struggle to move away from its image as a protest movement or NGO rather than a party capable of governing.
Some participants in the review argued that the image contributes to the party's credibility and trustworthiness. Others, however, said it undermines voters' confidence in Momentum as a potential governing force.
The report also points to structural and cultural obstacles faced by smaller parties, including Malta's political tribalism and clientelism, an electoral system that disadvantages parties whose votes are spread thinly across several districts, and concerns among professionals about potential repercussions from openly associating themselves with Momentum.
The "wasted vote" argument was also identified as a continuing obstacle to attracting support for third parties.
In response, the report recommends that Momentum place greater emphasis on local council elections as a means of establishing a stronger political presence and building support from the ground up.
For national elections, it suggests that the party should reconsider its strategy of contesting all 13 districts and instead concentrate resources on strong candidates in a smaller number of target districts where it believes it has a realistic chance of making electoral gains.
The party is also being urged to explore alliances or pre-election agreements with other like-minded third parties, specifically mentioning ADPD as a potential partner.
The review recommends that Momentum continue challenging the electoral thresholds and gender-corrective mechanism in court, arguing that these mechanisms favour Malta's two established political parties.
Another potential source of support identified by the report is foreign residents who are eligible to vote in local council elections. It describes this as an audience that has largely been neglected by the major parties and estimates that foreign residents account for around a third of Malta's population.