Back to Mintoffian glory

Labour's old guard keeps smothering Joseph Muscat's initial promise

Michael Falzon 17 June 2010, 12:00am

4 min read

A letter published in last Wednesday’s printed edition of MaltaToday drew my particular attention because its message coincides with what is being thought and discussed at the grassroots level of the Labour Party. In his letter to Maltatoday, Joe M. Cachia nostalgically criticises the decision to change the Labour emblem and accuses the PN of ‘forfeiting our young, independent Republic and the governance of our country to the foreigner’ – a reference that can only mean an anti-EU stance, even though the EU is not mentioned by name.

He also stresses that Labour ‘should not divert to an emphasis on managerialism and efficiency, rather than on values and principles.’ The reference to managerialism (if such a word exists) and efficiency is obvious. Cachia is saying that the earthquake promised by Joseph Muscat should never happen and that the party should stick to its old stances. He even repeats this goal as one of three ‘specific stimulating points’ to be considered by the party, that he still calls the Malta Labour Party in spite of the name change introduced since Muscat became Labour leader.

These ideas are not just some ranting of an old Labour veteran. These ideas are being discussed by Labour at grassroots level. The old guard are arguing that Labour should stop portraying itself as a new modern and different party with values that can possibly attract people that normally vote Nationalist – a movement of progressives and moderates. The party grassroots seem to be attracted to this idea and are rooting for it. They say that Alfred Sant tried it and failed – so Labour must return to its old way of doing things in order to stand a chance to win.

This is, of course, hogwash. Alfred Sant tried it and won in 1996. It was only his ineptitude and short-sighted way of doing things after he assumed power that led many to keep refusing to vote for Labour with him as leader.

It is no coincidence that in the last few days Labour celebrated the anniversary of its June 1971 election victory in all of its clubs, even though no publicity was given to these celebrations. For the old guard, that victory opened the way to a glorious 16 years of socialism, an era when discrimination and favouritism were exactly the tonic that Labour supporters wanted. They believed – and still do – that they are the underprivileged and hence justice demands that they have a right for positive discrimination! They believe that when their party assumes power they will again be given unjustified promotions, cheap housing and comfortable well-paid jobs with the state just because they are Labour supporters. They are keen to go back to the ‘glory’ of the Mintoff years and not forward to some administration run in the name of a progressive and moderate movement that would manage things by preferring efficiency to party yes men.

Celebrating the anniversary of Mintoff’s famous 1971 victory helps to quell the ‘hunger’ of those who want to revert to the old ways but repulse many people considering whether to vote Labour in the next election. So the celebrations were held at a low key level in clubs away from the gaze of the media! But the fact that they were held reflects what can only be considered as a watershed decision to motivate supporters by harking back to ‘the good old days’.

Incidentally, a recent editorial of The Economist asking ‘What’s wrong with America’s right’ commented that America’s right-wingers are fostering the illusion that the Republicans lost the White House because Mr. McCain was insufficiently close to their base! The editorial then went on to say: ‘Britain’s Conservatives, cast out of power after 18 years in 1997, made that mistake, trying a succession of right-wingers. Only with the accession of the centrist David Cameron in 2005 did the party begin to recover as he set about changing its rhetoric. There may be a lesson in that for the Republicans’.

There may be a lesson in that also for the old guard of Malta’s Labour – only if they do not keep smothering Joseph Muscat’s initial promise, as they seem to be insisting on doing.

Michael Falzon is a former government minister who served under several Nationalist admini...

More from Michael Falzon

david cascun •

I see a lot of sense in the thoughts that MLP veteran Jos Cachia is trying to put across. I believe that a party with no clear ideology is like a ship trying to embark passengers all wanting to go simultaneously in different directions and ending up going round in circles or making the wrong port. This is what I feel is currently happening in the PL with its wrong interpretation of what it means to be modern and progressive. In the process it is satisfying nobody and knotting itself up in political contradications. Being progressive is not about as one local columnist puts it acting like an Essex boy or girl wannabe. When election time comes voters will always choose a sloaney girl ceirtainly more true to her inatural behaviour. It is very wrong to look at some of the MLP glorious past from the skewed view and political excesses of the Mintoffian era. The core beliefs and the social conscience of the MLP have their roots in the social concerns of such stalwarts as Pawlu Boffa and Reggie Miller and in the earlier founding members of the moderate Sliema moderate of the Bencini and Galea Balzan mould. To these beliefs subscribed and adhered teachers, members of religious organisations, members of the civil service and social benefactors of the poor and needy. Being modern and progressive is returning to these core strengths and beliefs, albeit adjusting and developing them to the needs of modern society. The clarion call of the PL should be just that of putting at the top of its priority list in all situations those who are socially disadvantaged, the elderly and those who for any reason cannot fend for themself. This approach I am sure will attract from the categeries of socially conscious voters mentioned above more than the few thousand of electors needed to tip over the election scales

•

Valid points. But are not the two main parties a coalition of different schools of thought. eg Both parties have their liberals with the LP possiibly having a larger chunk than the PN. Was not Dr Vassallo's (LP) conservative stance highlighted to dilute Labour's liberal credentials with the liberal vote, while Mr Vassallo's stance on government in bedrooms was muted not to emphasise the PNs core conservative credentials? Labour's weakness is its strong core old socialist vote that has difficulty to warm to a moderate agenda. Now sensing that the middle ground has started to feel uncomfortable with emerging economic realities, can Labour still attract this important section of the vote with a more decisive and radical agenda that portrays vision and determination at implementation stage? This vision can be based on health reform that provides free health care only to those who can not afford it, economic policy with efficient governance, less reliance on Government expenditure, stronger presence on the interational stage to attract investment and Government direct intervention in key areas such as water conservation. Labour can in turn be less visible with its liberal credentials as this opens it up to the strong conservative minority that is underpinned by the church. We all know that the Nationalist Party will prohibit anything with a hint of liberal philosophy even if it then allows it to prosper underground.