Editorial

Eight months after the publication of an analytical report about the Labour Party's defeat in the last general election, former Labour leader Alfred Sant comes out of political hibernation to dissect the analysis and to offer his advice on a number of points. He has explained in a newspaper article that he had not reacted earlier to the report so as not to get into the hair of the new leadership. What he described as reflections may well be considered by others as an attempt at rubbishing the election analysis but what stands out a mile in his exercise is the way he ignored issues, that, in the view of the experts who drew up the report, contributed in no small measure to the party's loss of an election.

The marvel was that Labour had lost at all, not that it lost by a whisker. The win was there for the taking but Labour bungled the campaign to an extent that it exposed a series of weaknesses that made the electors step back and doubt the party's ability to govern. But it looks as if the former Labour leader would have none of this.

Indeed, he wrote that it seemed the people who wrote the report had little clear knowledge about the personal and organisational environment within the party. As a result, he felt the report gave great importance to trivialities and barely touched upon the true problems in the campaign.

One of the main problems, as seen by the drafters of the report and, most probably, by most of the Labour supporters too, was Dr Sant himself. It is naturally painful for him to admit this, but, hard as it is, it cannot be rubbed off all that easily. The way he conducted the campaign and tackled a number of sensitive issues eroded his political credibility. What also dented his credibility, at least in the opinion of the drafters of the report, was his one-time reversal of his decision to resign. This led to what was described as a mood of antipathy towards the leader, which, in turn, resulted in an organisational setting characterised by suspicion and paranoia.

The party's analysis had pinpointed at least eight major shortcomings or points: the recommendations of the 2003 electoral defeat report were not implemented; rival cliques sabotaged the party's common goal; the campaign was disorganised, uncoordinated and too negative; the leadership led the campaign on its own; the party's electoral office was disorganised and ignored warnings that it was given of incorrect data; some 7,300 former Labour-leaning voters stayed home; a decision to extend voting by an hour favoured the PN; and the mood of "antipathy" already mentioned. The negativity displayed with such abandon during the campaign, and which Labour people are still so prone to indulge in, is a trait the party would have to see to in no uncertain manner if it ever wants to start warming the hearts of the uncommitted voters.

What is really striking in Dr Sant's reaction is his persistent scepticism of Malta's membership of the European Union. This, too, was a matter that greatly set back his party in the last election.

The people are now convinced that Malta's place is in the EU and, even though Dr Sant is, now, against turning the clock back, his outright scepticism, and the fact that others within the party are still perceived as being anti-EU membership, will do no good to Labour in any election contest.