Of scapegoats and critics

The Labour Party is taking a long, hard look at its policies, its administrative structures, and its leadership.

The leadership has already been challenged and changes made at deputy leader level. Now a number of delegates have drawn up a motion trying to get the annual general conference moved forward. Jimmy Magro, the secretary general, explains to Vanessa Macdonald, why he does not feel this is the right time to just elect the party administration - and why the administration should not be made scapegoats for shortcomings that affect the party from top to bottom.

A number of delegates have asked for the annual general conference to be held at the end of next month, rather than waiting until January 2004. What decision has been taken?

The motion has not yet been discussed internally. I have to say I think the motion is premature. The need to hold a conference for the election of the leadership after a general election is laid down in the statute.

The administration has a one-year term and I do not think it is opportune to appoint a new one. I think the people who worked for this motion were affected by the current state of the delegates...

I was given the impression by many of the delegates that the motion was approved by the leader, but when I spoke to Alfred Sant directly about this, he said clearly he was not part of this initiative.

Dr Sant may say so publicly if this is not really the case.

The motion says that changes need to be made after three electoral defeats. Would it not be better if any changes needed are made now, rather than waiting till January?

The motion does not say that. We have carried out what is demanded by the party statute: the leadership has been put in place and the leader was re-confirmed. And one of the persons in the administration - who had as much responsibility as the remaining six administration members - is now the deputy leader for party affairs. It is important that the remaining six are not made to pay a price which they do not deserve. We all gave our due as was expected from us.

After all, decisions were taken by the leadership, the administration, the executive and the parliamentary group. They were taken on a collective basis.

Which decisions are you referring to?

On the electoral manifesto, on the tactics and strategy. Even when there was no discussion within the national executive, all the members - including all the delegates - had every right to query these and say they did not agree with the way that things were being run. But no such objections were raised. That is why we present our reports to the general conference every year.

The motion is a vote of no confidence and cannot be seen in any other way. We know what is being said about us. We do not have our head in the clouds.

Responsibility must be taken collectively. We cannot assume that it is the six who are at fault, and make them scapegoats, which is what is happening.

Were the deputy leaders not changed already: were they scapegoats?

The leadership election is meant to be held after every general election. I am saying that the elections for the national executive should be held in January, as stipulated by the party statute. Posts will be contested and changes made according to the delegates' votes.

The administration had already offered its resignation after the electoral defeat, which is mentioned in the motion. Are those resignations still valid?

We offered our resignation as we did not want anyone to think we are glued to our seats. I am among those who believe that the officials should be elected at the appointed time. In 1992, the election was in February and the conference was held in January of the following year.

And the motion says the term of office should be almost two years. This does not make sense.

There are local council elections every year, for example. I have faced local elections every March, after being elected at the end of the preceding January. Even this year the whole executive was elected on the eve of the local elections, the referendum and the general election.

But according to the statute, the motion has to be discussed if it has been signed by 10 per cent plus one of the delegates...

They had this number, but all this means is that the conference has to be held to approve the motion and then it has to go on from there. A decision on holding the conference will be taken in the coming weeks.

So is the offer of resignation still valid?

I think there is some confusion about this. The offer was meant to send a signal to the party that none of the officials are shirking their responsibility. But when the party is going through an evaluation by an independent commission of the electoral defeat, I do not think we should pre-judge the outcome.

They are working at an intense pace. I have had many meetings with them and given them a considerable amount of information. They have been given the opportunity to meet anyone they want within the party and they are receiving e-mails from people from all levels. The deadline is eight weeks and the report on their findings will then be passed on to the party for discussion by the national executive and the parliamentary group.

I do not think the report will be published in its entirety but I think some conclusions will be as, after all, this will lead to the discussion needed for the party to update itself.

Manwel Cuschieri's programme Tajjeb li Tkun Taf has been criticised by columnists as being aimed at hardliners and alienating more moderate supporters. Is this why it did not go back on air?

Internally I have expressed certain reservations about the programme. I was one of those who used to say that some parts of it went overboard and, hence, was being seen as a programme directed only to the Labour supporters. It served only this purpose.

I do not think that stopping the programme was based on criticism of it. We have decided to reschedule the political content on our media, whether on television or radio. There was another daily programme which was stopped. We held talks with our newsroom and agreed that discussion programmes should be partially reduced for the time being.

All the political content should be minimised until the party has determined its strategies. We cannot jump the gun.

... I think - and this is something I think we need to be more pragmatic about - the party cannot use its media to talk only to its own supporters. I hope that everyone will understand that we have to use our resources to talk to others, to the whole population.

A few days prior to the election for deputy leader, Charles Mangion said there should be place in the party for all Labour supporters. Given that Ivan Bartolo was removed as a Labour councillor (in Mosta) and as a party delegate, for speaking his mind on the EU, what room is there for discussion and, more importantly, for dissent?

I agree with Notary Mangion. I always say the party should be open to new members, and I am constantly putting out notices calling for volunteers. Anyone who thinks the party can be run with part-timers and volunteers - and there were people who thought this way - is out of touch with reality...

Now, replying to your point about Mr Bartolo. When you have someone within the party who takes a line against a decision taken by the conference, then they cannot remain within the party. They are not dissidents in such a case, if they disobey the official stand of the party.

But he can take a personal stand...

No. Once you have an official role, you cannot take a personal stand. People who heard him would not be able to distinguish between what he said in his personal capacity and in his official one. They would assume he was speaking on behalf of the party.

I often had this discussion with former party leader Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. He used to say certain things, on a personal basis, which the party had not incorporated as the official line. He used to argue that he was speaking in a personal capacity, but, for the public, you cannot differentiate between a personal statement and a statement by the leader of the party.

Another contender for the deputy leadership, Leo Brincat, called for better relations with the media and for a review of the party's boycott policies. Prior to the election, the party's press conferences raised more questions than they actually answered and soured relations with many sections of the media. Is the damage permanent?

I have always been against boycotts, and more specifically against the boycott of Where's Everybody. I have always made my stand clear to anyone who asked. The party has to use the media as, at the end of the day, we cannot speak to the population on a one-on-one basis. Although we need to continue with door-to-door visits, we also need to speak through the media. Given the polarisation of the country, the Labour media speaks to the Labour supporters, and the Nationalist media speaks to the Nationalist supporters. And you have the supposedly independent media.

Supposedly? You just cannot resist the dig...

OK, let us say the centre media. We have to work with them, even though they have their own editorial policy. I have always said that I respect their editorial policy, every paper has to have one. But in Malta, that editorial policy is not well defined. So people have the impression that the media is independent, which it is not.

Independent means not being aligned with a particular party.

That is not my definition. I think that for a paper to be independent and objective they should give space for all views without comments. I cannot give an interview and give a reporter my replies and have him enter into an argument with me. He is not a politician but a reporter.

A reporter represents the reader, and if a reader were not satisfied with your reply, should they not be able to ask a supplementary question?

A hundred million of them, if they want. But at the end they must accept the reply. I had this experience in an interview with another newspaper. They are free to say they are not satisfied with my reply, but if that is my reply, then so be it.

In another interview with another newspaper, comments were added in between my quotes, which can confuse people who would not be able to distinguish between the two. I wanted that interview to be a question and answer one like the ones The Times does.

But if you look at the interview in The Times with the prime minister and the one with Dr Sant, they were not on the same lines. The interviewer accepted Dr Fenech Adami's replies even when he said nothing but Dr Sant was not even given the chance to reply.

The same thing happened to me in the executive meeting. Sometimes I get interrupted and I insist that I should be allowed to finish what I had to say.

This is what reporters do. But even if they disagree with the reply, they have to accept the reply.

There is a difference between asking a supplementary question and disagreeing with the reply.

I have the right to say no comment on certain issues. It may not be a right given to me in the Constitution, but it is still my right.

So if you did not like the question, would you get up and walk out?

No, no. I wouldn't do that.

The party was seen as petty and partisan when it extended the boycott against Where's Everybody to l-Istrina, a philanthropic event, which was even supported by Labour MPs. What is going to happen to the boycotts?

I do not even have a vote in the executive, as employees do not have a vote, according to the statute. I spoke my mind during the executive, but I am bound by the decision taken.

I think we need to be more open with the media. We should not make an a priori decision on whether to go onto a programme or not. We should try to ensure that we have equal opportunities on the programme, and I should make it clear if I do not agree with the presenter. But at the end, the viewers or listeners will judge the arguments.

You had a golden opportunity to explain your policy on partnership and lost it.

(Shrugs) That is why the party has to rethink its strategy. I have faith that this will happen.

Mr Cuschieri has again raised the need for an English language newspaper. What is the guarantee that this would reach the audience you are aiming at, presumably floating voters?

My opinion is that we should first and foremost use the established media. I am not saying we should not consider the possibility but we have to see what its scope would be.

Why an English language paper and not a daily one in Maltese?

With the polarisation of our society, which is not going to change in the foreseeable future, the media owned by the party will remain... media owned by the party. It will only be bought and read by its own supporters. I have no doubt about it.

What indications have you got that this aim was reached by Maltastar.com?

There was positive feedback. It is free and you do not need to buy it openly as you can read it in private. If I buy a paper, the newsagent knows which one I bought and the Maltese love to gossip. If I take it to work, people see it.

I get the distinct impression you think it is time for a thorough review of the party media and its approach.

I always said politics must be based on debate. What is the point of being interviewed by a reporter from my own party? It makes me feel uncomfortable. Programmes should be able to stimulate discussion, be credible and win arguments, and hence there should be the participation of the opponent. Otherwise, the viewer assumes that the questions have been drawn up beforehand. This even applies to programmes on Super One. It is no use not inviting members from other parties, or from non-governmental organisations.

You have said a lot of things which go directly against the line of the party. Somebody's situation here is untenable: it is either yours or the leader's.

I am saying nothing new. This has been my line internally. But we got ourselves into a situation where we were bound by certain dogmas, which were not dogmas at all. Do not forget that the party is very large and decisions are taken at different levels.

But who is going to shoulder the responsibility? It was not the leaders, it was not the administration. Mistakes were made.

Who does not make mistakes? But in the end, the most important thing is to be able to learn from mistakes.

We have to learn from experience. That is why there should be rethinking. It is useless to have one voice, unless that voice is able to convince the others.

You are calling for rethinking and yet you want to put off the administration changes to January, even though the delegates obviously feel the administration is holding up the process of change.

It is not about the administration. When we were having discussions, we agreed that things could be changed. For example, when we tried to discuss the motion about the media in the executive, presented by Edric Micallef and another person, there were many people who held it against Edric. The motion was finally withdrawn. The motion would have led to removing the boycott of Where's Everybody.

This happened in January 2003, when we were going to start the referendum campaign; we should not have lost access to the programmes' market.

When the Nationalist Party general secretary decided that PN people should not go on Super One, he was laughed at and he changed his position. The PN representatives were back on Super One.

Former prime minister Dom Mintoff recently held a meeting for Labour MPs at his home. Have there been any attempts to make direct contact? If so, what and if not, why not.

There were no contacts between the party and Mr Mintoff that I know of.

We spoke earlier of the need to bring in all Labour supporters. Why is Mr Mintoff going to be left out in the cold?

Mr Mintoff has not been left out in the cold. He has another organisation, a political one, which, on certain issues, does not agree with the MLP. We have our policy and he has his own.

Is he harming your cause?

I do not think the stand taken by the Front Maltin Inqumu is compatible with ours. I do not think it reflects reality.

FMI is not - at least yet - a political organisation.

You do not have to be a political organisation to take a political stand. The Church is not a political organisation but priests often speak about politics.

Do you feel the MLP lost out in the last election because of the rift with Mintoff?

In the last election, Mr Mintoff supported the party, as could be seen from media reports.

Is there still a role for Mr Mintoff to play in the party?

There is a role for everyone but, in the end, you cannot set the policy of the party from outside but only from within. Organising a corner meeting and telling us what we should be doing... that is not the way to influence the party.

It was the same with Mr Bartolo. He could have influenced the party from within but once he was no longer on the Mosta local committee, he lost his seat as a delegate.

Are you going to be contesting the post of secretary general?

Yes.

What do you feel you still have to give to the party after 11 years in the post?

I think that, without sounding big headed, it is now becoming clear that many of my suggestions were proved right. My proposals, which have been written down in internal reports, were valid. The party has to realise the realities of today.

The party or the leadership?

The whole party. If we really believe in democracy - and I believe that the delegates should be involved - they should contribute to discussion.

If Labourites talk only to Labourites, we will never win the next election. I think the party should be open, as it is capable - through its policies, its actions, its behaviour, its approach - of winning the next election.

That is how a modern party should be. It has no other choice.