[WATCH] Alex Sciberras: ‘Labour must face the difficult questions’

There are “legitimate questions about governance” on the Labour Party’s time in government that need to be addressed, Alex Sciberras believes. 

The former Msida mayor is running for the post of PL president in a two-horse race with former TVM head of news Norma Saliba. The election will be held on 13 September. 

In an interview with MaltaToday, Sciberras speaks candidly about the uncomfortable dialogue that is needed about governance issues that have plagued the government since 2013. He believes this dialogue is the only way to prevent the party’s natural death, but insists it is also the wish of party delegates who have spoken to him during this short campaign. 

Sciberras says the PL must not forget its socialist foundations but warns against the party shutting its doors to outsiders and moderates.

When asked what the PL’s position on Joseph Muscat should be, he says the former leader “cannot be cancelled” as he is an integral part of the party’s and country’s history. But he acknowledges that a discussion must be had when looking at Muscat’s legacy such as the Vitals case. 

Several people, including Joseph Muscat, have been charged with corruption in the Vitals case, a situation prompted by the conclusions of a magisterial inquiry. I ask Sciberras whether the Prime Minister’s outburst against the judiciary and journalists when the inquiry was concluded at the start of the electoral campaign was appropriate. Choosing his words carefully, Sciberras notes that while one can be critical of institutions such as the courts and the media, these should never be attacked. 

When asked what he can offer to his party if elected president, he promises to be a person with whom one can discuss and work with.

The following is an excerpt from the interview. 

The full interview can also be followed on Facebook and Spotify.

The PL’s internal elections are being held in the context of disappointing election results for the party. Let’s start there. What do you think led to those results? 

The results were still positive, but we’d be idiots if we didn’t acknowledge that it wasn’t the desired result. I think the electorate sent a clear message that it still sees the PL as a party that can bring about the necessary change in the country, but there are things that need more attention. 

If I could summarise the biggest concerns among the people, it would be: It’s true that the economy is growing and there are more jobs, more money in people’s pockets but they feel like they’re working more, even because of the pressure associated with work, and they don’t have the quality of life that they want. 
Traffic, construction, the environment, pressures associated with the growing population and our infrastructure can’t handle it. All these issues reduce the quality of life of the Maltese daily. These are the issues that the electorate wanted to communicate through their vote. So much so that if you were to compare the results, because they are different results, it’s clear that the majority still backs the PL, but it’s a majority with a message. The message is: ‘Yes a lot was done, but there are new realities that need to be addressed.’

Since the election, some of the PL’s grassroots pointed fingers towards ‘opportunists’ and people who weren’t traditionally aligned with the party. Do you think this is contradictory; do you think the PL should close its doors? 

Absolutely not. The worst thing we can do is to be conquered by a siege mentality. We know where this leads, we’ve lived through that. It’s crucial for a political party to attract as many people as possible and to have a plurality of voices within it. 

The most significant message we should heed is that some people feel as though the PL has started to lose its core; the ideas on which it was founded and the people who always delivered that message with conviction. The PL should not forget these people. We should be an open party that recognises where it has come from.

What do you think is driving these people away from the PL? 

I don’t think they’re being driven away because they’re still active, but they feel as if their voice is going unheard. I’m meeting with the party’s delegates and activists, and they’re still present at the meetings we have but they have one message: Listen to us, give us our space. We’re the heart of this party and we want to be the voice of this party. 

There are of course those who’ve been driven away and we need to work to bring those people back. Part of that is because of certain government decisions that aren’t popular with everyone. Governing is tough. You need to make difficult decisions and if you try to be popular with everyone you won’t do what needs to be done. 

I must acknowledge that there is unhappiness over remembering what the PL is and what it believes in. It could be the case that we’ve gotten too close to big interests that aren't aligned with our basic values.

Is the PL still the party for moderate voters? 

As long as we’re the party of dialogue, yes. What we should do as a party is to acknowledge that in our time in government, difficult and legitimate questions have been raised. The problem that others and I feel is that we escape these questions because they’re difficult. 

If you’re not a part of the conversation, people start talking and they see you staying silent, obviously your message will be lost. The governing party has plenty of achievements to be proud of, much has been done and I think, with all due respect, there is a narrative in certain newspapers that no good has been done. It’s not the case and I think the latest electoral result shows this, because if it was the case, the PL would’ve lost the majority. 

What’s needed is for us to be part of the conversation, we need to face the difficult questions that arise from time to time. Only those who do nothing make no mistakes…

What kind of difficult questions? 

We’d be completely closed off if we don’t acknowledge that there are questions about governance; we know there were things that could have been done better. We cannot abandon this conversation simply because others have made it their battle cry. 

What I hear from the PL’s activists and delegates is that we shouldn’t hesitate to be self-critical, and that the party should serve as a constructive opposition to government, despite the PL being in government. 

It’s obvious that the current opposition has one intention. Sometimes, some arguments that are made aren’t made genuinely, they’re made opportunistically. They [the PN] see an issue on which they can politically gain and so they run with it but it’s not coming from a genuine belief. 

But for us, that belief is there, so we should be our own constructive opposition. We shouldn’t shy away from saying, ‘We’re doing well here, but not well enough there and we can be better.’

Among other things, the PL is known for its progressive ideas. Since 2013 there have been initiatives that changed the country, but it seems that thirst for liberal ideas has diminished… 

It hasn’t diminished in me.

But what do you think happened, is there now a fear to change the status quo? 

Significant changes have been made. The tendency is that a certain resistance to change is introduced and that grows with more changes. I understand that sentiment, but if we’re not the progressive force that keeps inspiring change, we’ll start to lose our soul.  

I’m a bridge-builder by nature. I come from a place of certain ideas. I’m progressive, but if I disagree with you, I don’t see you as beneath me. We need to build bridges. We need to keep ensuring dialogue. God forbid that we, as the only true progressive force, forget where we came from.