.png)
.png)
.png)
Inside Labour | Perils of another rainbow coalition
During the Labour Party’s general conference held in January a number of newly-approved candidates addressed the party delegates and as the impending general elections approach, these new candidates will inevitably hit the headlines.
16 April 2012, 12:00am
Jurgen Balzan
Jurgen Balzan
4 min read
Radical political activist Yana Mintoff Bland
Taking a leaf out of the PN's hymn sheet, the PL seems intent on flooding a number of strategic districts with a large number of candidates.
In 2008, the PN flooded the ninth, 10th and 11th districts with a large number of candidates. This strategy seems to have worked, as the party fielded a number of medical professionals and lawyers who traditionally attract a number of personal votes, stretching the catchment area and maximising the first count votes.
This time around, Labour is also looking at fielding a handsome number of medical professionals, such as family therapist Charles Azzopardi, eye specialist Franco Mercieca, paediatrician Chris Fearne and family doctors Deo Debbatista and Silvio Grixti.
The PL is also fielding a number of prominent lawyers such criminal lawyer Manuel Mallia, the President of the Republic's son Robert Abela, former PN activist (and the face of the pro-divorce movement) Deborah Schembri, General Workers Union lawyer Joanne Vella Cuschieri and David Farrugia Sacco.
Other star candidates include the former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff's daughter Yana Mintoff Bland, musician and musical director Sigmund Mifsud and the 28-year-old Dingli mayor Ian Borg, considered a rising star within the party ranks.
Other colourful additions to the Labour coalition could have come in the form of outspoken entrepreneur Grace Borg and former PN candidate and Sliema deputy mayor Cyrus Engerer.
However, both have declared that they will not contest on the Labour ticket for diverse reasons.
These new candidates not only pose a threat to established Labour MPs on a district level but could also cause a problem to the party by expressing opinions which could embarrass the party and its imposing leader.
Quantity vs quality
In recent political history there has been a persistent tendency for both the PN and the PL to nominate many more candidates than they can reasonably hope to elect.
In 2008, the PN fielded 112 candidacies against the PL's 102 candidacies. Fielding a large number of candidates has traditionally worked in favour of the PN, however whenever the PL fielded more candidates than its rival party, the party ended up on the losing side, with the only exception being 1996.
In 1987 and 1992 the PL fielded the highest number of candidates in its history, 124 and 117 candidates respectively, however, the party lost both elections.
In the next general election the Labour Party seems hell bent on winning the election at all costs and this has prompted the party to field a large number of candidates across all districts.
This could well mean that Labour will mimic GonziPN by presenting a large number of old and new "star" candidates, held together by the absolute authority of the leader.
Despite deriding the Nationalist Party for putting the leader on a par with the party in 2008, Labour is fashioning a campaign around its leader Joseph Muscat.
MuscatPL?
In past months, the Labour Party has avoided taking an official stand on controversial issues such as divorce and gay marriage and instead rested on Joseph Muscat's personal stand.
Muscat has been given carte blanche by the party to win the next elections. On one hand, the party's keenness and impatience in regaining power is understandable, after having spent 25 years in opposition bar the brief stint in government between 1996 and 1998.
However, on the other hand, granting Muscat absolute authority and adopting his personal beliefs as the party's unofficial stand not only stifles internal debate but it could also spectacularly backfire, Franco Debono style.
Debono symbolises the failure of the Nationalist Party's attempt to create a rainbow coalition which did win the 2008 election by a whisker but resulted in a fragmented and fragile majority. Short-term success for the GonziPN coalition was possible because of lax candidate screening, a hotchpotch of values and the ability to pinch priceless votes that ultimately led to the relative majority victory.
Gonzi and the PN strategy team wrongly assumed that MPs will blindly follow their leader and back him no matter what.
However Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and to a certain extent Jesmond Mugliett thought otherwise, and their dissent almost cut short Gonzi's permanence at Castille. Alfred Sant committed the same mistake in 1996 with Dom Mintoff and Joseph Muscat seems to have chosen to go down the same road in his quest to get his hands on the holy grail.
This, though, could prove to be a poisoned chalice. Recent events show that political parties who choose short-term electoral success over coherence and sound policies could end up being held at ransom by individual members of the rainbow coalition, who might also have strong opinions and beliefs.
The instability of the GonziPN administration could be replaced by further instability of Muscat's PL.
Jurgen Balzan was a MaltaToday reported from 2011 to 2017.
•
@vincent destra mhux xi hadd mill-PL kiteb dan l-artiklu, imma xi hadd li jixtieq jara dan it-tip ta' inkwiet fil-PL imma mhux ser jirnexxielu.
•
@fenea Sant rebah b'maggoranza kbira imma b'siggu wiehed flokk 3 jew hamsa dak hu li wiehed irrid jiehu fil-kuntest ta' kull ma qieghed jinghad.
•
"Fielding a large number of candidates has traditionally worked in favour of the PN, however whenever the PL fielded more candidates than its rival party, the party ended up on the losing side, with the only exception being 1996."
The quoted sentence appears to be contradictory. Let me see: if PN fiels more candidates, it wins, but if MLP fields more candidates, it loses to PN anyway! Could Jurgen Balzan kindly clarify the quoted statement?
Micheal Bonanno •
@Algan. I don't agree with you. If a party gets a one-seat majority, it should remain so. To add more seats to give stability to the government, is like driving a dagger into democracy. No let the will of the people rule, and if the government is instable it's because there was something wrong in the first place.
Micheal Bonanno •
@Algan. I don't agree with you. If a party gets a one-seat majority, it should remain so. To add more seats to give stability to the government, is like driving a dagger into democracy. No let the will of the people rule, and if the government is instable it's because there was something wrong in the first place.
•
Diversity especially if there is talent keeps a party alive, unlike Gonzi who admitted that he has limited talent in his government. The LP has diversity combined with talent and a trusted leader, the opposite is true of the PN.
•
The problem is that given the changed perception of loyalty to the party leader and more prospective candidates looking at being an MP as a career move this situation will keep recurring whenever a party holds a single seat majority.As each party casts its net wider to attract big fish candidates which attract votes ideological loyalty to a specific party is also getting less assured. In such a situation individual MP's realize that they can exert inordinate pressure or even blackmail the leader to achieve their self seeking objectives. This is a national problem which will only get worse as more back benchers get infected with the notion of an expected personal right to power and will lead in future to much weaker governments subject to whims of ambitious MPs and increasingly likely lose motions in parliament. No party is immune from this situation and if we want strong governments the parties must come to some sort of agreement that the party winning the general elections is henceforth assured a three seat majority . However there are many who see weaker governments as not such a bad thing as they reduce blatant arrogance of those in power and force them to consult and listen to the citizen throughout the whole legislature.
•
Sa fejn naf jien, il partit laburista twaqqaf sabiex jiprotegi u jaqbez ghal klassi tal haddiema. Veru li kullhadd huwa haddiem, pero hemm id distanza min haddiem professjonali u dak li nghejdulu tal boiler suit.Sabiex tkellem biss proffesjonist ukoll trid taqlalu il boqxix.Hija min ghawl id dinja li meta tilhaq xi proffesjoni, xi ftit jew wisq tintrefa ftit il fuq. Hemm differenza kbira meta ser tmur tkellem politikant li ikun gej min fuq il bank tax xoghol, per ezempju bhal ma kienu tad Dockyard, ghal meta tmur tkellem proffesjonist, li diga tigik suduzzjoni biex tkellmu bhala tali, ahseb u ara ikun xi ministru. Nispera li minhiex nifthem hazin. Jekk iz zewg partiti ser jinvestu aktar fuq il proffesjonisti,il kelma ta Cikku il poplu tat triq min ser iwassala. Ghalhekk jidher car li hadd ma jitwieled politikant, imma trid tkun avventuruz.Qabel kienu jitwieldu politikanti.
•
of the candidates mentioned only Deborah Schembri and Sigmund Mifsud can be considered star candidates( I would also add Edward Scicluna here).
Bland and Abela are tail hangers on their parents heritage and one of them a pro abortionist to boot. The lawyers mentioned are either has beens with geriatric life crisis and doubtful PL credentials or small fry in general elections and the medical professionals will garnish local support( ok maybe Deo Debattista can be considered a star candidate due to his flamboyant looks and media presence)
I agree with the article 100%- labour are gambling big time in order to get elected- what I would emphasise is that this stratagem can easily backfire even before the election since in fighting will soon start and the PN controlled media will have a field day. Come on lets be realistic-who would want a pro-abortionist(Bland) or a PN geriatric turncoat(Mallia) on the same candidate list.
•
Ghala din il-biza' kollha? Ghala dan id-dubji kollha? 25 sena ta' PN mhux bizzejjed. Aghtuh cans lil Joseph Muscat u l-moviment tieghu. Iz-zmien jaghtina parir? Nergghu naghtu cans lill-Gonzi PN u l-oligarkija meta hemm tant opinjonijiet diversi, imma minkejja t-tgergir jispiccaw jaghtu appogg lill-Gvern taghhom, fost diversi skandli? Malta mhux dejjem gemgem, allura jigi z-zmien u forsi int jkollok ragun Jurgen jew forsi wara kollox taf tkun zbaljat! Lanqas se nikkwalifika liema minnhom, inhalli l-elettorat jahseb u z-zmien jurina.
•
Lanqas xammew il-gvern , u diga` qed iberraq f' MintoffPl
•
l-unici mexxeja li irnexxilom izommu il maggoranza tal partitarji warajom huma mintoff u fenech adami.
sant rebah l-elezzjoni b'maggoranza kbira imma tilef l-istess maggoranza mil ghada tal-elezzjoni. l-istess gralu gonzi. u l-istess se jigrilu jos muscat. partit b'sahhtu huwa dak il partit li ghandu ruh u jhaddan principji morali u socjali bhal ma kienu il partit socjalist ta' mintoff u l-partit nazzjonalista ta fenech adami. illum il partiti politici huma bla ruh u bla principji.
•
An article that transits from fact to fiction to utter nonsense.
You cannot compare the PL of 2012 to the the Pn of 2008 or the MLP of 1996. Nor can you correlate the political scenario of these three periods.
The article falls into the trap of avid gamers futilely attempting to guess Super Five through the identification of patterns.
I suggest you move on to chicken entrails or crystal balls.
Leave the forthcoming election in the hands of the electorate. They know what needs to be done. The die has already been cast......irrevocably!!
•
Very good article. Indeed food for thought. Hopefully history wont repeat itself so soon. If it will,then i cannot imagine what the future will be. I prefer to think positively for now. Only time will tell.
•
Just by expressing an opinion, surely this does not amount to a threat to destabilise a future PL government. It would be much worse if we have an AD MP in parliament who would not have any loyalty to the government of the day. And could threaten the government - be it PL or GonziPN - from the very first day of the legislature ! What has happened to GonziPn is not due to having certain back-benchers expressing their different opinion to the official government line, but is due to the arrogance of Dr. Gonzi himself and those who give him advice ! Dr. Muscat is a totally different politician , who not only listens but acts in the interest of the people, and not in the interest of an oligarchy !
•
Dear Mr. Balzan. Your blog gives us a fragment of hope that any future Administration run on an autocratic system has to face failure. A lesson worth heeding however the euphory of an election victory is intoxicating enough to make every administration oblivious of the way a rainbow coalition works, at least when all the fragments are within the same party. For our politics to mature there is indeed need for coalitions but one based on different political parties and not of colourful individuals, to keep any governing administration on it's toes .
•
"However, on the other hand, granting Muscat absolute authority and adopting his personal beliefs as the party's unofficial stand not only stifles internal debate but it could also spectacularly backfire, Franco Debono style."....Jurgen did you think this one up by yourself? You are light years away from where the PL stands and with regards Joseph's standing in the party. Since 1996 the party has been as democratic as they come and everyone has his say, we never looked back since then.
Joseph Pace •
"The instability of the GonziPN administration could be replaced by further instability of Muscat's PL"
Fear factor style of campaign? Bring it on!
