If one takes a cursory look at the international scene, we notice that several political parties have been destabilised by Members of Parliament who decided to change their party affiliation. The Austrian Freedom Party, Syriza in Greece, Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, and the Socialist Party in France are just a few examples of what kind of harm internal division and dissent can do to any strong political party.

Events that have occurred over the last decades in Maltese political history indicate that no political ċ, however old or strong, can avoid its periodic schisms, particularly at a time when it loses direction and finds itself amid inevitable decadence. Intra-party divisions or factions are the result of certain psychological conditions. Some occur on principle, taking the form of instantaneous conversions in the Paul-of-Tarsus mold. Others are sometimes a matter of personal convenience because of some sort of dissatisfaction or retaliation.

The odd internal division and frustration within a party in Government can come about because there will be those genuine and loyal adherents and supporters who simply cannot accept the unbridled accumulation of power, rampant corruption, downright arrogance, and sheer greed. Theirs is not a switch in political colour but more of a switch in thinking at awkward times when politicians in power seem helplessly caught in a vicious circle, and only by being jolted out of it could there be hope in the future. It is a kind of you-have-to-be-cruel-to-be-kind way of telling a party it has had its glory and its fun; now is the time to move over and let the powers of political nature do their business. Change not simply for the sake of change, but for rejuvenation, for new ideas, for new methods and styles, for the better, and for the chance to start afresh. Wherever and from whomever it may come.

Recent local political history shows that, generally, the MPs belonging to a particular party benefit collectively from maintaining a united front, but individually they face incentives to act independently. We all remember those political events in 1998 and those in 2012. The first consisted of the epochal clash between Dom Mintoff and Alfred Sant, while the other took the shape of Franco Debono’s insurrection against GonziPN. But while Debono had contested on the party ticket without setting any conditions on his party, Mintoff had contested the election with his own electoral programme, which stood in marked contrast to that of Sant’s New Labour policies. Both incidents have proven, without a doubt, that one-party governments are not immune from instability.

Party leaders use a variety of strategies to counteract independent-minded and breakaway members: screening out the uncongenial, distributing office perks to the loyal, or disciplining the recalcitrant. The Labour Party was not and is not above such a scenario. Judging by the high level of cohesion exhibited by the Labour Party in recent years, past and present leaders have applied these methods skilfully.

Unity is not preordained, however. MPs can and do dissent from the party line. Intra-party quarrels that produce defections can hurt a party’s reputation, triggering a reaction to restore the valence image damaged by the split or to profitably adjust and clarify the party’s policy positions.

Even in a country like Malta, which is only occasionally affected by parliamentary or party defections, switchers can manage to grasp media attention, damaging the image of their former parties and affecting the course taken by them.

Internal unity is a valuable asset for the Labour Party, and it should strive not to lose it or allow it to be weakened. First, unity is extremely important for its ability to effectively carry out its electotoral pledges. Second, unity is also fundamental to ensure the correct functioning of the accountability process; if it is not united, it becomes very difficult for voters to correctly assess Labour politicians’ responsibilities and to sanction them.

Divisions can also alter voters’ perceptions of the party’s competence and, as a consequence, result in electoral losses. Defections might not only harm judgements around party competence but also the value of the party label, a concept that is extremely important for voters because it helps them to locate the Labour Movement in the ideological space. A heavy loss of party unity would make it very hard for the Labour electorate and, more importantly, for the first-time voters, to appreciate its actual positions on different issues.

The Labour Party needs to understand how the objectives of both its leaders and MPs can come together in a particular manner to produce either loyalty and unity or dissent and disunity. Ideological disagreements and electoral pressures (i.e., differences in electoral environments across constituencies) can set the stage for dissent to occur. The Labour Party has several means of controlling its MPs’ dissension but, in the main, its leaders should take advantage of their MPs’ progressive ambitions and their control of parliamentary career channels to maintain unity. Yet, while this strategy may be effective in the medium term, there comes a point when the MP can no longer be promoted, and the lure of advancement loses its capacity to constrain the MP’s behaviour.

However, dissent does not necessarily have to surge at this point in MPs’ careers, and the reasons can be many. One reason is that the Labour Party’s leaders can resort to discipline to maintain unity. Discipline is costly, however, and hence one can argue that socialisation can fill the void. MPs internalise norms of party loyalty and, over time, these norms can help to constrain their behaviour, limiting their propensity to dissent even after their career prospects have declined.

Unity, to be real, must stand the severest strain without breaking.

Main photo: Kindel Media