With every step on the way to the top, the one who is known to Super One as Doctor Joseph Muscat appears determined to prove the accusation that he is the quintessential teacher’s pet, rather than his own man. His career progression has been marked by a process of sucking up to the party leader and other senior figures who he has described as his mentors. If he were a woman, the psychological pundits would have said that he has a sugar-daddy fixation. But he’s not a woman, so we’ll just have to say that he’s a teacher’s pet.

Teacher’s pets aren’t just boys, of course. Lots of them are girls. In my class at school, the teacher’s pets sat in the front row, hung onto every word, turned round to shush the disruptive girls talking in the back row, wore a permanent air of superiority and always rushed to play guitar for the nuns during – yawn – yet another Mass. The approval of authority figures was, to them, far more important that the approval of their peers. They didn’t care a hoot that by actively currying favour with the former they incurred the mocking wrath of the latter.

Does this remind you of anyone? It certainly reminds me of Doctor Joseph Muscat, who at the grand old age of 34 is still hunting down the approval of a series of male authority figures. He is the Teacher’s Pet of the Year, which is not quite the same thing as the Playboy Playmate Pet of the Year, but you get my drift. First it was Doctor Alfred Sant, whose lapdog poodle he famously became, then it was Doctor George Vella, then Mister Godfrey Grima, then Doctor Anthony Licari – all were hauled into the forum to vouch for the credibility, sanity, ability and intelligence of the man who, like Doctor Alfred Sant before him, has made Doctor the first component of a three-word moniker.

Now the teacher’s pet has been at it again, with a flying visit from Mister (alas, not Doctor) Martin Schultz, the chairman of the European Socialists, who just so happened to be in Malta. A press conference was called, and Doctor Joseph Muscat sat at Mister Martin Schultz’s side, wearing his best teacher’s pet expression – one that I last saw on the smug face of one of those front-row girls as she was being praised by the teacher for always doing her maths homework perfectly, unlike Daphne over there at the back who never even bothers pretending to have done it at all (oh baby, I had the last laugh).

The press photographers caught images that perfectly encapsulated his immaturity: he beamed uncontrollably with pleasure and self-satisfaction as Mister Martin Schultz praised him. He doesn’t know that it is appropriate for all those of us who are older than 12 to wear a deadpan, indifferent or ever-so-slightly embarrassed expression when being subjected to fulsome or gushing praise. It is even more appropriate to attempt to get the person doing the praising to stop, by passing some sort of self-deprecating remark. It is highly inappropriate to encourage praise, and more so to ship in people and hold press conferences for the express purpose of allowing journalists to hear them praise you. Do Doctor Joseph Muscat and Mister Martin Schultz know the meaning of the word “cringe”? I doubt it.

Doctor Joseph Muscat actually believes – at the age of 34 and a married man with two children, who is attempting to become party leader and thence, Prime Minister – that drafting in senior politicians to give spoken testimonials to his suitability for the post is an immensely good idea. This makes me want to lie down and weep. Real men, real leaders and real politicians are taken at their own worth. The minute you feel you need to bring in some public testimonials as to your character-worthiness and your suitability for the post for which you are applying, like a job applicant asked for a reference from your last employer or departmental professor, you’re done for. The message the public receives (the intelligent public, at least) is not the one you want them to receive, but another one altogether: that you alone are not enough to convince us, that you must be bolstered by the testimonials of others, that you have the mentality of a job applicant and not of a statesman and a leader.

Mister Martin Schultz said at the press conference: “I am here to express my support for my friend Joe, a very important member of our parliamentary group. I know Joseph Muscat as a deeply convinced pro-European.” Do you see what I mean? That’s a dead ringer for a reference written for somebody who is applying for a job. For heaven’s sake, you don’t expect to see it done for somebody who is applying for the job of prime minister. Doesn’t Doctor Joseph Muscat realise this? Apparently not, because the entire Santian wing of the Labour Party suffers from a massive social inferiority complex masked by an intellectual superiority complex, and depends heavily on the reassurance of academic qualifications and public testimonials by Important People. We have an unusual political situation in that the Santian Labour Party is composed almost entirely of teacher’s pets, when it is usually rebels who are attracted to Labour and the left wing. Oh but I forgot – the Labour Party is now rightwing, xenophobic, conservative and inward-looking, and therefore a perfect stomping-ground for bottom-licking creeps and teacher’s pets.

So Mister Martin Schultz thinks that Doctor Joseph Muscat is a deeply convinced pro-European. That’s interesting. Does he know that Doctor Joseph Muscat abstained, spoiled his vote or voted No in the referendum on membership, in line with his mentor’s orders? Does he know that Doctor Joseph Muscat spent the entire referendum campaign writing newspaper articles that sought to convince us how EU membership would be disastrous for Malta? Does he know that Doctor Joseph Muscat, in his other incarnation as a Super One “journalist” a mere five years ago, barracked politicians who favoured EU membership, and even shouted over the Prime Minister as he was trying to speak during a Broadcasting Authority press conference? Apparently, the “diplomatic skills” that Mister Martin Schultz noted in him are a very recent acquisition, too. I do hope a reporter asked these questions at the press conference, but I have scanned the reports thoroughly and found nothing to indicate that somebody did. If Doctor Joseph Muscat is a deeply convinced pro-European then five years ago he was – what, a dumb blond obeying sugar-daddy’s orders to ensure that he wasn’t kicked out of the Playmate Pet of the Year mansion?

Let’s put it this way. I can’t for a moment imagine Lawrence Gonzi (or the other contenders, for that matter) flying in a Euro-politician to say how jolly good he is in the Nationalists’ leadership election four years ago. It would have been seen correctly as an erroneous strategy that detracted from his strength rather than bolstering it. The valid reasoning would have been that if you need to draft in the support of third parties to tell the public how fantastically suited you are to the post of party leader and prime minister, then you are not fantastically suited to that role at all, but rather the opposite. The public can see this. Not everybody has a pumpkin for a brain, even in the Labour Party.

Now, in the classic mode of the teacher’s pet, Doctor Joseph Muscat is mocked, derided, resented and despised by the rest of his class. It won’t be long before they corner him in the lavatories and give him a big wedgie. This is what happens – or used to happen, anyway – to teacher’s pets. Somebody holds them down and somebody else, in one swift movement, jerks their pants up so that – well, let’s not be too graphic. And incidentally, this is not bullying. Bullying is what happens when the weakest children are picked on. Teacher’s pets are not the weakest members of the class but those in the strongest position, because they have chosen to align themselves strategically with authority rather than with their fellow pupils and peers.

Doctor Joseph Muscat’s classmates have written to the president of the Party of European Socialists to complain about Mister Martin Schultz’s behaviour in singling out the teacher’s pet. “We are sure you agree that it is deeply offensive, totally irregular and highly unethical (and uncalled for) to have an official of the Party of European Socialists endorse one particular candidate, to the detriment of the other four,” they wrote. You see, this is the funny thing: in a more normal state of affairs, the testimonial of a Political Big Cheese would work against a candidate and, by default, in favour of his rivals. Testimonials merely make one look ridiculous when one is seeking the leadership of the country. Leaders are not supposed to seek the public approval of figures they believe to be more senior, important or credible than they are. They are supposed to seek the approval of the electorate by appearing strong enough not to need the testimonials of others.

Doctor Alfred Sant’s control of the Labour Party was a textbook case of the Revenge of the Nerd. Now we are going to be treated to the Reign of the Teacher’s Pet. What thrills – and giant wedgies – lie in store.

www.daphnecaruanagalizia.com