Labour leader Joseph Muscat’s intentions to appoint a chief executive officer to administer party affairs has not helped the MLP to emerge from a period of controversy that has characterised its changes since the election was lost in March.

Since the resignation of leader Alfred Sant soon after the results of the election, the MLP has not settled down. It took them three months to elect their new leader and two deputy leaders (in June), and yet another two months to choose their new administration (August), although there is little new about it.

And, while they are still to sort out the fact that the party leader is not the Opposition Leader (when will they get down to doing it?), the idea to appoint a chief executive officer is yet another proof that the party is still to find its feet, and it is taking rather long to do so to the advantage of the party in government.

Needless to say, the Nationalist Party media has jumped on the issue, and threw fuel into the flames with the publication of the name of the person who is believed to be taking up the post once the party statute is changed in the near future, as well as other speculation on how people within the party have reacted to Dr Muscat’s idea.

But, other than the name of the person to become the first MLP chief executive officer, what should be analysed is the role that he will be playing in the party.

Many think that the party lost the election because its administrative machine was not as efficient as that of the Nationalist Party. Yet the same delegates who appointed a new leader then went on to confirm the same officials in the top administrative posts, including secretary general Jason Micallef.

And this is perhaps why Dr Muscat is pushing for the creation of a new position in the party. Before his election, and before the election for the party administration, Dr Muscat had never mentioned the idea of structural changes. It was only afterwards that Dr Muscat came up with the concept, leading to suspicions that it was a knee-jerk reaction because the administrative elections did not bring about the change he wanted.

Dr Muscat wants a CEO for the party because he is not happy with the way things have been managed over the past years. But by creating such a post there is a risk that matters will become even more complicated.

The situation is already confused with the party having a deputy leader for party affairs and a secretary general, whose roles often overlap. The friction that existed between Mr Micallef and former deputy leader Michael Falzon, especially during the campaign for the new leader, is a recent example of how two people having similar functions in the same organisation could end up in a soured relationship which can only be of harm to any political party. Dr Falzon has since been replaced by Toni Abela.

Soon, apart from the deputy leader and secretary general, there will be a third manager for the MLP. Although his role is still to be determined, it is easy to imagine that there will be more overlapping. Who will have the most power? Who will have the last word? With a new CEO, is there still room for a deputy leader for party affairs and a secretary general? What does the current party administration think of Dr Muscat’s idea? Is Dr Muscat planning something else apart from the appointment of a party CEO?

These are the questions that need to be answered before the party takes the plunge. If the function of a CEO will impinge on that of either the secretary general or the deputy leader for party affairs, then such a move will create a harsh struggle for power and more internal strife within the MLP, something that could cost it dearly, as has happened in the past.