Joseph Muscat will probably tell us that the idea to do away with the post of secretary general of the Labour Party is one of his progressive ideas. He seems to be getting a lot of them these days.
But when one looks behind the scenes and tries to figure out what has been taking place in the Labour Party since Dr Muscat took over 19 months ago, it is clear that he is progressively turning his party into a one-man show.
Every political party leader needs the support of the people around him, and tries as much as possible to have loyalists in the most important positions. But the way things are happening at the Labour Party expose a level of authoritarianism on the part of their leader. And I am not sure whether other Labour officials, including the top brass, are happy about it.
There seems to be a pattern through which Dr Muscat is gaining more and more control of the party, and this goes against his public declaration that he wants an all-inclusive organisation. He seems to be taking the more important decisions on his own, and it is only after he makes up his mind that he seeks the official approval of the party.
It happened when he appointed James Piscopo as the party’s chief executive officer soon after being elected leader. It also happened when he named Marisa Micallef as his adviser in late September, and at the same time pushed Jason Micallef out of the role of secretary general.
Neither of these two was elected by the party’s national conference, and their appointment was not well received by top party people. It is not known whether the aversion for Mr Piscopo and Ms Micallef, which was evident in the weeks after they moved to the glasshouse in Hamrun, is still there.
What is sure is that both found themselves in the party structure without any approval except for a nod of the head given by Dr Muscat. We all remember the unhappy faces we saw when their appointments were made public.
And it has happened yet again now that the post last occupied by Mr Micallef will be abolished when the party general conference meets later this month.
Joseph Muscat is seemingly trying to build himself into a cocoon of solid steel, from where he can run his party with as little interference as possible. Coming from a 35-year-old leader with limited political experience, it is either an indication of a great fear of upsets from within his own ranks, or else a kind of arrogance that once again exposes his thirst for power. If Dr Muscat is being arrogant within his own party, and doing things that suit him best, one wonders what it will be like if and when he becomes Prime Minister.
There are other issues pertaining to the decision taken by the Labour Party.
After Mr Micallef’s departure – well, he was not kicked out of the party, but given a position at One News – the speculation as to who his successor would be started in the media. Current party president Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi and Dr Edward Zammit Lewis showed an interest, but the first soon dropped out and the latter said last Sunday that he was no longer in the running.
It’s not a coincidence that Dr Zammit Lewis’ declaration came just three days before the PL made its position clear. It is obvious that Dr Zammit Lewis realised what was coming and chose to go public so as to avoid the embarrassment of being linked to a post that is no longer there.
It is probable that Dr Muscat already had the idea of doing away with the position, but kept his cards close to his chest to see how the party would react. Let us not forget that Mr Micallef’s removal came a day after it became known that Marisa Micallef had been named as his adviser, and it is likely that Dr Muscat did not want to rock the boat further by saying, at that time, that he would not be replaced. Then, when the waters calmed, he made his intentions known.
The big question is why remove such an important post considered to be the fulcrum of any organisation, be it political or otherwise.
All organisations have a secretary general, and the position is high up in the hierarchy. In the case of political parties, a secretary general has more clout than the president, and is also legally responsible for the organisation he represents. With the abolition of this post, who will be legally responsible for the PL?
It has been said that the functions of the secretary-general will now be taken over by the party’s deputy leader for party affairs and the party president. Yet, this will only add to the confusion in the party’s structure.
The PL already had to deal with three conflicting roles – that of the CEO, secretary general and deputy leader for party affairs. Now, one of them will be removed, but his role will be divided in two, and therefore the problems remain. Added to this, a secretary of the national executive will be appointed in a minor role. It is, really, a case of Labour complicating matters for itself.
There is, however, one common factor. The elimination of the post of secretary general and the division of his functions, as well as the appointment, by the party leader, of a CEO and a personal adviser, gives more and more power to Joseph Muscat.
Progressive he may be, progressively authoritarian he surely is.
[email protected]