The first move made by new Nationalist Party leader Simon Busuttil, just one day after succeeding Lawrence Gonzi, was to propose having two deputy leaders instead of one.

Yet the night before, at the first press conference he gave minutes after he had officially become party leader, he was asked whether there was a possibility that the PN would choose to have two deputy chiefs – Dr Busuttil had flatly replied “No”.

So what happened during the night to make him change his mind?

With Beppe Fenech Adami and Claudette Buttigieg already having declared their intentions to contest for the second highest position in the party, the amendment in the Party Statute from one to two deputy leaders was probably the only way that Mario de Marco could be tempted – as in fact he eventually was – to go back on his earlier decision.

Soon after conceding the leadership to Simon Busuttil after the first round of voting, Dr de Marco had openly declared that he had no intention of going for the post of second-in-command. But, given the support he had gathered, and the loyalty he expressed in his speech at the general council, there was an immediate push for him to reconsider.

It is therefore apparent that the move proposed by Dr Busuttil – and later approved by the general council – was tailor-made to fit in with the party’s present exigencies, rather than one made out of conviction. It was not because the party really believes that two deputy heads are better than one but because, in the prevailing circumstances, it risked starting what it described as a new chapter on the wrong foot.

On the one hand, it would have looked stupid if Dr Fenech Adami and Dr Buttigieg had gone back on their word to make way for Dr de Marco. They had been on the campaign trail for weeks and their sudden withdrawal would have sent the wrong message to both the party councillors and the public. It would have seemed that the party top brass had forced Dr Fenech Adami and Dr Buttigieg to pull out. In simple terms, it would have looked ugly.

On the other hand, it was realised that Dr de Marco’s qualities should not be lost. But, at the same time, Dr de Marco did not want to risk a second defeat. Although his excellent speech in which he conceded to Dr Busuttil in the leadership race earned him respect and support, there was a chance that he could lose again if he contested a post with other candidates. And so he only agreed to submit his nomination after the division of responsibilities: the option of having one deputy leader for parliamentary affairs and one for party affairs. That he waited until the last minute to do so also indicated that Dr de Marco wanted to be sure that there was no other candidate for the post.

There was also a Plan B, just in case Dr de Marco did not turn up. Two MPs were waiting in an office at Dar Centrali if Dr de Marco had chosen to stick to his first decision.

That the idea to have two deputy leaders came as a knee-jerk reaction to everything that had taken place in the leadership race, and the phrase “leadership team” started to be used after Dr Busuttil was declared leader.  Nobody had ever mentioned the phrase before and it was only after the pieces started to fit in that the team concept was mentioned. At face value, it is a shift from the gonziPN tag the party wanted to move away from; below the surface, it has a different significance as explained above. Again, I can’t help but think that it is all out of convenience, rather than conviction.

There’s more to it.

Last week, I wrote that the PN had regularly criticised the Labour Party for becoming its clone. In the election campaign, the PN repeatedly remarked on the blue ties worn by Joseph Muscat and the copying of PN proposals by the Labour Party. With the appointment of two deputy leaders (who have been given exactly the same titles as their PL counterparts), and the probability that the PN will also appoint a CEO to manage its commercial entities, it is the PN that is now copying the PL. Seeing that the PL system has worked, it has adopted the same structure.

There is just one difference – the PN will retain the post of secretary-general, unlike the actions of the PL when it unceremoniously kicked out Jason Micallef. My guess is that the PN is keeping the position of secretary-general just because it did not want to appear to be copying Labour in everything. Yet, by doing so, it runs the risk of having too many chiefs supposedly doing the same things.

The post of deputy leader for party affairs has not been clearly defined, but it will overlap with the responsibilities of the secretary-general and those of the CEO – if and when this position is created. (Before the election, Simon Busuttil said it would be, but he now seems to have pulled back a bit, although he has not ruled it out.) Having three people doing more or less the same job does not necessarily mean that it will be done well.

Dr Busuttil promised the formation of a commission to revise the Party Statute, but then preceded its setting up by proposing a change to the Statute himself just one day after taking over the leadership. What is the point of having a commission with a specific task if the leader then comes up with a proposal and this is implemented within days?

This brings me to the last point I want to make. When it was first suggested that the election of the PN leader should be open to all members – and not only to councillors – the suggestion was shot down because, it was argued, the party did not have the time to change the Statute. Yet, in this case, it took the party just three days to organise an extraordinary general council to decide on having two deputy leaders.

[email protected]