If someone has not yet made a quick search on the Internet for the definition of “Orpheum”, the result he or she would obtain is that it is one of the most popular names used for theatres or other entertainment venues. If one wants to dig deeper for the semantic origins of this word, the natural reply would be that “Orpheum is derived from Orpheus, a great Greek mythological poet and musician whose skills could charm animals, plants, and even rocks. According to legend, when Orpheus’s wife died his song was enough to charm Hades into giving her back from the underworld”. Hades was the underworld, where all those who died, according to the ancient Greeks went to rest.
The political significance of this story came to mind on reading Sunday’s news of Labour’s meeting at the Orpheum Theatre in Gżira. This theatre is historically associated with Labour. The Malta Independent described the Prime Minister’s mood at this meeting as combative. The Prime Minister’s talk reminded me of Orpheus seeking to bring to life a dying Labour Party. It is now clear that the Gaffarena scandal has rocked the Government and the Party. In this analysis, I wish to focus on the latter part, which is being overlooked by the media.
If the Labour Party thought that Michael Falzon’s forced resignation was going to calm waters, it was completely mistaken. The media focused on the natural scars that such a story would leave on any government. Government has lost a junior minister but there is another angle to this story. Despite the fact that Falzon did not occupy a senior ministerial post, he is one of the beloved party members. He was Deputy Leader and for a number of years was the person who had the most direct contact with party delegates. Therefore his resignation cannot pass unnoticed by the party faithful.
Falzon is conscious of this fact. He pledged loyalty to the Party. The ordinary voter would question such type of loyalty. I am sure that floating voters think that it is time that all MPs including those holding key posts, should begin to understand what loyalty means. Not loyalty to the god PN, PL or AD or whatever party but LOYALTY to the PEOPLE that have elected them. Party activists would reply that this is what they want. Pledging loyalty to their electors would mean for Falzon to get the support of the Sliema and Gżira voters together with the rest of the party delegates.
At the same time, this scandal is showing that all our politicians need to get their priorities in the right order. The Nationalists are now leading the way. At least, they are showing signs of maturity. Joe Cassar’s resignation from Parliament is a case in point. No doubt, his unprecedented move distanced the NP from the way it has been acting over the last 30 years.
What is important at this stage is for the LP to stop the political hemorrhage that this episode is costing the Party. Even if this was not reported in the media, the LP has had to face a political barrage from a section of its party activists. They did not appreciate the way Muscat treated Falzon. This explains why the Prime Minister chose the Orpheum Theatre in Gżira. Gżira is the political bedrock of Michael Falzon. Let’s not forget, it is also the district of Manuel Mallia. Basically we have had a minister and a parliamentary secretary elected from this district and locality who had to resign. And though this did not go well with all the constituents, it is time that constituents also learn to discern that blind loyalty in politics is dangerous for their own good and that of the country.
Therefore, the Prime Minister needed to react and orchestrate a show of force in Gżira to re-enforce and reassure that he is in control of the situation and, as he himself told the party faithful, he knows what he is doing. Many of those who voted for Falzon and genuine party delegates consider the choice of locality as inappropriate. For some, it was interpreted that Muscat was mocking Falzon and telling a former Deputy Leader that Labour is still strong in Gżira with or without him. One needs to remember that Gżira is a borderline locality where both the Nationalists and Labourites are in a tug-of-war for its control.
Let’s not under estimate Falzon. While he is less strong at district level than Manuel Mallia, he carries more weight with Labour delegates and Labour diehards than Mallia who came from the NP folds. Labourites are questioning Muscat and stating that despite all the promises made, the Prime Minister is still failing to defend him. But then I ask, should a Prime Minister defend the indefensible simply because he belongs to his Party? The same holds for the Director of Estate Management. Muscat also failed to defend him, even if, he was a point of reference to various Labour Ministers and MPs in both this present and previous administration. This explains why some of the ex-Nationalists, who turned up as star supporters of Muscat in the 2013 are in panic and are seeking to defend the Prime Minister’s choice of place and language.
TV provides the necessary facts to prove my point. Last Thursday, I was on PBS debating Falzon’s resignation in Brian Hansford’s programme Realta’. He asked the ex-Nationalist diehard and notary Ian Castaldi Paris to speak on behalf of Labour and defend the Labour Government’s actions. On Net, there was a similar programme discussing the same resignation story. This time, Labour’s representative was Robert Musumeci who was countered by the Nationalist MP Ryan Callus. The presenter was Norman Vella. At one point, Vella received a phone call from a genuine Labourite who rightly told him whether the Labour Party had lost its diehards as those appearing to defend the Labour Government in this moment of crisis, on both on PBS and NET, are ex-Nationalists activists.
To add insult to injury, Muscat has replaced the Labour faithful Falzon by a Nationalist switcher, Deborah Schembri. Soon even the University will be led by a Nationalist switcher. This explains why the Prime Minister felt the need to go to university to speak with the academic staff, as this choice in favour of the switchers needs public endorsement to bear political fruition. In the process, the true Labourites are becoming angry at Muscat’s approach when tackling these issues. Some are starting showing their frustration in public. The university meeting was no exception.
On one hand, Muscat needs to keep the switchers happy. On the other, he needs to convince the diehards that he knows what he is doing. The problem is that that genuine Labourites cannot accept any longer that their government and party has ended up being led by Nationalist switchers. Muscat’s movement is now in the last act of a Greek tragedy.