Not tonight, Josephine!

Sad, depressed and emotionally disturbed she left her second home unexpectedly. I know the feeling and have no words to console her. I can only empathise with her.

She was forced to say goodbye to her work colleagues and left behind the premises where she spent the best of her life servicing those in need in the name of solidarity and social justice.

She packed her personal belongings and handed over the keys symbolising a closed chapter but at the same time a new beginning in a yet unknown career path. It was the end of a career, a successful one, climbing the entire ladder through sacrifice and determination to become the first full time woman official within the organisation's hierarchy.

As if the national council motion decreeing her dismissal was not enough, she had to face the humiliation of a warning by the Police Commissioner to get out of her office immediately as if she had committed a criminal act. She is not part of the family (sic) anymore. She has become a persona non grata! What a shame! Maybe all this is history now, but the story is not over yet...

Democracy is not the perfect system. It is the best out of all other systems. It has to be respected as long as it is properly used and not haphazardly abused. Those who are vested with power shall act as the guardians of the democratic system. Their role is to serve others and not to manipulate their authority to safeguard, first and foremost, their own power, the chair they occupy or their personal ambitions. They are in a representative capacity.

They shall act in the interest of the organisation as a whole: accommodating the will of the majority but tolerating and respecting the views of the minority.

They are expected to demonstrate their leadership skills whenever they take any initiatives and likewise they are obliged to show their talents in conflict resolutions.

Integrity, credibility and foresightedness are the pillars of effective leadership. Leaders are drivers and doers but they are also good listeners and team builders. They are not afraid of criticism and contrasting opinions. They promote fair play. Outstanding leaders do not get carried away with popularity and the cult of the persona.

What happened recently at the Workers' Memorial Building is a sad story indeed.

The working population could not come to terms with such a situation. How could it be that a key player within an organisation had to seek redress at the courts of law? Was there no internal mechanism that caters for instances of misinterpretation of the regulations? Or was it a question of evading such possibility and opting for direct confrontation?

It all started with a piece of paper doing the rounds through which a few people claimed to have lost confidence in their leader. They called for an extraordinary general meeting to be called at the earliest, aiming to oust their head of section. The central administration declared that the petition was valid; it had the required 40 per cent participation of the delegates and they had no other option but to abide by the delegates' demands.

The section's executive committee contested the validity of the petition. They appointed an investigative commission to verify the validity of the whole exercise.

The central administration kept insisting the petition was valid.

What was the truth?

This was the crux of the internal conflict. In such circumstances one would have expected that an independent board, nominated by both parties, is appointed to establish whether the petition was valid or not and possibly make a set of recommendations on how to proceed according to the statute. For some unknown (sic) reason this option was not on the table. The end result is known by one and all.

She went to the law courts demanding the issue of a warrant of prohibitory injunction to stop the extraordinary general meeting from taking place and she won her case. The extraordinary general conference had to be cancelled. But the court went further and established two fundamental principles which, admittedly before such ruling, were considered to be grey areas within the scope of the organisation's regulations.

The court acknowledged the full autonomy of the union sections and that each section had the same rights and obligations as a legal person as much as the organisation itself enjoys. It was a sigh of relief for her and she must have had a good night after the court ruling.

But, naturally, the court's decision was no good music to the central administration's ears. Now she had to face the music of the powers that be. She was found guilty of acting against the interests and the well-being of the organisation.

The message was now through: "Not tonight, Josephine!"

Who's next, please?

manuelmicallef@onvol.net