The one enduring image that I have of the Labour Party Vigilance and Disciplinary Board is of three men with ZZ Top-style beards and above-the-knee shorts ambling away from television cameras. Probably that image of a trio of Moses sporting khaki legwear is seared onto the nation's collective memory.

Other than the board members' penchant for bermudas and regularly pronouncing edicts on party members who are deemed to have broached MLP policy, not much else is known about the workings of the board. That's because their meetings and deliberations regarding matters of party discipline are held behind closed doors. This is the norm for many organisations which treat disciplinary matters as internal matters which are not subject to public scrutiny.

The reasoning underlying the lack of publicity in such cases is that airing dirty laundry in public erodes confidence in the organisation. It could be argued that secrecy has a similar effect, but if the disciplinary process relates exclusively to internal matters, no-one can really fault the organisation in question for not telling all and sundry about X's infringement of party policy. As long as the proceedings regard matters which do not directly affect the public there would seem to be no pressing need for the MLP Vigilance and Disciplinary Board to hold an open house every time a member is charged with not adhering to the party statute.

However, it is evident that the confidentiality aspect cannot be extended to all other decision-making processes within the Labour Party. Above all, it should never have been extended to the current leadership race which has to be an open and transparent process.

Apparently, this was not the opinion of the chairmen of the MLP Vigilance and Disciplinary and Appeals Board. Those men in shorts or their successors, seem to have watched a surfeit of spy movies and have now become obsessed with secrecy. Last Tuesday, they wrote to Joe Falzon, the chairman of the electoral commission overseeing the process for the election of Labour Party leader, asking him to tell all prospective candidates not to give comments to the press. This was enough to prompt Falzon to put pen to paper and send off missives to all those showing an interest in contesting the election asking them to keep mum about the whole process.

The people who forgot about April's Fool were reminded by the subtle report in this paper's daily edition which said, "The letter, signed by Joe Falzon, chairman of the commission, is dated April 1 but is being taken seriously by candidates".

I can't believe that anyone would need to have a discussion on whether a gagging order for leadership contestants was a good idea, but here irrespective of the developments, are a few reasons why it isn't: And they're not only being mooted by people who are traditionally hostile to the MLP. I've met several Labour supporters who are hoping for an overhaul of the party and who let out a groan of despair when they heard of the directive.

Most of them remember the cloak-and-dagger atmosphere which marked Labour's last leadership election. Anonymous letters about one of the contestants surfaced at the crucial moment and there was that business about Pawlu Muscat casting or not casting "made up" votes in the second round of the election.

It all seemed very murky. The impression of a closed, impenetrable party where only a few people make the decisions that count, lingers on. This perception was compounded by the reticence of key MLP figures to refuse to answer questions posed to them. While acknowledging that this might be the automatic reaction to having one's message habitually distorted or misquoted by certain sections of the media, it has to be admitted that such an attitude does nothing to foster trust. In fact it served to reinforce the image of a party which was unwilling to let a wider audience to observe and participate in its business.

At this critical juncture of the Labour Party's development, the need to dispel this huggermugger image should be a priority. Candidates should be encouraged to speak out about the challenges they are facing and about the way the party machinery is helping or hindering them. This would not necessarily result in a bust-up of the party but could help in the identification of what's wrong with it. The Labour Party officials and supporters should relax and stop being overtly sensitive about what they think are fratricidal feuds. It's a leadership contest and not an egg and spoon race, for goodness' sake. There's bound to be rivalry and a certain amount of stepping on each other's toes. It's the same with every other political party and group of people down to the boċċi club committee with a handful of members.

Another thing which the wise men on the MLP's Vigilance Board did not take into consideration was the fact that some candidates had already been interviewed by the press and obtained media coverage. These contenders would have a head start on others who would have decided to join the fray at a later stage. They have had ample opportunity to explain their vision, plans and policies while others haven't. It doesn't take much to see that this leads to an uneven playing field. Why did the Vigilance Board members or those of the electoral commission promote such a state of affairs? Couldn't they see that they were giving their political opponents enough ammunition to blast them out of the scene?

If the Labour Party really wants to be considered a credible alternative government it would do well to view the leadership race as an opportunity to welcome public and media interest and not to treat it as some clandestine affair.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt