Questions for the Labour Party

There is a paradox in the making in the way the Labour Party's general secretary was shunted out of his post. Although he technically resigned, it can be assumed he did not do it out of his own volition. He was pushed. It is also evident that PL leader Joseph Muscat, did the pushing. He had presaged that by warning the Labour fold that everyone had to be prepared to make some sacrifice on behalf of the party.

Everyone included the person elected to the top post in the party administration. There lies the paradox. Muscat has begun to openly display his mettle in internal party affairs too. But he did so at the cost of effectively challenging a democratic decision by the general conference, the party's supreme body.

He must have felt that the conference decision was not in the best interest of the party. That is, in getting it elected. He had undercut the role of general secretary by personally creating the post of and handpicking a chief executive officer. It seems that was only a first step.

It is also clear that Muscat was not prepared to go the whole hog and sack Jason Micallef. He couldn't. That would have been in direct breach of the decision of the general conference. One can easily conclude that much horse trading went on before a compromise was reached. It consisted of the erstwhile general secretary retaining a paid job. Whether, as chair of the PL media, he will continue to be perceived as not being a factor in the party's long-term interest is a moot point.

In a compromise there is so much that can be achieved. Very often it takes more than one step to reach the preferred position. Many delegates and probably chunks of the PL rank and file will not have been amused by the way Micallef was shown the door out of a very key elected position into one where his influence is likely to be diluted. That, more than the Marisa Micallef factor, explains why Muscat went into massaging-the-old-faithful mode.

In the context of the higher aim of doing what's best to win the next general election, he will succeed in his efforts. Disgruntlement is swiftly swept away by a rising tide of popularity. I am much less certain that the Labour leader played his cards right in the case of Marisa Micallef.

It was natural that Labour would perk up, listen to and exploit the development when someone from the Nationalist ranks started criticising aspects of that party. Marisa Micallef is not a political heavyweight. She is by no means comparable, for instance, to Michael Falzon, the long-serving Nationalist ex-minister who is having some blunt things to write publicly about Lawrence Gonzi, though he remains within the PN ranks.

But she was an avowed Nationalist, a former PN election candidate, and an articulate wielder of the political pen. She had used it for years to target the PL in general, and some individuals within it in particular, including the younger Muscat.

She seems to have seen the light on two levels. She discovered that the Nationalist government was less than perfect, with the few - "rottweilers", no less - favouring the few. She also came round to appreciating that, with Muscat now at the helm and a policy that targeted inhabitants of the middle ground, the PL could become delectable. By clear implication it is not yet that.

Labour could have allowed such criticism to run and use it to torment the PN, in the same manner that it uses Michael Falzon's frank bluntness. Instead, it took Marisa Micallef into a paid job as one of the leader's consultants, though, I understand, at a cost initially less than the €40K that has been touted.

That was too hurried an action (as was the PN general secretary's cheap dig at Marisa Micallef over her alleged financial position).

It actually devalued Marisa Micallef's utility to the Labour Party. It also raises the question if, to come up with ideas that supposedly promote Labour's electoral chances, one has to be paid.

Some within the party might be asking the question - to themselves if not openly - whether there are others in the new ideas think-tank who will be similarly paid, and how many new salaries the party can afford.

There is another question overriding the above. The PL under Muscat should be and probably is on the way to winning a handsome victory at the next general election.

But, will it do so as a party of principle, which it has always been irrespective of human mistakes in applying them, or will it be tainted by too much operational gloss to attract voters who do not share basic and updated social democratic principles?

I have no doubt that Muscat will be wrestling mightily with that question. How the eventual answer comes across will be very important, at least morally. Not just to old Labour veterans, but to thinking young and middle-aged people too. Principles know no age.