General secretary's conclusion

Labour's decision to abolish the post of general secretary closes a cycle that opened 30 years ago and with which I had something to do.

In the mid-1970s, the post of general secretary, which used to be held jointly by two officials at once, was suppressed and replaced with that of administrative secretary. The new post was salaried and non-elective but the job pretty much amounted to that of a general secretary. I myself held the post of administrative secretary between 1977 and 1980, after which I offered to continue giving my services to the party but strictly on a voluntary elective basis. It was Dom Mintoff's idea that the party should in that case restore the elective post of general secretary, into which I duly stepped, staying on till 1983.

I am not aware of the circumstances whereby, later on, the position of general secretary reverted to being full-time and remunerative, despite remaining elective, and it is not evident that did the office much good.

There being no clear definition of duties, the position of general secretary is really what the holder makes of it. That said, I hold that the office carries more responsibility than power, however high an incumbent tries to raise his profile - and that applies not just to Labour. Ultimately, true power is the measure of consideration the public at large gives you and the public reserves such consideration for the party leader, at most, the party "leadership" if the leadership is collegial. If the general secretary accumulates some power along the way, he does so at the pleasure (or the peril) of the party leader.

The place of the general secretary is inside the engine room not strutting on the bridge or playing with the controls.

I believe there has been only one general secretary who wielded real power and that was the Nationalist Party's Louis Galea. That was because Dr Galea was a kingmaker, successfully, sustainably and inimitably so. He drove the process that made Eddie Fenech Adami leader and that built him up from a modest local politician to a man of national political stature. None of his successors had any equivalent power vis-à-vis the party leader. It was as much EddiePN then as it is GonziPN now, even more.

Back to Labour, the situation there is further complicated by the fact that the party has two deputy leaders, one of which is confined to purely party affairs. With the limited scope for political creativity available, clashes between the deputy leader for party affairs and the general secretary become almost unavoidable, as the aftermath of the last general election revealed.

The position of the general secretary was rendered more ambiguous by the recent creation of the job of party CEO, which was meant to split the general secretary's remit. Only, the allocation of the administrative aspect of the job to the CEO left the general secretary with more scope for politicking, which may be why the suppression of the post offered itself as a natural conclusion.

When all is said and done, the suppression of the post of general secretary may turn out to have been a logical decision inasmuch as the position had become something quite unlike what it was meant to be. In that sense, the office may be said to have self-destructed.

Prof. Fenech is a former general secretary of the Labour Party.