Forget Franco Debono, the man who called the media shots this week was Joseph Muscat. He may indeed love us, but now he's left us all wondering about the bizarre decision to do away with the post of party secretary.

I've come across a number of explanations. The first, beloved of the PN media, is that no one could be found who was both interested in and worthy of the post. Which would also mean that the PL is suffering from a serious crisis of human resources. The implication is clear: if not enough grey matter can be found to fill the red hats, what does that tell us about the Church generally and the Pope specifically?

Whatever the conclusion may be, I don't find the premise too convincing. It is hard to believe that a party that represents just shy of half the population cannot find a few decent takers for its top posts. Even Alternattiva Demokratika, marginal following and meagre resources and all, can come up with some pretty strong material for the largely thankless task of chairman. If anything, Muscat could always have picked a token face and got on with it.

The second explanation is that, obsessive as he is about presenting the united face of a reformed PL, Muscat didn't wish to risk a potentially divisive contest within the party. Jason Micallef, for one, can't be too happy about his recent past, and he would certainly have done his best to cook up some mischief. And so forth.

Again, I'm not sure I buy this. Party leaders have all the means available to subscribe to a 'fair' election even as they quietly anoint the chosen one. There would have been a way of keeping Micallef smiling all the way to history. In any case, the people mentioned for the post were few and far between, and none of them were exactly firebrands.

The third possibility is that Muscat is a little Napoleon, never at heart's ease while he beholds an equal to - let alone greater than - himself. With such a man at the controls, the argument goes, there can be no co-pilots.

It's pretty obvious that Muscat is both ambitious and in love with himself. That he is a dictator, however, doesn't follow. All politicians crave power but not all are tyrants. In any case, Muscat could easily surround himself with non-starters and yes-men, as dictators generally do. Fact is in this case he chose not to.

So, there is no clear solution to the mystery. Unless we cross the road to Pietà, for it is not just the PL that has issues with the post of party secretary.

Paul Borg Olivier is by no account a mediocre person. Personally affable and politically unimpeachable, he has all it takes for the job. And yet, the murmurs among Nationalists are not good. Muted word has it that Joe Saliba was a hard act to follow. Borg Olivier, party people will sort of tell you, is as good as absent.

So, if Micallef was the PL's last general secretary, Saliba was the PN's last star general secretary. (No wonder he moved on to astrophysics.) Which in a way leaves both party leaders missing their right hand.

I think there's a good reason behind this. Nothing will convince me that Muscat couldn't find someone if he really wanted to, or that Borg Olivier is lethargic. On the contrary, the absent/low-key general secretaries are very much creatures of intention.

It may well have to do with the shifting nature of political representation, in Malta and elsewhere. Take Britain. David Cameron is hardly more articulate than William Hague, but his chances of clinching the Tories a victory at the polls are infinitely better. It's the image, stupid. Cameron may well turn out the Tony Blair of the coming decade, what with his spotless image as trustworthy family man.

Some call this trend the 'Americanisation' of politics. It's a world where image is everything, where tomes are written about Sarah Palin's hairdo and the Republican Party spends over $150,000 on her campaign wardrobe. American or not, we might say it's a type of 'Facebook politics', in which the key to success is the number of 'friends' a face (=photo=image) has.

It seems that Malta is no exception. It would be mad to boil everything down to one logic, but I suppose image control had a lot to do with the results of the 2008 election. On one hand we had Gonzipn, where the fortunes of a party were tied to the image of another spotless family man. On the other, Labour, with Alfred Sant on occasion standing two paces behind Micallef like a hapless Duke of Edinburgh. Was it Alfred or was it Jason?

This, to my mind, helps us understand Muscat's decision. It might also explain why Borg Olivier is a very different secretary to Joe Saliba (who, I should point out, sidestepped to let Gonzipn through in those crucial months of 2008). In the image-mad world of contemporary politics, it simply doesn't work to let a second face steal some of the limelight.

My guess is that this is only the first part of the story, and that we'll be seeing more of it in the coming months. Leader ratings and head-to-head debates will be all the rage, and both parties will stake all on the sole, uneclipsed image of that one person at the helm.

As for Muscat and Gonzi, it cuts both ways. It helps not to have faces competing for your friends, but it also means that your face had better be attractive. Bespoke tailors please note, there'll be a spot of profit to be made in two years' time.

mafalzon@hotmail.com