The Labour Party has claimed a political scalp. Joseph Cassar’s resignation from Parliament dominated the news in the past week. He could have stayed on, but chose to go immediately.
Cassar is considering legal action to clear his name, so perhaps the story will develop further. In the best scenario, he may show that he was duped by Gaffarena. Regardless, being naïve is also not desirable in a senior politician, although not an overriding reason to give up a parliamentary seat.
When a fall from grace is inevitable, getting out of the way fast can avoid irreparable damage to one’s reputation from an extended struggle. Cassar also believed that delaying his departure would harm his political colleagues. Deciding it is time to go is hard, but can be crucial for long-term survival, particularly if Cassar ever considers a return to politics in future.
Michael Falzon, on the other hand, has not yet faced up to his own Gaffarena scandal in Old Mint Street. The story was not nipped in the bud and has dragged on without satisfactory answers, despite two investigations. His other hot potato is Mepa’s current direction and ill-advised demerger proposals, which were presented to Parliament without prior public consultation and are soon to be approved.
Politics is a battle for power. The most coveted scalp for the PL is not Cassar but the Opposition leader. Backbencher Deborah Schembri was dispatched to the PL frontline trenches to open fire and bring Cassar down. She seemed more eager to launch broadsides against Simon Busuttil, labelling him as a weak leader.
Likewise most of the PL statements about Cassar instead emphasised weakness in Busuttil. He is the main prey of the hunt, and the persistent attempt to pin the label of weakness onto him is part of it.
Labelling tactics are not one-sided. In a recent column I had discussed the description of Joseph Muscat as a salesman, that is, someone who is morally bankrupt and only interested in profit. Labels distort but also simplify, so they work in the media. Crafting narratives and labels is the specialty of political spin-doctors, creating a public perception about an individual and casting roles that can be difficult to shake off.
In any case, now that we are hearing so much about weak and strong leaders, how are we to understand this? A recent book, The Myth of the Strong Leader, by eminent political scientist Archie Brown, explores the question.
We do not know exactly what standards our Cabinet of ministers are following
Brown challenges the popular belief that an overtly strong leader is a good thing. By this he means leaders who get their way, dominate their colleagues and political party, and concentrate decision-making in their hands. Excessive dominance and power in an individual lays the ground for big mistakes.
A more collegial type of leadership, says Brown, is too often wrongly characterised as a weakness. Process does matter, and “when corners are cut because one leader is sure he knows best, problems follow, and they can be on a disastrous scale”.
Angela Merkel is popularly thought to be an inclusive and collegial type of leader. Her leadership abilities are not based on superman-style dominance. This is not due to gender – just compare her to Margaret Thatcher.
Mikhail Gorbachev did not follow the Russian strongman image. His style leaned more towards consulting and seeking agreement. Yet his leadership of Russia led to the end of the Cold War.
Tony Blair labelled John Major as weak and liked to portray himself as a strong leader. Today Blair’s leadership legacy is mainly linked to his foreign policy and stubborn spearheading of the Iraq war, with wide-ranging consequences that are still evolving in the Middle East today.
The electorate dislikes the perception of weakness in a leader, yet Brown effectively questions the commonly used ‘weak-strong’ theme in political leadership. Giving numerous examples from 20th-century politics, he describes the contrast as unhelpful and not borne out by results.
He argues that for good leadership, particularly in a democracy today, other qualities matter more than populist images of strength; qualities like integrity, collegiality, a questioning mind, vision, empathy, and more.
To return to the local issue, Cassar has given up his seat for an alleged breach of ministerial ethics by not declaring the receipt of gifts. It is only to be expected, no target intended, that the spotlight should also shine on the incumbent ministers and their observance of the ministerial code of ethics.
Hang on, I forgot, the code of ethics was recently revised. The new code has been in place since February, but has been withheld from the public so far. In other words, we do not know exactly what standards our Cabinet of ministers are following, and whether we agree with these new rules or not.
The prompt publication of documents is not the government’s greatest strength, to put it mildly. Is this strong or weak leadership? I suppose it all depends on why information is withheld. Is it because of fear of criticism, or to hide wrongdoing, or because people’s right to information is unimportant, or due to inefficiency?
None of these strikes me as a strong reason. On the contrary, they all seem rather weak.
petracdingli@gmail.com