The Malta
In religion, faith holds
that the Almighty is infinite. In maths, numbers keep counting to infinity. In
science, space is synonymous with infinity. In Maltese politics, infinity can be
associated with the capacity of the left to shoot itself in the
foot.
Last week, twice on the same occasion – the general conference of the General Workers’ Union (GWU) – we had yet another masochist demonstration by both constituents of the left, the MLP and GWU, to harm themselves in full witness of many who wish them permanent opposition at best and extinction at worst.
I have already expressed the view that an organisation that espouses the democratic process where incumbents can be challenged through the ballot box is healthy and dynamic. This is fine in so far as it goes. But there is another side to it.
Non-commercial organisations are generally dominated by a strong culture of loyalty towards the leader. In business organisations, such loyalty is very much dependent on the commercial success of the enterprise. Business leaders come and go with much more fluidity than political leaders, unless they are some rare species of the Jack Welch type that return measurable commercial success and growth with consistent regularity.
In non-commercial organisations such as unions and political parties, the loyalty culture to the leader is so strong that leaders are not contested. Take the example of the British Labour Party. Gordon Brown’s aspirations to take over from Tony Blair are well-known and documented but he would not dare contest Blair through the ballot box. Leadership change comes through retirement or resignation but it simply does not come through a ballot box contest with the incumbent.
So when in such organisations the leader is contested, then it is surely time for the incumbent leader to look himself in the mirror and ask what is he is doing so wrong that provides enough motivation to contenders to sacrifice their own ascendancy in the organisation, probably leading to their extinction within it, for the miniscule – I would say non-existent – chance of obtaining change through the ballot box.
What is it that motivated Manuel Micallef to challenge Tony Zarb, knowing full well that his chances of success were inversely proportional to the strong probability of being labelled disloyal, untrustworthy and consequently lacking the basic ingredients to make it to the top post? What is it that persuaded John Attard Montalto and Anglu Farrugia to contest against Alfred Sant in the last election for Labour leader, knowing full well that the very probability of failure to beat the incumbent would clearly compromise their political career?
If the incumbent leaders in loyalty culture-driven organisations, rather than performing such inner soul-searching to arrive at an altruistic decision as to whether they serve their organisation better by going than by staying, simply react by defending their position through the maximum use of the loyalty culture, then the result can only be pleasing to opponents.
Such an organisation, following a divisive election contest where gloves are taken off and incumbents still in command of the soft resources of the organisation give themselves a huge advantage, inevitably turns exclusive. Those whose genuine love for the organisation forces them to challenge for change through the ballot box rather than through more subtle but disloyal sabotage, will find themselves edged out of the organisation for which they gave up their career.
The organisation loses some of its best human resources, those who are loyal to the organisation beyond their self-interest, and retains within those who are loyal to individuals ensuring their personal ascendancy through the hierarchy of the organisation, which thus becomes more defensive and introspective just when it needs to become outreaching and inclusive.
Through such shooting itself in the foot by allowing personal interest to prevail over that of the organisation, and by failing to install corporate governance systems to ensure that in the process of an internal election contest, incumbents do not use their position with access to all resources to claim an advantage beyond what is already naturally available through the loyalty culture, the left of Maltese politics has already lost some of the best brains. They remain left at heart but cannot fully participate to ensure that the left can have its fair share of the democratic rotation in governing this country.
As if this trauma of reported block votes, threats, undue pressure and all the other detestable side of the electoral process were not enough, we then had the opposition leader in his speech to the conference reiterating the privileged position of the GWU with the MLP.
Have you ever heard the PN referring to the UHM as their privileged union partner? Everybody knows that the UHM is more comfortable with a PN government than with a Labour government. History cannot be changed. Gone are the days when the UHM made wage increase demands of Lm9 a week or ordered work stoppages at the Freeport on trivial issues which could be resolved through thorough negotiations. Yet the PN will never admit that they give privileges to the UHM which they deny to the GWU. They clearly do, but would never admit it.
What is there to gain for Labour to admit giving privileges to the GWU? And what privileges, may I ask? In sharing more coffee chats? In having cross access to their respective media? Or in introducing unsocial utility rates without any evident prior consultation?
Only when this apparently infinite capacity of the left to shoot itself in the foot can be brought to an end (a contradiction in terms, as infinity has no end) can a new breeze blow over Malta’s political scene with a credible alternative to a clearly fatigued government which has grossly overstayed its tenure.
In religion, faith holds
that the Almighty is infinite. In maths, numbers keep counting to infinity. In
science, space is synonymous with infinity. In Maltese politics, infinity can be
associated with the capacity of the left to shoot itself in the
foot.Last week, twice on the same occasion – the general conference of the General Workers’ Union (GWU) – we had yet another masochist demonstration by both constituents of the left, the MLP and GWU, to harm themselves in full witness of many who wish them permanent opposition at best and extinction at worst.
I have already expressed the view that an organisation that espouses the democratic process where incumbents can be challenged through the ballot box is healthy and dynamic. This is fine in so far as it goes. But there is another side to it.
Non-commercial organisations are generally dominated by a strong culture of loyalty towards the leader. In business organisations, such loyalty is very much dependent on the commercial success of the enterprise. Business leaders come and go with much more fluidity than political leaders, unless they are some rare species of the Jack Welch type that return measurable commercial success and growth with consistent regularity.
In non-commercial organisations such as unions and political parties, the loyalty culture to the leader is so strong that leaders are not contested. Take the example of the British Labour Party. Gordon Brown’s aspirations to take over from Tony Blair are well-known and documented but he would not dare contest Blair through the ballot box. Leadership change comes through retirement or resignation but it simply does not come through a ballot box contest with the incumbent.
So when in such organisations the leader is contested, then it is surely time for the incumbent leader to look himself in the mirror and ask what is he is doing so wrong that provides enough motivation to contenders to sacrifice their own ascendancy in the organisation, probably leading to their extinction within it, for the miniscule – I would say non-existent – chance of obtaining change through the ballot box.
What is it that motivated Manuel Micallef to challenge Tony Zarb, knowing full well that his chances of success were inversely proportional to the strong probability of being labelled disloyal, untrustworthy and consequently lacking the basic ingredients to make it to the top post? What is it that persuaded John Attard Montalto and Anglu Farrugia to contest against Alfred Sant in the last election for Labour leader, knowing full well that the very probability of failure to beat the incumbent would clearly compromise their political career?
If the incumbent leaders in loyalty culture-driven organisations, rather than performing such inner soul-searching to arrive at an altruistic decision as to whether they serve their organisation better by going than by staying, simply react by defending their position through the maximum use of the loyalty culture, then the result can only be pleasing to opponents.
Such an organisation, following a divisive election contest where gloves are taken off and incumbents still in command of the soft resources of the organisation give themselves a huge advantage, inevitably turns exclusive. Those whose genuine love for the organisation forces them to challenge for change through the ballot box rather than through more subtle but disloyal sabotage, will find themselves edged out of the organisation for which they gave up their career.
The organisation loses some of its best human resources, those who are loyal to the organisation beyond their self-interest, and retains within those who are loyal to individuals ensuring their personal ascendancy through the hierarchy of the organisation, which thus becomes more defensive and introspective just when it needs to become outreaching and inclusive.
Through such shooting itself in the foot by allowing personal interest to prevail over that of the organisation, and by failing to install corporate governance systems to ensure that in the process of an internal election contest, incumbents do not use their position with access to all resources to claim an advantage beyond what is already naturally available through the loyalty culture, the left of Maltese politics has already lost some of the best brains. They remain left at heart but cannot fully participate to ensure that the left can have its fair share of the democratic rotation in governing this country.
As if this trauma of reported block votes, threats, undue pressure and all the other detestable side of the electoral process were not enough, we then had the opposition leader in his speech to the conference reiterating the privileged position of the GWU with the MLP.
Have you ever heard the PN referring to the UHM as their privileged union partner? Everybody knows that the UHM is more comfortable with a PN government than with a Labour government. History cannot be changed. Gone are the days when the UHM made wage increase demands of Lm9 a week or ordered work stoppages at the Freeport on trivial issues which could be resolved through thorough negotiations. Yet the PN will never admit that they give privileges to the UHM which they deny to the GWU. They clearly do, but would never admit it.
What is there to gain for Labour to admit giving privileges to the GWU? And what privileges, may I ask? In sharing more coffee chats? In having cross access to their respective media? Or in introducing unsocial utility rates without any evident prior consultation?
Only when this apparently infinite capacity of the left to shoot itself in the foot can be brought to an end (a contradiction in terms, as infinity has no end) can a new breeze blow over Malta’s political scene with a credible alternative to a clearly fatigued government which has grossly overstayed its tenure.
No comments:
Post a Comment