Joseph Muscat’s recently published 40 points of action, drawn up under nine different objectives, make interesting reading. He calls these proposals his vision for the MLP. However, these proposals do not indicate any real political vision.
As Alfred Mifsud pointed out last Sunday in his article (What makes a leader?) in The Malta Independent on Sunday, many of the candidates in the MP leadership “have problems making the distinction between skills of administration, co-ordination and leadership.” Mifsud’s article was probably written before Muscat’s launch of his so-called “vision” document, but what he wrote applies perfectly to it. I cannot but completely agree with Alfred Mifsud who argued that “there are many stories of highly intelligent and highly skilled executives who failed miserably when promoted to a leadership position”. Mifsud was probably referring to Alfred Sant more than to Joseph Muscat. In any case, there is no doubt that Mifsud’s 40-point document reflects perfectly Alfred Sant’s “managerial style” that used to be hyped so much.
Muscat’s “vision” is simply a basis for a business plan with which a prospective CEO would try to impress a commercial company’s Board of Directors who are considering using his services. But politics belongs to a different realm. Contrary to what Alfred Sant and Joseph Muscat seem to think, the qualities expected of a good political leader are not the same as those of a commercial manager.
The virtues of good management do not necessarily translate into good leadership, as the Labour Party in Britain is realising. Gordon Brown stepped into Tony Blair’s shoes with impeccable credentials. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had managed the British economy in a very competent and skilful way. As Prime Minister, he is being continually found lacking, mostly because he has not mastered his ability to communicate and persuade – two essential elements of leadership. Management involves taking good decisions and enforcing them. Leadership involves persuading the leader’s followers to take the decisions he or she wants them to take.
Leadership involves stoking up people’s emotions and building on them. Good management does not need to do so. Tony Blair could do it, but Gordon Brown cannot. That is why Alfred Sant failed as a political leader. Incredibly Joseph Muscat seems to be heading down the same cul-de-sac.
For example, Muscat’s proposal for yet another Labour radio station – rather than reforming the present station - attempts to satisfy both the old guard who are happy following the drivel broadcast, and the younger generation who are not to ready to suffer more than 40 seconds of One News. So Muscat’s solution portrays the MLP talking with a “forked tongue”: in two different languages for two different kinds of supporters of the same party!
Muscat’s solution is a management solution, not one expected from a political leader. It reminds me of the marketing decision resorted to by Cola companies when these were losing out to figure conscious males who would not be seen or heard ordering and drinking the “diet version” of their product. Hence another version – Pespi Max or Coke Zero – had to be available. But, surely, inspiring political followers is not in the same league as luring consumers to buy a cola drink!
The fact that the proposals for setting up of think tanks and a call centre found themselves in Muscat’s document shows clearly that the document is a business plan – not a political vision that, not so incidentally, has to be aimed for the whole country and not just for the MLP.
Good leaders need not be good managers and good managers do not automatically make good leaders. Just think of Ronald Reagan. He was the great communicator, but as a manager, he was a disaster.
Confusing leadership qualities with good managerial capabilities is not unheard of. I have met several people of Nationalist persuasion who doubted whether Joe Saliba was up to his job, but over and over again Joe showed that he is a good manager and an excellent CEO – qualities that are very important for his job of general secretary but that are not necessarily the qualities that would make him an inspiring and popular political leader.
If, for the sake of the argument, one were to conclude that Muscat’s business plan is the best that can be thought of for the MLP, there is no doubt that the political vision is still missing. Joseph Muscat, therefore, would make a very good CEO for the MLP that needs to get rid of Jason Micallef as soon as possible. Jason thought that managing the party was simply a matter of managing the public perception of the party. He was completely wrong, of course!
Labour needs a political leader with a vision for the nation, the sort of leader that they have not have since Dom Mintoff. Irrespective of whether one agreed with all his ideas or with his methods, there is no doubt that Mintoff had the leadership qualities that made him a great persuader. He was a great communicator who immediately struck a chord with his followers.
The way Muscat projects his vision for the future of the MLP seems to be that he thinks that expects to prove he is a born leader… if only he can find some born followers!
Saying that Labour has a glorious past and that it deserves to be in power will not do the trick, as much as saying that this time it was Labour’s turn, did not do the trick seven weeks ago. To win the next election, Labour needs a leader that infuses enthusiasm for a Malta that everybody wants to believe in. Can Joseph Muscat do this? I doubt it. With his preening and touting of his management capabilities, Joseph Muscat risks falling in the same pitfall that deceived Alfred Sant.
A month ago, I predicted that Joseph Muscat will be elected the next Labour leader. I did so because the odds were stacked in his favour. They still are and as they continue to be stacked even more in his favour, I hold on to my prediction.
Whether this would be the best thing that could happen to the MLP and to Malta is a completely different story.