Editorial

One argument making the rounds ahead of the election for the post of general secretary of the General Workers' Union next month is that, politically, it suits the Nationalist Party better for the union delegates to re-elect Tony Zarb to the post than to go for Manwel Micallef, who has put his name down for the job. This is the same argument used in relation to Alfred Sant, considered by the Nationalists - and, also, by a good number of Labour people too - as the Malta Labour Party's biggest disadvantage in the election stakes.

Speaking strictly in terms of partisan political strategy, not national interest, hardline Nationalists would rather have the militants at the helm of the union in order to keep putting the GWU and, thereby, its ally, the MLP, in a bad light. They believe, correctly, that this helps in keeping the party away from the seat of power in the country. But this, of course, is not in the national interest.

Mr Micallef fears the Nationalists will try to present him in a good light only to encourage suspicious delegates to keep the status quo in the union. At the same time, however, he feels sure the delegates are intelligent enough to see through this strategy. The problem is that, while it is taken for granted that the union delegates will realise this only too well, it is doubtful if they would want to see their union take a new course, away from the militant direction taken by the wing supporting Mr Zarb, which includes the GWU president Salvu Sammut.

Like Mr Zarb, Mr Sammut too has resorted to inflammatory language, as he did some time ago when, in a dispute with Enemalta, he was reported saying that the union was prepared to "occupy the streets and will govern from the streets. We have a Mediterranean temperament. It is easy for us to flare up".

The issue raised by the new movement developing within the GWU is not over whether or not the union should abdicate its role as defender of workers' rights and transform itself into a docile organisation, as the hardliners within the union are conveniently interpreting Mr Micallef's thinking, but over the way it should exercise its function today. The hardliners simply do not wish to listen to this at all. At present, the union is seen by most as too confrontational in its dealings with the Nationalist administration, too quick to resort to threats and action.

Left out of the equation in the debate are the members. The general secretary is elected by the delegates but one wonders what are the members' feelings over the matter right now. In a survey carried out by the union some time ago, members said they wanted their union to project an image that was independent of the political parties. Mr Micallef, on the other hand, feels the union cannot ever be politically independent.

On this point, he seems to be going against the wishes of the union members. Few would believe the union can steer itself out of the MLP orbit but what do the members think about the new direction Mr Micallef as well as Karmenu Vella want the union to take? Will the delegates voting in the contest be truly reflecting the wishes of the membership? That is a key question for which there is no answer unless the union seeks its membership's views directly in another survey.