Nakita Zammit Alamango: the perfect illustration of why positive discrimination and tokenism are such lousy ideas

She blew it - but never mind, she'll be the PM's PA in 18 months, unless Marisa Micallef has mown her down first.

Nakita Zammit Alamango (known as Nikita Alamango) was made a member of the Labour Party’s national executive committee as a token woman, under the positive discrimination clause in the party statute. She was not selected on merit.

I have argued against positive discrimination for years for just this sort of reason: it works against women and not in our favour. If a woman has to rely on positive discrimination to get in, rather than on merit, she is going to let down the organisation, herself and women in general, and it is only a matter of time before she does so.

I had written about it on this blog three years ago. An edited version of the original post is reproduced below.

IT JUST GETS BETTER AND BETTER
Published: August 7, 2008 at 12:30pm

The Labour Party has elected its national executive committee.

Of the 10 members, three are Super One journalists – Claudette Baldacchino, Gino Cauchi and Charlon Gouder, star of one of the most popular YouTube videos in the last election campaign.

Another is the chief elf in Sant’s grotto, churning out one letter-to-the-editor after another during the general election campaign, and patrolling the internet posting comments telling us that Labour is the best thing since sliced bread: Nakita Zammit Alamango.

The press release tells us that she was elected instead of Michael Cohen through the party statute’s positive discrimination clause.

The Labour Party obviously thinks that positive discrimination, which favours women over men just because they are women and regardless of merit, makes it look hip and happening. It has not yet woken up to the fact that positive discrimination is so very yesterday. Positive discrimination is now considered – by women, no less – to be insulting and patronising.

Claudette Baldacchino isn’t on that committee because of positive discrimination, but Nakita Zammit Alamango is. For that alone Ms Zammit Alamango should feel embarrassed.

If I were she, I would seriously resent this advertisement of the fact that I am on the committee only because of my perceived gender handicaps which are thought to make me a special needs case.

Ms Zammit Alamango is 18 or 19 years old. As a Maltese woman who is politically committed and involved, she would be unusual at any age, but at that age she is even more so. Surely she has what it takes to get ahead under her own steam.

[August 2011 update: It turns out she had not.]

Tagging her like this from day one (“you only got in because of that clause”) is going to brand her and make it necessary for her to strive even harder to prove her worth.

[August 2011 update: That was rather optimistic of me.]