Veiled Arguments

The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” metaphor is back to haunt us. Only a while back we had a Archiepiscopal warning from the pulpit about the various wolves attired in sheep’s best (and they were not referring to vêtements signé Desigual) and now we have PM Gonzi accusing the Labour Party of having a lupine nature disguised as a fluffy animal. The phrase first appears in the Matthew 7:15 (that’s the bible, not an early morning Matt):

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

What is Gonzi on about then? Well I am not sure whether this report by MaltaToday and this one by the Times of Malta were from the same event  but they make an interesting reading into the mind of the One Who Many Think Committed Hara Kiri. The PM was commenting on Cyrus Engerer’s volte-face and trying to give his spin to the issue. We’d love to see Lawrence Gonzi’s credibility ratings at the moment but even if we assumed that there are still some people who take his word as the law we can find some interesting conclusions to continue to draw.

the counter-spin: wolves, the 80s and tolerance

MaltaToday highlighted Gonzi’s weak attempt at counter-spin. He pounced onto Joseph’s Muscat silent fatwa on Adrian Vassallo’s solo run and painted a picture of 80’s style intolerance in which “In-Nazzjon” was a public taboo. It’s tiring. Nauseating even. This whole business of projecting Labour’s past onto the future milked to some success for the 2008 Taste Campaign is long past its sell-by date. Gonzi is evidently clutching at straws with this argument. It is only made worse with his stress on “tolerance” – fresh from his monumental “NO” and spitting in the face of the vox populi (see “Drawing Conclusions”). There are inklings of the dire need that Dr Gonzi has for some intelligent (new?) advice before speaking to the press when he then opts to couch his ideas in biblical metaphors : triggering the very red lights that have made him lose so much in the popularity polls. Fail.

the ideas on switching parties

The Times report is more concerned with Gonzi’s opinion on Engerer’s choice to switch parties. According to the Times:

” Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said he respected the decision of Sliema deputy mayor Cyrus Engerer to resign from the Nationalist Party and join Labour but disagreed with his reasons. Mr Engerer did not resign because of the PN’s stand on divorce but pinned his decision on one issue: Dr Gonzi’s No vote against divorce legislation in Parliament on Wednesday.”

Much is being made elsewhere about Engerer’s Damascene switch (including questions being asked about whether it was not so sudden). Dr Gonzi is here “respecting” the decision made by the young turk. Many will confuse “respecting” with “agreeing with ” or “accepting” Cyrus’ switch. Gonzi does neither. He disagrees with the motivation (His own No vote) and above all he has a problem with the assessment of principles.

anchors

It’s the last bit that is very telling. Principles. Here is how Dr Gonzi reads the latest crisis:

“I fear we are reaching a situation where people are no longer anchored to their principles.”

People and principles. Is Gonzi, like almost everyone in the political arena, missing the woods for the trees? We have written elsewhere that the biggest problem is the lack of principled backbone within the major parties – their choice to not commit. Gonzi is pointing his fingers at “people who are no longer anchored in their principles” using Engerer as an excuse. His fingers are pointed in the wrong direction. It is the parties who have abdicated from representing clear cut principles and sacrificed these principles on the altar of populist convenience.

Wolves, Pots & Kettles

The biggest demonstration of this dog-eat-dog unprincipled world was the exchange of accusations by the PM and leader of Opposition. While Gonzi was accusing Joseph of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Joseph was busy spinning the line that “Labour had never changed its position throughout the debate”. Nobody can deny that. The point is that Labour had no position to change. It had no position on divorce. That is what Gonzi should have told Cyrus Engerer – that he was joining a party that did not have the balls to take an official position on divorce.

There’s another question I need to ask Joseph. How come “Labour not changing position” is good but “Gonzi not changing position (and always standing for the NO)” becomes bad? It’s stupid, stupid, stupid all over the place. It’s like two people tossing a coin ten times and the result is 7 heads and 3 tails. Joseph is suddenly “right” because he backed heads while Gonzi is wrong because he called “tails” all along?? Meanwhile Labour chose not to call heads or tails but wins prizes for being constant in not taking a position. Is this a crazy world or not?

Engerer

Will Engerer manage to change Labour into a real progressive party? Does he have the clout? Will it matter? It won’t to the token voters who just see Labour as the new lesser evil away from GonziPN. The question is “what will it take for them to notice that MuscatPL is same, same but different?” How long till we will be discussing how MuscatPL failed to take leadership on civil society issues, or worse still how its attempts to play the populist led to a hodge podge of botched legislation? We’re kicking off with “kids’ right to maintenance till they are 23″…. quite a good start to raise unprincipled, spoilt brats whose concept of politics is waving the blue/red flag whenever duty calls….

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle – j’accuse 2011