This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared on today’s edition of the Malta Independent on Sunday.

I hate number crunching. Statistics have never been my forte and although I did enjoy a period of mathematical bliss during the dreaded ‘Ordinary Level’ stage, it had more to do with the aesthetic perfection of geometry than the mesmerising incomprehensibility of algebra. Enter the logarithm exit brain. As Xs and Ys appeared conspiratorially in the formulaic world where balancing the equation was the ultimate mantra, my mind took refuge in the magical certainty of Euclidian geometry.

The beauty of Euclid’s presentation of geometrical rules is the way the Greek Geometrical Geek came up with a progressive set of axioms that built upon each other proving ever more impossible theorems right. The obviousness of certain basics is what made the geometry beautifully magical. Take the simple description of a straight line as being “the shortest distance between any two given points”. Beautifully simple. Majestically enlightening. All in one go. There’s much more to Euclid than straight lines and studies of shapes and space. There’s logic and the astounding method of proof by contradiction.

Of course in a world of Wi-Fi connections, googling and iPhone applications, we are lazily spared the explanations behind horribly complicated calculations that would in an earlier time have been inculcated within our spirit through the tried and tested method of repetition. There’s not much to worry about if we have all these gadgets to do most daily workings for our lazy cerebellums. What we really should be worrying about is that by discarding the learning process of understanding what lies beneath we also ignore some basic tenets of logical reasoning. We ignore that every assertion must be backed by logical steps and presumably by equally postulate proofs. 

In the mathematical and statistical world there is Google. In the fantastical world of promises and worldly facts we are lazily succumbing to the word of the politician. We don’t question Google or Wikipedia about how it got certain facts or how it reached that conclusion… why should we question Simon Busuttil, Kyril Micallef Stafrace or Arnold Cassola to name but three of our aspirant MEPs?

It’s as illogical leap as you can get but that is the price you pay for numbing the brain to no end with the comfort of gadgetry. A messy political class used to relying on marketing and propaganda rather than values and argument does not help one iota to make things any better, and sadly that means that the selection of candidates for the Euro-Parliamentary Buffet that is due in June is about as appetising as spare ribs from a mad cow boiled in brine.

Know thyself

Writing in the competition (home base) on Wednesday 22 April, Simon Busuttil – candidate extraordinaire for the Nationalist Party, gave us an explanation (seven points) of why the motley crew of Men (and wimmin) for All Reasons chosen by Gonzi’s team are to be distinguished from the rest of the exciting folk vying for a seat in Strasbourg. Simon’s article makes for some suavely snazzy presentation and down-to-earth never-mind-the-bollockry. You know what I mean, you can imagine the outgoing MEP sitting po-faced in front of his laptop bashing out a few tips to the electorate on why SuperSimon believes all his fellow Nationalist candidates are a notch above the rest. 

The guy already has a gargantuan abyss of a lead in the polls so he is probably bothering to stick his neck out for the other commoners (read not EU specialists) who share the PN list. But stick his neck out has Simon, and it is up to the dastardly cynical questioners of PLPN logic like myself to scrutinise this kind of list.

Here goes. First point – PN list is better because it is eclectic. J’accuse warned you aeons ago. The Nationalists will be making a whole song and dance on how they got the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker in one basket and how that is good for you the people. Even Gonzi went on record saying that the PN candidates cannot but have the “polz tal-poplu” (people’s pulse) because they have picked a person from each sector. 

They’re like patron saints you know… there’s one for everyone – which does leave you wondering which of the candidates is set to represent the sector of peripatetically inclined women who trawl the sidewalks in search of clients to whom to give a moment of solace.

But I digress. Simon tells us that this is a coalition of interests – much like the one that “the government successfully managed to bring together on the occasion of the EU referendum years ago”. I guess he means the same coalition of interests, which were brutally decimated once the party’s interests of survival became paramount. That same coalition that was summarily executed one fine day before the EP elections at the Luxol Grounds. Also, do note how the word “coalition” is no longer taboo in PN parlance and does not provoke a rabid reaction from the savants of Triq Herbie G. 

It goes without saying that Simon was banking on a selective lapse of memory on the part of the reader. Forget how Nationalists turned into Jacobins with regard to their friends in the Yes for Europe campaign, but please oh please never forget that most Labourites were in the “No” camp five years ago. “Experience shows that MEPs who are themselves convinced are more consistent”. He does have a point of course – I still cannot see myself voting for a Glenn Beddingfield or a Sharon Ellul Bonici no matter how much they drape themselves in a blue flag with stars. On the other hand, the Honourable MEP cannot really hope to hang on to this whinge forever. Malta is in Europe and yes, every MEP represents some kind of interests. Like MEPs who FROM DAY ONE opposed a ridiculous departure tax in the interests of their voters. MEPs who represent a party that is unequivocal on its position on hunting (ask PBO where the PN stands on that one Simon).

The third reason given by Simon doesn’t really work to his advantage. It’s probably a lapsus. Simon says that PN candidates are free to express themselves without inhibitions and are not fettered by for instance fines. Funnily enough, neither are Labour or AD candidates. Of course Labour candidates were but since then the fine has rightly been removed. That means that this reason does not count, does it Simon? There is no fetter; hence PN, MLP and AD candidates can all say what they like. 

Simon likes the cacophony. He likes the disparate voices in PN’s list. Apparently, PN candidates have a loyalty to a “common set of principles and a common cause”. It could of course be a bit hard to identify them. Don’t even think of going anywhere near the EPP. The behemoth in Europe is unable to string two value statements together on which all member parties agree. So what exactly are the principles common to Vince Farrugia, Roberta MTT, Simon Busuttil and Edward Demicoli (these came to mind)? I can only think of one… they want to get to Strasbourg.

The fourth psychobabble is that PN candidates represent you with dignity and a manner that makes you proud. As against the other candidates who will not wear Armani sunglasses or Pierre Cardin shirts during interviews. The J’accuse translation is simple… someone seems to think that if the people have to be royally shafted then it better be in a posh and dignified manner. 

Finally – and that finally refers to points five, six and seven – Simon insists on waving this transparency commitment on public funds that PN candidates have signed. I’ve said this before and I will say it again – this commitment reflects the changes that would have had to be made ANYWAY under the new rules of transparency governing the European Parliament.

The sixth point drums home PN’s membership of the EPP. It’s important, they will repeat, that we vote for the members of the largest political group in Parliament. They fail to tell you that in all probability the Socialists will overtake them. Worse than that, they fail to tell you how disparate the members of the EPP really are – it’s full of friends really – like Berlusconi’s party.

Life or death equation

I don’t really want to pick on Simon Busuttil. He does a sterling job representing the Nationalist ticket in the European Parliament and there’s nothing wrong with that either. He is rightly paraded as an exemplary MEP by the Nationalist group and that is because in the eyes of a Nationalist voter he is just so. Simon Busuttil has taken his expertise in European law and placed it at the service of the cause of the Nationalist Party. If you are intent on voting Nationalist and getting a representative of that party into Strasbourg, then you’d have to be bloody stupid not to vote for Simon. 

The thing is that there are some – probably very few, judging by the reactions not more than a handful – among us who have had enough of having party interests paraded before us in an idolatrous manner. We are those who have developed a thick-skinned immunity to the flash GIGO that is daily thrown in our direction. We sort of do not see the point of triumphalism in getting a mobile phone time window abolished when you run on the ticket of the same party that ran the government that included an ineffective Office of Fair Trading that should have been doing that job ages ago.

We sort of look beyond the false handouts. Like the “removal of the departure tax” when it was the same party that introduced it in the first place. You get the ticket. And no. This is not an anti-Nationalist rant. It’s an anti-systemic rant. The system sucks. Labour will parade its own menagerie of sycophantic eclectics who will fly their banner in Strasbourg. AD will once again parade its own orphan son – back from his experience in Italy. None of them pick up the real issue of direct democratic representation – beyond the interests of the party come the very peculiar, demanding interests of the citizen.

That same citizen who is living in a time of great economic crisis can make do without the shenanigans of the Alistair Darlings of this world. He can make do without the false promises of deceptive understanding only to be forgotten for five years once the vote is made. We are lucky enough to live in a tiny country. We are basically one constituency insofar as EP elections are concerned. Probably, the best way to go about proper representation in that respect is to have non-aligned candidates. The non-aligned could declare a penchant for some big grouping in the EU but insofar as local allegiances are concerned they really could do without them. 

In a way the very campaigns of the “eclectic candidates” prove my point. A campaign to remove the mobile operators’ time window would be much better received outside the framework of party servilism. Most campaigns benefit from being above the interest-factor of party politics. We’ll have to set aside this option though. Once again the battle lines are drawn and the cornucopia of preened candidates line up at the starting line vying for the vote of the faithful.

Zero

Mathematics would not be the same without zero. The value of nothing made all the difference in the end. This time round the voters might want to consider the value of nothing. Voter turnout has been predicted to be an all time low. Casual observers like Daphne nixed that idea and were ready to bet their last stock of Gillette blades that the turnout of the faithful would still be high. They were probably right. Still. You still have time to choose to vote with your feet.

We could be in an ironic situation that when faced with the disparate menu of un-choice we just turn up our noses and say “Thank, but no thanks”. Yep. That’s right; J’accuse is really considering the possibility of voting by not voting. It’s a statement in itself. It says I only choose my representatives when they put me before their party. So show me the money! 

Is J’accuse suggesting that people choose not to vote? These must really be interesting times. Go figure!

Jacques has finally got Internet back, up and running thanks in part to the intervention of IT whiz kids Gary and Konsu. http://www.akkuza.com is running but has still not taken up the interesting discussion as to whether male pubic hair is superfluous.