The rot seems to have spread – or could spread. MT reports that the police will probably arraign more councillors as they widen the probe into the running of local councils. The irony is not lost on anyone that while Local Council small fry are thrown into the burning oil for their (punishable) misdeeds and misappropriations the equivalent on a national level still goes by unnoticed, unpunished and sanctioned by almost half a century of bipartisan tradition. Which is why Lino Spiteri’s take on the issue in today’s Times opinion piece (Away from the eye of the local storms) is somewhat perplexing.
In his analysis Spiteri rightly points out to the strong grip that the two parties have developed on local council politics (Labour did so after a hesitant start) then goes on to prescribe a confusing formula (unless I have misunderstood his prescription). While on the one hand hinting at a necessary relaxation of the political parties‘ hold on council politics, Spiteri seems to accept a “reasonable degree of bi-partisanship”:
True devolution from central government and party could help a culture of involvement, a measure of direct democracy to spring up whereby the citizenry does see itself being put first because its voice is listened to and, on occasion, heeded. The system could encourage young candidates towards it so that, if elected, and if their council follows a reasonable degree of bi-partisanship, they can gain some experience of bureaucratic administration, before they venture into the broader field of national politics.
We beg to differ. First of all the problem is not party involvement itself but rather the manner in which party involvement is perpetrated (yes, criminally so). The party involvement in Local Councils is simply to keep tabs and control on the extended networking created by the supposed devolution. There is no “local” conscience emanating from the PL and PN (ironically so when you consider how “local” our “national” politics are) and they have proven unable to impart any school of thought to budding politicians. This could also be a direct result of the inability of both dinosaurs to absorb ideas from the groundroots and champion them as their own.
Bottom-up politics has never been the forte of the PLPN fold. Candidates are enrolled in order to add to he number and provide punch to the “good vs evil”/bipartisan mentality on which the PLPN thrives. There is little time for a localisation of policy, let alone government and the good success stories in various localties (San Lawrenz and Nadur in Gozo comes to mind) are in spite of and not thanks to PLPN bumbling dictats. Just look at the Siggiewi farce with wannabe star politicans trying to impress (that’s you Carol Aquilina)…
Mike Briguglio wrote an interesting piece in the MT about the Sliema council (Unsurprising Sliema) . We tend to forget that the new Sliema council embroiled in all its troubles is the first post-AD representative council. I am in no way saying that AD could possibly have provided better council support than its behemoth counterparts but just look at the difference between what a multi-party council and the balbugliata that a PLPN bi-partisan council has to offer.
It is very surprising therefore that someone like Lino Spiteri would advocate a better honing of bipartisan skills at Local Council level as some sort of panacea for the current ills. I rather prefer the first part of the formula where parties relax (or revise) their relations with local councils. As a first suggestion I would suggest proper screening of candidates based on what proposals they have for the running of the council and what they would offer as guarantees of good management.
Local councils need just what national politics need. Injection of new political blood thinking outside the bipartisan box that has gotten us used to the idea that networking and bungs and funds is all that politics is good for.
Maybe we should ask our Lady of Good Council(s).
See also: Claire Bonello (Some parties do have them)
29 replies on “Our Lady of Good Council(s)”
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jacques Rene Zammit, Jacques Rene Zammit. Jacques Rene Zammit said: New post: Our Lady of Good Council(s) http://bit.ly/dvTgRt […]
Isn’t it equally arguable that the involvement of major parties which have more than local interests at stake acts as a check on local corruption? Assuming that Paul BO’s intentions are genuine, the involvement of the PN directed the national spotlight at the Sliema council and stopped this before it got worse. If we assume that this is a farce, it does not stop the theory holding water.
As for Karol Aquilina, his actions in Siggiewi put a stop to one of several continuing injustices from the 70s/80s. He certainly is a party man through and through, but this doesn’t make him wrong all the time.
Finally, why the fuss over PN councils, and not a word about the Fgura farce? Or did I miss that?
Equally arguable but the facts seem to contradict this argument. Re involvement of parties note I did not comment against but rather in favour of a revision of the type of relationship. Provision of a good framework would obviously be a step forward.
Check on local corruption? Can the PLPN really do that? PBO? How does he equate the instant dismissal of Dimech (with no formal charge against him) with the record of certain ministers – if the criterion is resign until proven innocent then Fenech should have resigned ages ago and PBO himself would no longer be a viable SecGen (pace Zaren).
Karol Aquilina? Ah of course – a crusader for justice – all in the name of the locality. Pull the other one.
Finally, PN – PL who cares? Same, same but different no?
@ Ju
Please don’t mention the Karol Aquilina crusade to oust the PL club from premises, as an example of one man’s brave fight against injustice. I view it more as a vice mayor’s attempt to hog the limelight. If Karol Aquilina’s heart bled for the plight of landowners divested of their property by the government to be used as club premises, he would have objected just as publicly to the case of the requisitioning of premises in Sta Venera by a Nationalist government. They are still used as (PL) club premises to this day and the PN government refuses to give the owners compensation/change the law….so much for Karol Aquilina and his party.
What’s Karol Aquilina got to do with Sta Venera?
The Sta Venera property was requisitioned by the PN government in the late 1960s and left vacant for six years or so. It was then handed over to the PL for use as a club and for a measly rent. It is still being used for this purpose today. The Government has refused to pay the owners compensation for the inadequate compensation they have had for the deprivation of their property for over 30 years. It has appealed the Constitutional Court judgement ordering payment of compensation.
The PN government has reformed the rent laws but omitted clubs from these amendments (The Minister may make amendments nel anno mai but hasnt). And Karol Aquilina? Busy upstaging Musumeci in Siggiewi but not a word about an identical case and the injustice being perpetrated against owners of requisitioned property still used as clubs. Maybe he’s parochial, or maybe he’s just PN.
Identical case? One’s in Siggiewi, one’s in Sta Venera. Aquilina is Deputy Mayor of Siggiewi.
What’s the Deputy Mayor of Siggiewi to do about premises in Sta Venera except, at most, to have an opinion about?
Claire it looks like Fausto has erected one of his walls of feigned ignorance on this one. I’d pass – not worth the typing.
Yeah, I’m acting like Siggiewi and Sta Venera were two different localities and therefore the Deputy Mayor of Siggiewi is obliged by virtue of his office to speak on behalf of an aggrieved landowner in Sta Venera. Makes perfect sense.
@ Jacques – I know. He does that sometimes.
@ Fausto – No need to get so hot and bothered because someone has gently pointed out that Karol may not be a champion of those people whose property (whether in Siggiewi or Sta Venera)has been requisitioned by Government, but simply a deputy mayor trying to out miltate his mayor. Simply because he has been elected from Siggiewi doesnt preclude your Karol from pronouncing himself on a matter of principle. But that may be too much to expect from him, as it wouldn’t earn him any brownie points from central administration and he’s not up against the Sta Venera mayor next time round.
Sorry had forgotten for a moment that this is Malta and that you’re not only expected to have an opinion (the more uninformed the better) about everything but to offer it unsolicited to those who are not remotely interested.
You see in the rest of the world nobody would the views of mayor A over the goings on in locality B (Unless you’re Boris Johnson in which case it’s only for entertainment value).
Claire, I said that Karol is not wrong all the time. This is hardly ‘one man’s brave fight against injustice.’
I’m sorry to say that this anti-PN rhetoric has the feel of someone who is still bitterly disappointed by cold realisations about an ex-lover who they previously thought was just perfect. There is a world of difference between imperfection and a political incarnation of satan.
@ Fausto….. Why should Karol Aquilina’s opinion about the requisitioning of property be (a ) uninformed? Isn’t he qualified enough to conclude that depriving people of property is not just (even if it happens somewhere outside Siggiewi? Again, why should his opinion be unsolicited? Isn’t he a (relatively) prominent party official? Why shouldn’t he make a statement about a broad principle? Or are PN mayors restricted to talking about their localities?
Claire, the very odd issue of what’s Aquilina’s opinion on a requisitioned house in Sta Venera was only brought up by you. Is the Siggiewi mayor acting according to his mandate and oath? Is the public good in Siggiewi better served through a day care centre for the elderly or a political party club?
@ Fausto. I think you’re the only person to have described the issue of requistioned houses as “odd”. What I find odd is that you seem to think that just because Karol Aquilina is mayor of Siggiewi, he can only speak about matters pertaining to Siggiewi. As an exponent of the PN, and having gone out on a limb to uphold the principle that property should be returned to its rightful owners, why should Karol Aquilina’s upholding/defence of the same principle in another locality, be so odd? If, purely hypothetically, Karol Aquilina was invited to a TV discussion programme and asked about the power station, electoral reform, the whistleblower legislation or anything similar, would he have to answer “No comment” to any questions about the subjects, simply because they have nothing to do with his locality?
Hold it there, girl. I never, ever said the issue of requisitioned houses was “odd”. What’s odd is that somehow the wisdom of a decision to house a day centre for the elderly in a government-owned townhouse instead of a Labour Party club (which dubiously acquired the premises and whose rental agreement had expired anyway) is somehow conditioned by what’s your opinion on something fundamentally different.
What’s your problem Claire? Day centres for the elderly?
@ Fausto. I love this “girl” thing….Please go on. It makes me feel like I’m being addressed by some crusty old Nationalist whowas entering puberty in the time of Nerik Mizzi. Anyway, scroll through our previous exchanges and you will note that this girl hasn’t written a word about day centres for the elderly, merely about Karol Aquilina’s selective blindness to the same injustice being perpetrated elsewhere outside his village. As for centres for the elderly, yep, I’m all for them…And now to ask you a similarly framed question? What’s your opinion about private property being requisitioned by the PN Fausto? Don’t you care about landowners?
First, “girl” is entirely appropriate in circumstances where my words get twisted in the way they were; I’d usually assume good faith but that then implies naivete.
Second, I think the use of requisition after the immediate post-War emergency was an injustice. I know: my family owns one such place which is still under a requisition order.
(And here I’ll I’m still trying to fathom how what to do with a government-owned house when rental contract has expired has anything to do with requisition orders).
Third, thanks for pointing out that you had nothing to say about day care centres but much about Aquilina. You see, some care about how the common good is better served; some care about demonising the Nationalist Party.
Oh, and if requisitioning a house in the late 1960s is an injustice what about assigning it to a political party in the 1970s? Just like day centres for the elderly you do not seem to have much to say on that matter.
@ Ju. Ex-lovers? Satan incarnate? What have you been reading? Or are you referring to those little horns sprouting up but still carefully concealed by the combover beloved of young PN wannabes? If that qualifies as anti-PN rhetoric, I’ll throw in something about PL yuppies awful dress sense, so you won’t be thoroughly upset tonight…
Ok Claire. I’ll spell it out. Some people who used to be obsessed with a political party react to that party’s flaws in the same way as people who are fresh from being jilted by an ex.
@ Ju. Who are these people?
@ Fausto. Oh dear. Now you’re getting annoyed and illogical which isn’t very becoming for someone like you, but never mind. I think you’ve earned your Defender of Karol Aquilina badge. And I’m afraid you haven’t answered a single question so you’ve done a fair bit of going off at a tangent yourself. I happen to think that requisitioning by any government and giving it out on lease for inadequate compensation to any political party club is unjust. I just wouldn’t get all antsy and annoyed and aggressive if it was pointed out. Enjoy shining your badge Fausto
following your reports of blockbuster breakfasts I was fearing the worse but i can now think that it was inteded to throw us off track as you now show us that you are back in (nearly) trim. well done.
Re councils, I feel that you argument on the importance of a third party is perhaps becomig rather bloated, australia may have something to say about that…I believe that the np has triggered a process and all we can do now is to see it unfold before we understand what their final objective is all about. It is my understanding that the local council set-up is as fragile as they look, and throwing a glance at them will see them crumble down, let alone throwing a whole book. The pity is that many innocent bystanders may get caught for some reason we may still need to fathom. inssoma pleasures yet to come.
If only we were so lucky that the decline of ethical standards in public life were limited to elective office as you and Spiteri would like to believe.
Party politics isn’t the problem (Jacques) as much as it isn’t the solution (Spiteri). You conveniently ignored all the scams from licences to VAT to the latest at Mater Dei (involving a salesman posing as a doctor).
And what for? To make the case of the Green Party which I’d have thought that, like the rest of us, you’d have consigned them definitely to the 1990s.
Two final thoughts. Why should Parties do the “screening” of candidates? You don’t think voters can be trusted to chose the right people can you?
Oh and by the way the problem here is not lack of ideas, thinking outside the box: it’s about being honest. Now you tell me how you can “screen” for that.
Forgot to add the central point: that previous scams like the ones at the VAT department were perpetrated by career public officials. At least the elected ones can be booted come election time.
Jacques and Claire: (i) at worst you can say that Karol’s actions were not well-intentioned, but perfectly justified. Good; (ii) Karol need not have pulled any stunts to oust Musumeci because (a) RM has lost lots of support, and (b) Karol is a strong enough operator to be guaranteed a win next time round, without any stunts…he is well-versed in the arts of whisper campaigns and the like.
As for Nikki Dimech vs PBO, you seem to be too taken in with the MaltaToday anti-PN establishment spin. To an objective bystander, it seems that Nikki concocted a story well after the shit hit the fan.
Jacques, re PL-PN = same. Maybe, but you always pick on the lesser evil. The PL Fgura case was an absolute travesty of democratic principle, and you do them a favour by flagging PN shortcomings. This is a zero sum game.
Oh and you should see how MaltaToday’s spin to the story changed. Only a few months ago Dimech was the culprit. As soon as Borg-Olivier stepped in Dimech became a hero.
After all has been said and done, after Fausto has identified the last needle in j’accuse’s haystack, the difference is simple. J’accuse (and a few others) think that the metasytstem is a big part of the problem and would like to change it. Fausto (and, it seems, the large majority of voters) think it’s orrajt. Needles and haystacks Farmer Fausto.
That’s it in a nutshell