Discussing the Franco Debono situation over lunch yesterday, we joked that his statement of “I will not vote with Labour” (as reported by MaltaToday) meant just that. Admittedly our considerations were more in jest than anything else but we considered the possibility that Franco was using his very literal form of reasoning in the sense that “not voting with Labour” does not necessarily mean voting otherwise.
I must admit that given the information earlier that morning I too was surprised by the outcome of the final vote. Surprised to a certain extent though. While I had not seen Franco’s vote coming I was fully aware of the consequences of this vote in the sense that there would be no great collapsing of government, no tumbling down of the temples of power and that the only “victim” of this latest fit would be Carm Mifsud Bonnici.
Incidentally we had also joked that since the motion of confidence had concerned a portfolio that was no longer in CMB’s remit then technically there was nothing to resign from once the vote passed. I know, it’s no laughing matter but the way things were going laughter did seem to be the best medicine. The whole body politic has been in the thrall of Franco Debono’s voting antics for quite some time now. As we pointed out in an earlier series of posts (Malta Post Franco I-IV), Franco is doomed to be a temporal blip in political history.
Sure a record might be broken here and there – such as the forcing of a resignation of a minister (within living memory) but the long-term impact of Franco on the Maltese political landscape was always intrinsically linked with the one-seat majority that the nationalist party enjoys (ah, the cruelty of language) in parliament. The content of Franco’s agenda (or whatever screen he has put up to disguise any personal ambitions and compensation for suffering) is all watered down when seen from a long-term perspective.
In two matters Franco has been unintentionally and unwittingly useful. Firstly his protracted theatricals have served to exposed one major weakness of our representative democracy. The obsession with guaranteeing a bi-partisan approach and discarding all other models (such as one that encourages proportional representation) has meant for some time now that the JPO’s and Debonos of this world expose the stark reality of “election or bust” oriented parties without a backbone. This is a weakness that no “premio maggioranza” would solve , rather, it would only serve to entrench the two parties further in their twisted machinations.
The second useful matter concerns the Labour party. Franco’s bluff and no bluff has actually uncovered the Labour party’s brash “power or nothing” approach that discards any conventional value-driven approach while grafting the ugliest versions of the nationalist party to what it believes to be its own benefit. Valueless politics giving way to full blown marketing was already bad enough. Now we have Labour with it’s catastrophic approach. Muscat’s Labour has shot itself in the foot so many times it probably lacks any limbs.
There is a third, important conclusion that one should add. It is the ugly reflection about the “general public”. A large swathe of it – or the particularly active part of it – have proven to be ridiculously hopeful of the promises that Franco seems to have bandied about. His pet subjects were manna to the ears of the disgruntled – particularly conspiracy theories peppered with mantras about arrogance, cliques and friends of friends. His tales of hurt and suffering – culminating in the infamously comic “broken chair in Court” episode could only strike home if the audience were (how can I put it) less informed.
To conclude, the merry go round that risks being extended once Franco misses out on the latest redistribution of power has exposed huge fault lines in our appreciation of how a basic democracy should function. Separation of powers, judicial authority, parliamentary privileges, public security and rights were all melded together in one big bouillabaisse of political convenience.
Franco’s minutes in the political playing field are now counted. We should have moved on from gazing at Franco months ago, yet we (and the press have much to blame for this) are still at the mercy of his idea of a guessing game. The real politics that will affect out lives for the coming five to ten years lie far away from Franco’s hand. Sadly, nobody seems to be bothered to find out what what those politics and policies really are or will be.
…
from Malta Post-Franco (II)
To get at Austin Gatt, Joe Saliba, Carm Mifsud Bonnici, Richard Cachia Caruana and others Franco Debono decided that the best option was to threaten to topple government. He had had enough waiting in the sidelines for his opinions and ideas to be heard and for a place in the decision making clique that counts. So he refused to play.
10 replies on “Malta Post-Franco (Reprise)”
Jacques,
your two (or is it three) outcomes that you call useful are more or less the same, in that Labour is only doing what you stated in your first point, namely trying to win power at all costs. What you fail to point out though is that the PN is doing just as much not to lose power, which is really pathetic and highlights Gonzi’s lack of leadership skills. I mean he has been pandering to FD’s on again off again stances for far too long and if he had any cojones he should have called his bluff months ago. Instead, assured by his lack of popular support at the polls, he has played, twisted, conjured up fairy tales and reality shows just to hang in there for as long as possible, with the hope that somehow people will change their minds about him and his rudderless party.
The reality is absolutely horrifying. A clueless party in power and an idiot-full party waiting to take over power. Fucked if we do and fucked if we don’t…that’s what our politicians have evolved into…nation-fuckers with a whole lot of nation supporting them. Quo vadis Malta?
First of all I don’t “fail to point out” I omit to mention (and that’s because I don’t see the need to).
Joking aside I don’t agree with your assessment of the PN behaviour and this for a very simple reason. The PN was elected to govern (with a relative majority but a valid majority under the rules of the book). Everybody and his brother seem to believe that sometime last year Lawrence Gonzi should have simply closed shop because his government was (in their words) “unpopular”. Forgive me if I tell you that this is a ridiculous assertion. 99% of governments end up being “unpopular” at some time during their mandate – which is not a good thing in itself – and this can often be attributed to “necessary but unpopular measures” (read the stuff we could not tell you about in the manifesto but tat you need to accept).
Labour (entrapped by Franco) have spent the good part of the last year or so selling the idea that this government should have pressed the eject button ages ago because (again in their words) it is past its sell by date. Meanwhile we are oblivious to the fact that the business of government has proceeded IN SPITE OF Muscat’s empty plans and Franco’s hissy fits. Lack of support in the polls has nothing to do with it. That kind of lack of support was probably predictable on day one of this government (we did so in this blog) – so should Gonzi have pre-empted it by resigning? Hogwash.
Our politics has developed into a Maltese version of anti-Sarkozyism. Only as you point out perfectly well Labour hasn’t given the slightest inkling of proof that it is up to scratch with the idea of taking the management of this country in its hands. That, in itself, is enough to make Gonzi’s “hanging on to power” (as you describe it) or “fulfilling the full extent of his mandate” (as I prefer to see it) a rather responsible decision.
I fail to agree with you, since you changed the premise I was writing about. I never mentioned popularity, or the lack thereof, that the current administration has. I merely pointed out the complete lack of vision, direction, enthusiasm and creativity that this administration has so obviously displayed. Ticking over, biding time, waiting for things to happen is neither dynamic nor effective. our “par idejn sodi” has spent most of this legislature fighting internal fires, managing other ministers workload (from MEPA reforms to public transport services, to foreign residency legislation and reforms in the judicial and political systems that are so glaringly obvious to all and sundry), while clearly failing to address the problems by admonishing the non-delivering ministers.
Still not clear? OK take Austin Gatt and start from the murky dealings behind the Power Station tendering process to a complete fuck up of the public transport system, to the mismanagement of the road networking revamp such that access to our ports and airports are all being carried out over their scheduled project times and in unison. Take Tonio Fenech who accepts “gifts” from prospective tenderers, while accepting to not pay his VAT dues to his house help, to actually admonishing the rest of us with Madonna’s tears for voting in favour of divorce. We have the clueless Tonio Borg who just did fuck all with his Ministry of the Interior and Justice while in charge and passed on the buck to CMB, who un-delivered just as much since the prisons, police force and judicial processes are still as inefficient and ineffective as they were 20 years ago. Do we need to carry on with regards to joseph cassar, George Pullicino et al???
Do you notice I am not talking of them taking unpopular measures…I’m just talking of them doing absolutely nothing to deserve our respect or consideration. Yet, in your writings you “omit” to mention how crappy this Cabinet’s been, because you don’t feel the need to.
Don’t get me wrong, you have my full agreement on the intellectual void that exists on the opposition benches and the completely inadequate positions they take in most of their utterings. Thats why I am so critical of all our politicians, whose sole scope is to be powerful, to be able to pull strings and push people and never to serve or provide for a better Malta and Gozo
Actually Franco makes it even more clear that with Maltese political culture as is, proportional representation and coalitions would be unstable and even more undemocratic by giving small parties out-sized leverage. Do you really want to give extreme-right or left wing parties a platform?
“could only strike home if the audience were (how can I put it) less informed.” Wow! Thanks for the paternalism! I don’t see why we, the plebs, should not hope for a just justice system. Maybe you know something we don’t? Franco’s points, even if only half are true, are a terrible indictment of our current system. Are you really defending the status quo?
“Valueless politics giving way to full blown marketing was already bad enough.” – too true. And this careless blog post with its lack of insight or any real thought given to it, doesn’t do much for the level of our political discourse. Or for your blog views.
Don’t feel to bad though, the rest of the media bloviates too.
Hiya Bitching and welcome back to J’accuse. I’m loving your new alias – fits like a glove.
So. Does Franco make anything clear regarding proportionality? No he doesn’t. If anything I’d rather have a coalition that has clear conditions on what makes it tick than a randomly assembled group of parliamentarians who could one day just stand up in parliament and present whatever agenda they’d like. At least in representation terms the coalition is clearer (whether it is more effective or long lasting depends on how it is operated by the participants in the coalition). I’ve written at length about this elsewhere – nothing new.
As for the paternalism. You’re welcome. I’m quite on the side for the plebs who “hope for a just justice system” and I fully support that general and obvious statement. How that aim is served by the antics we have witnessed and by clamouring for better chairs and recorders in court is another matter. Not to mention the standard confusion that seems to be prevalent between the judiciary and its operation, the laws of Malta and their application and the policing branch of the executive. It’s a case of anything goes. Yes. Less Informed. Reforms based on ignorance will only beget worse systems. Ignorantia legis in a sense.
Careless? Lack of insight? Whatever. I think this post hurts most because it states what is blindingly obvious and what many people prefer not to hear. After all it’s much nicer hiding behind the “let’s bring the unjust government down with a progressive tsunami of bullshit and we will have a just system based on erm….. we’ll see that later so long as WE are in power”
I don’t feel bad. I feel sorry and not in the apologetic sense of the term.
There. You’ve been bloviated.
Well, the way this charade has gone one does not do any good to any of the actors. None of their performances on this “great” political drama or rather, unending soap opera, is sticking out to be the best or worst.
Starting off from Franco, the “Prima Donna”, his threats and statements have been various and not that constant. Proof of the pudding is that until the last moment, it seems no one had a clue what the vote would be. The promise he has kept so far is that he would not bring down the whole government, at least so far.
However, the question of whether his actions or critique will affect PN at the Polls is yet to be seen. I trust that if PN fails to get elected, Franco will not be to blame as in reality he seems to have kick-started the PN into election mode with over a year in advance. In real terms, it seems to have awaken PN from its comfortable slumber and all the initiatives we’re seeing are proof of that.
On the other hand, if we look at the issues raised (and suppress the drama for a minute), can some of the points Franco raised in respect of the Justice and Home Affairs Portfolio be accepted as reasonable critique of the system? The Drama has been exaggerated by our archaic Political System of a complete lack of public transparent and open dissent or critique from government members against their members and the same for the opposition side. This is not a football game where you expect the players to defend their own goal at all times. The aim of politics is to achieve results, not simply to continue puffing smoke into the voter’s eyes.
PN in government has failed to address most of Franco’s points. In trying to hide the situation where it was being held at gunpoint and save face, it either did not act or otherwise with an unbelievable slowness in order not to give credit to Franco’s ideas. For the staunch Nationalist, it makes pretty good sense. Don’t give in to threats or blackmail. For those who look out for the finer points in an issue, rather that the drama, many of Franco’s points make perfect logical sense. In fact, I fail to see where the PN has actually addressed these points.
Even the timing of Labour’s no confidence (later call for resignation) motion against Carm Mifsud Bonnici and lack of discussion of Franco’s motion is a political mistake. That simply made it certain that Franco would be incensed and vote in favour of Labour’s motion. I doubt if come next Monday Franco would ever vote against, probably he would abstain but then again, after months of these tiresome charades, would you be surprised to see Franco bringing down the Government?
Threats and Blackmail have done nothing to get a move. (The Ministry split is far from enough, and now that the Home Affairs portfolio is in the PM’s hands, that’s an accident waiting to happen). If he’s given up the hope to see any change, why would he not simply pull the plug on the government, send everyone to the polls and him to political obscurity once and for all rather than languish in PN’s backbench until the showtime runs out?
The Prima Donna may after all bring this tragedy to a sudden shocking stop. Has the PM turned into a political trap by calling Next Monday’s confidence vote? Please remember what happened in 1998 to Alfred Sant. If not, will this tragedy go on till the parliament is dissolved for elections?
PL wise, some measure of opportunism is obviously there. It as well was caught unprepared for this charade, has not yet brought to the table its future proposals and to be realistic, its Justice and Home Affairs speakers have been far out of the public eye with no concrete proposals published, except the patchwork of riding above Franco’s wave and occasionally having a nice and useless afternoon tea chat with Journalists at the Party HQ bitching on the current state of the sector.
PL has managed to harm the intelligent voters by continuing the age old partisan politics bull crap that these voters are fed up with. It risks losing votes due to the “better the devil that you know than the one you don’t” maxim. It’s failed to ride on Joseph’s new face, new promising politics. Too many old faces still ride the bandwagon, using the same techniques and ways of speaking that have been there for ages.
The fact that he’s got deputies two ancient and “old labour” faces indicates that the drive for change is weighed down by tradition and history in a way that is ridiculous. That both of them are criminal lawyers is also a let down when we know that the future entails a need of greater economic policy strength to ride the economic and social difficulties which we know will come about as soon as a few bubbles will burst locally as well. And then there is the greatest bubble of all… National Debt and Budget deficits.
Once the government changes hands (even if PN remains in power), the dust that has been swept under the carpet needs to be removed. Will we see more Austerity rather than Growth? Time will tell.
Just a point on Monday’s confidence vote. Whichever way Debono votes is now irrelevant. That is one score on which the PM has already won: no election before the summer (Dominic Fenech said as much in today’s Times). I’m pretty sure that, given the situation, the PM wouldn’t presented the 2013 Estimates to this Parliament making his best gamble a September/October election. Even with Debono voting “no” on Monday, the PM will still be getting what he wants.
For all the comparisons that are being drawn with 1998, what strikes me is the difference: a trivial, run-of-the-mill motion to transfer public land with huge consequences and a confidence vote that, at most, might only be the government’s undoing in a very strict legal sense.
Doubt whether they would miss presenting the 2013 estimates. They did not have enough vote catching ploys in the 2012 estimates and unless we have a showdown on Monday (unlikely but not impossible), the government is already on track to propose an election budget. Why do you otherwise think Minister Fenech has already started the budget meetings ?
In any case, one should fear the 2014 budget estimates. Those will be definitely spell doom, whichever Party in government presents them.
Yes, of course, if the PM can assume Debono won’t vote against the 2013 Estimates and can take his antics (the backbench MP still threw a tantrum while voting for the 2012 Budget Implementation Bill) he will go for another budget. The question is not “when latest” but “when earliest” and now the most likely answer to that is “not before September”.
Hi there, I discovered your blog by means of Google at the same time as searching for a related subject, your web site
came up, it looks great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
Hello there, just became aware of your blog via Google, and located that it is truly informative. I am going to be careful for brussels. I will appreciate for those who continue this in future. Lots of people might be benefited from your writing. Cheers!