No flowers in Panama (II – fertile soil)

So the national protest against corruption is at three o’clock. That gives me ample time to feed you a few more thoughts and even to stop for a pasta al ragu’ half way through.  Much has been said about what the protest is for. Much more about whether the nationalist party should really have the gall to protest in the first place given their “record on corruption” (insert varying degrees of appreciation as to what constitutes proven corruption). Cassola’s AD have taken the PN to task for daring to call the protest “national” and, I assume, for hogging the limelight in this case. The Independent has just put up Daphne Caruana Galizia’s take on the issue and – just from the headline mind you – it would seem that hers is an appeal for the good of the nation to come out and protest the doings of the evil. There was also much fomenting and discussion on the social networks, particularly from the corner of the “Civil Activists” – an interesting new breed of politician or activist if there ever was one – about the issue. Theirs did smack a little of the Podemos/Cinque Stelle type of calling that is popular on the continent at the moment – riding high on the waves of disillusion that are reserved for the whole political caste.

So what is the man in the street to do with all this? At times like this I wish I had an eidetic memory and I could recall the conversation between the Commie Artists who kidnapped Clooney’s character in the Cohen Brothers’ movie “Hail Ceasar!” (fantastic by the way) which I only just watched last night. The bit of the movie I’m referring to brilliantly parodies the high-brow discussion among “activists” intent on bringing down the latest detested social order – in this case capitalism with a big C. Clooney’s clueless character tries to assimilate their ideas for his own purposes and ends up discussing the virtues of shaving a fellow actors’ back with a razor before being bitch-slapped back into reality by the Studio Chief a few movie minutes later.

Unfortunately my memory is only turning for the worse so you’ll have to go check out the movie itself. The man in the street though. What of him? At times like these the protest option might make sense to more people who are “disgusted” at the way politicians are managing the affairs of the state. The anti-politician sentiment is high and the theme of anti-corruption hits home hard. Aside from the partisan call, a national manifestation of discontent at the way things are going (and have been going) is just what the doctor ordered. To that extent you can understand the qualms that persons like Carmel Cacopardo, Arnold Cassola or the “civil activists” had about going to such a manifestation once it became clear that the PN would be the main actor in the proceedings.

Yes, that argument is understandable insofar as it represents a refusal to exchange with a part of the body politic that not too long ago was associated with the ills that are being protested against. I am not talking about the trumped up analogies that we are seeing in today’s papers such as the ridiculous stories about Anne Fenech’s law firm’s Panama affiliations. The servants of misinformation would gladly serve the interests of Labour by pushing such non-stories to their front pages. After all Anne Fenech’s supposed failure was a declared income from declared work for government. She was not a minister, there are no Panama companies in her name or on her behalf, she was not involved in multi-million agreements that might raise the suspicion of illicit commissions.  The Anne Fenech allegations do not hold water and frankly only show the desperation of a Labour government clutching at straws.

There is something more deep rooted in today’s protest though than a mere excuse for partisan flag waving. The protest will gain real sense if it is taken over by different actors in society who want to pass a clear message to the political class. Never mind that it was called and organised by the PN and Simon Busuttil. The message is that change is needed, real change – a change that brings about an intense effort to tackle corruption head on. It is not just nationalist party sympathisers that should be out calling for that change. This is the moment for all those who normally sit on the sidelines of politics – either because they won’t dirty their hands or because they cannot be too bothered – to remind our politicians that the power they wield is one that is borrowed from the sovereign people. The message that should be coming out clearly from today’s protest is that the system that has allowed  corruption to fester our body politic must be changed.

The real meaning of today’s protest could have been, could still be, a clear message to those politicians who want to listen that the only way to battle corruption is to adhere to clear commitments to change the system that engenders and promotes it.

A soil that is fertile for corruption

purifying the soil

It is not too late to get this agenda going. It is not too late to force the agenda of change onto our political parties. For a long time this blog has felt that driving a wedge between the two parties would be the trojan horse that initiates overall changes to the system. That project has proven impossible because the odds are set too firmly against that happening. The truth is that a third party wold be attempting to work within the very system that is built to reinforce the distribution of power in a winner-take all mechanism while at the same time facilitating the creation of power networks. A third party has no chance. Let us take a step back and briefly look at how our government and parliament are formed.

The PL and the PN have built electoral structures around the 13 -district electoral system. Candidates are chosen and groomed in accordance to their district utility – the bigger the heavyweight the more votes can be attracted to the party cause. The candidates themselves have over time morphed into clones or robots with similar catchphrases, similar lingo and similar ambitions. Ultimately a candidate would aspire for first a backbench role, then a step up the ladder to a parliamentary secretariat and then hopefully the ministry and the inner sanctum of the cabinet. The higher up the echelons the more power to trade, the stronger you get in your circle of networks.

Above all this system is a mask that creates the illusion that there are actual policies that will be followed, actual roadmaps to be walked along and actual deliverables to be delivered. This is the packaging lie that is sold to the voter. There is even talk of a manifesto – a collection of promises according to which a party will govern. The truth is far from that though. The real groundwork is the weight that can be wielded in your district, even as you climb up the ladder via backbench, secretariat, ministry, the truth is you are still gunning to please your powerbase – that is how people like Silvio Parnis become politicians – they are good at pleasing powerbases. Occasionally you will get a fluke favoured by the leader who is clumsy at the district level PR but will still get votes because he is pushed as a star candidate.

All the effort that is required to get into parliament involves also deals with “support structures” – businessmen, canvassers and lobby groups.  These will hang around after election having bought themselves a pass into the network of power. That same power that is distributed without any care for values, principles or real roadmaps. In the case of PLPN the end of ideology mattered little for the structures were in place to keep feigning a liberal democratic alternance. No need to be socialist, democrat or whatever – the us and them atmosphere made us all forget the complete and utter absence of vision.

How do we change all this? Off the top of my head I can think of a few basic constitutional/electoral changes that would revolutionise our parties and our politics by forcing them into a new mindset. here goes:

1. The removal of districts from national elections.
2. The introduction of party lists elected on the basis of proportional representation into parliament (with a minimum threshold of between 5% and 7%).
3. The introduction of technical ministries with ministers chosen from outside parliament but accountable to parliament.
4. (A corollary of 3) MP’s who become ministers should resign their place in parliament.

The idea is to topple the whole vested interest idea on its head. A politician who aspires to become a representative in parliament would want to be just that. A place in parliament is a place in the legislative and (through its committees) a place on the bodies that scrutinise the operations of the executive. Political parties would present their programme of government to the nation and be voted into parliament accordingly. It’s not who you’re voting for that counts but what you are voting for. Citizens would be obliged to scrutinise electoral promises more seriously and would be less concerned with getting their “champion” into parliament on his way to a superministry.

Proportional representation means that parliament is composed according to votes obtained nationwide and composed of members intent on being parliamentarians above all else. Technical ministries would allow for the appointment of people who are competent in their respective fields and not limit the pool to elected members of parliament intent on widening the gays for their district powerbase. A technical team of ministers is also accountable to the parliament in the fulfilment of the electoral promises made by the party in power – parliamentarians would fulfil their functions in that sense too.

Of course these ideas are just a start and I am open for discussion. The thing is though that implementing such a list of changes would require having a party on board that is already within the establishment. Getting a party like the PN, or hopefully even the rebel side of the PL that has had enough of what we have seen until now will require engagement and not distancing. That is why I disagree with the Cassola’s and Briguglio’s of this world who seem to believe that there is a hope for intiating the change from without.

It is time for the different forces of society who time and again have advocated the need for change and for reform to take the bull by the horns and to engage with the forces within the two major parties. The next step would be to get these elements of PN and PL on board and make these changes their own for IMMEDIATE implementation. It is the responsible, practical and probably, only way forward.

Protesting is not enough. Concrete proposals for change and obtaining the commitment of the current political class would be a giant leap forward. We know there is evil afoot. It’s no use crying about it or playing the happy revolutionaries, it’s more useful to engage and begin the change.