Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Constitutional Development

The revolution will not be televised

 

On the rule of law and constitutional reform

Our parliaments have begun to discuss the state of the rule of law in Malta. I use the plural form because it is not only our national parliament that has begun to debate this but also our other parliament, the one that sits in Strasbourg. The President of the European Parliament is as much the president of a Maltese institution as is Anglu Farrugia.

All too often, whenever somebody like Antonio Tajani speaks you can sense people thinking that they are being spoken to by a foreign authority – the mentality of indħil barrani (foreign interference) creeps in. This misunderstanding is an almost harmless example among many that underpin the poor assessment and consequent weak expectations that “we the people” make and have of our institutions and their constitutional duties.

The main consequence of all this is that as a collective we become lousy arbiters of the use of the sovereign power with which we have empowered our institutions. As a fledgling nation we have seen our institutional set-up gradually adapted to suit a gross misconception – that the ultimate sovereign power that needs representing is not the people as a whole but bipartisan interests. In simple terms, the more the basic laws got rewritten, the more this was done to encapsulate a system of alternation and to redefine principles such as “fairness” and “justice”.

The result would be, for example, that a “fair and just” appointment under our laws is one that is acceptable to the two parties that became the only players in a system once modelled on a more representative idea: the Westminster model. As if that were not enough, the constant tinkering with our basic laws resulted in an executive on steroids – a government that would lead by virtual dictatorship for five years – that would also practically neutralise the representative organ of the state.

An overpowered, unaccountable executive, a neutered house of representatives and finally a judicial, watchdog and policing network that risks being brought to the heel of the executive that appoints it without any sense of meritocracy or transparency. That is the state of the rule of law that should be discussed in our parliaments. That is the spring board for constitutional reform that should have long been on the national agenda, but instead it kept being hijacked in the supreme interests of the survival of the two behemoths of Maltese politics: the nationalist party and the labour party.

Watching last Monday’s debate in parliament I could not help but think that we are about to relive yet another moment of cosmetic changes.

Delia, elected on the strength of a “the-party-is-above-everything-else” message hitched onto the “civil society” demands in an apparent display of goodwill to discuss any necessary changes. The thrust of his message though still let off a whiff of the appropriation (and watering down) of national causes that we have seen all too often from nationalist circles.

Labour, on the other hand, while leaving the door open for some kind of constitutional reform, bent over backwards in trying to explain that the rule of law is already alive and kicking in Malta. The collective denial of the patently obvious is in line with the daily Potemkin Village approach that their government’s propaganda machine seems intent on portraying. Under a Labour administration of L-Aqwa Zmien, the revolution will definitely not be televised.

Civil society has made its first calls that are not so much a call for blanket reform as for clear signs of change. The replacement of the AG and the police commissioner is still couched within the old principle of “justice and fairness” – approval by the two princes in parliament. A real constitutional reform must target more profound changes – a more representative parliament with a stronger monitoring role, an accountable executive and an independent network of judicial, monitoring and policing structures.

Calling upon the political parties to do what they do worst is counterproductive. A real constitutional convention would be made up of a cross-section of experts from civil society with the parties as equals among others and not as the leaders of such a project. The DNA of a new constitution should not be framed in terms of the needs of two parties but with the idea of a Malta 2.0 in mind, where the rule of law does finally reign supreme.

We need a Malta where we are all servants of the law so that we may be free.

* This article appeared in the Malta Independent on Sunday on the 5th of November 2017. 

 

https://youtu.be/qGaoXAwl9kw

Categories
Rule of Law

The Daphne Files

 

Joe Bloggs returns to J’accuse. The series in which he examines the Government’s spin is on hold. This time he kicks off a parallel series where he takes a look at the main controversial themes tackled by Daphne Caruana Galizia on the Running Commentary in recent years.

It’s been 7 hours and 15 days since they took your pen away… since you’ve been gone they can do whatever they want, they can see whomever they choose,  they can eat their dinner in a fancy restaurant…

While part 1 of the Serial examining the Government’s Spin (and by now obvious efforts to shove it all under the rug) in the aftermath of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination last Monday simmers away in your minds (plus I’m gathering information), I thought it worthwhile to write this parallel series of posts: The Daphne Files: An essential guide to the now frozen in time Running Commentary and the wealth of stories that it contains.

“There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate.” 

These final exasperated words in a post uploaded just mere minutes before she drove off into the sky provide a glimpse into the world that Daphne saw. A world that she illustrated to us and tried, at times with increasingly evident frustration, to shake us into understanding time and time again.

This final post was in relation to the utterly bizarre situation of the Chief of Staff (Keith Schembri), the left hand man of the Prime Minister of Malta (Joseph Muscat) and effectively the power behind the “throne”, not only refusing to resign or be removed but brazenly suing the ex-leader of the opposition Simon Busuttil for libel for daring to call him corrupt. This is a man who is named in the Panama Papers as having set up a Panamanian company sheltered by a New Zealand trust days after having been appointed as Chief of Staff, who engaged in a series of dealings with the ex-CEO of a newspaper (Adrian Hillman) that led to it teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and that directly or indirectly is the subject of 5 concurrent magisterial inquiries including about graft.

We have not heard anything about the results or progress of these inquiries (and likely will not) but hey at least the libel law suit is proceeding! Enough to make a less doped population’s blood boil, but the Labour government’s propaganda machine would have us believe that it is (pick one or more): (a) negative, (b) a fabrication, no “proof”, (c) all a Nationalist plot, (d) unpatriotic to think or speak badly about Malta (i.e. we will “deal with it” quietly) or (e) (my all time favourite, by an adjudicator no less) “kickbacks are not illegal”.

So, how did we get to this pathetic point? Welcome to the world of the Running Commentary. It really is a pity that the darn thing cannot be viewed in reverse order and is so primitive in navigation since it truly documents the dramatic changes that Malta has undergone since 2008 when it was set up.

From a catholic and perhaps innocent Malta (with rumours or undertones of shady operators operating on the fringes) that had just about adopted the Euro, to a Malta in 2017 where everything goes. A Malta that over the years has become numb and normalised the abnormal. A Malta where a series of civil society protests out of frustration over the broad daylight execution of a journalist and the ineffectual police commissioner and attorney general get twisted into “it’s a PN thing” and “the police are offended”. A Malta that (prompted by politicians in the shadows) organises an impromptu mass meeting in Rabat to show support to the Prime Minister, AG and police commissioner (if it’s an apolitical issue why organise a pathetic public show of support?) and another (it seems) in the offing on 10 November. A Malta that has lost control of its government and that, in times of utter distress, fear and frustration, looks to the current Opposition for solace and support and now sees that it is led by someone that at best carries a check-in baggage as opposed to a commercial cargo.

Worse, the government, who (likely sniggering) during the leadership election held off from attacking him (Adrian Delia), has now unleashed a barrage even attempting to point public suspicion towards the current leader of the Opposition by frantically drawing links to Libyan oil smugglers (who started the wild goose chase rumour that it was Semtex?) and, as a result, his circle of supporters and friends.

But I digress. Let’s leave this frustrating story and how we got here for another day.

What were the main stories and themes that the Running Commentary returned to time and time again? The Times and Lovin Malta each carried a quick article about these stories but it’s worth subdividing these thematically:

  1. The Loose Money – Henley & Partners and the acronyms (IIP – Golden Passport Programme & MRVP – VISA programme on steroids)
  1. Muscat’s meddling with the big boys including the Energy Masterplan – The Silk Road Economic Belt and Azerbaijan’s power play
  1. Sheiks and Hidden Hands – Vitals, AuM (Zonqor) and now Shoreline
  1. John Dalli (Snus and Lady Bird’s pensioners’ money)
  1. Everyone’s finger in the pie, the bribery of a nation
  1. The rise of Adrian DeLiar

Let’s look at each in turn:

The Loose Money – Henley & Partners and the acronyms (IIP – Golden Passport Programme & MRVP – VISA programme on steroids)

A scheme fiercely guarded under unforeseen levels of centralised control and secrecy (the core concession contract to Henley and Partners is so redacted that it looks like a cartoon prisoner’s outfit, to this day the names of new citizens are kept hidden and at this point is immune from freedom of information requests on grounds of national security lest it create a diplomatic incident),  Daphne instinctively knew a good story when she saw one.

So what do we know about the IIP scheme (and its child, the MRVP which got a steroid boost after the 2017 election) so far?

There should be little doubt in anyone’s mind that this scheme, which was sprung up on an unsuspecting nation back in 2013 (it wasn’t in the 2013 electoral manifesto), was something that had been planned for a while.

Designed by Henley & Partners (who then went on to win what seems to be a pre-ordained tender), the IIP scheme hit a sweet spot with on the one hand the Maltese fixer mentality (initial objections appear to have been based on Henley getting the bulk of the booty rather than sustainability and reputation) and on the other the government’s thirst for a quick buck to be able to hand out sweets to the electorate.

A far cry from Minister Edward Scicluna’s bumbling statement in the EP’s budgetary committee meeting in December 2013 that this scheme “had nothing to do with the deficit or with financing”, “we put in a token of Eur 15m and the Commission is saying this should be down to Eur 8m” and is “just a token we can do without it…”, we are only just discovering the extent of our country’s increasing dependence on the sale of passports.

In the space of 4 ever so long years, the IIP scheme has (net of undisclosed Henley fees as well as kickbacks) so far purportedly brought Eur 309m into the mysterious “National Development and Social Fund” (which is included in the general government budget, and which figure does not include income / liquidity from mandatory bond purchases and add-on fees), is the sole reason for the #surplusgeneration hashtags you’re seeing on twitter and the budget ads still boasting about surpluses and is touted as the source of funding for Muscat’s 7 year road (re-laying) map.

Even Moody’s picked up on this and in its revised Credit Opinion of 9 May, 2017 (which was widely shared during the election as a feather in Labour’s cap without mentioning this part) noted that: “The result was mainly driven by stronger than expected revenues from both companies and households, notably due to more buoyant economic conditions and stronger than expected proceeds from Malta’s golden passport scheme, the Individual Investor Programme”.

No wonder Muscat accepted Henley’s advice to extend the cap agreed with the EU Commission indefinitely!

Besides the murky financial arrangements, the Running Commentary also drew a number of stark parallels between Malta and another Henley-owned country, St. Kitts & Nevis both as regards rents and as regards electoral campaigns.

In the next part we’ll take a look at Daphne’s (justified in my view) suspicion that, erm, perhaps all was not right with the ever increasing frequency of Malta-related news items on this Azeri website: http://en.apa.az/search?keyword=Malta&t=xeber .

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development

The New Normal

 

In another guest post, Eleonora Sartori reflects on the messages from yesterday’s demonstration.

The new normal

In Canto III of the Inferno, Dante Alighieri describes the sighs and piercing cries of woe of “the miserable spirits of those who lived neither infamy nor praise”. These are the so-called “ignavi”, from Latin “ignavus”, i.e. someone who is not active nor diligent. They are placed together with “that worthless choir of Angels who did not rebel, nor yet were untrue to God, but sided with themselves.”

Given that the ignavi never dared take a stand for what they truly believed was right, but merely passively supported the strongest, they are subject to the poetic punishment of “no hope of death”. In fact they are condemned to an “unseeing life” where both Mercy and Justice hold them in contempt.

Their desolate condition is so tremendous that even Virgil, Dante’s teacher, suggests that Dante abandons them to their hopeless faith by saying the famous words: “Let us not talk of them; but look, and pass” (non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa).

I recalled this scene after watching yesterday’s demonstration of the Civil Society Network. Many Maltese citizens (and I’d like to stress that they were citizens) were protesting in the streets, marching with banners or with tape on their mouths as a symbol of attempts to silence free speech. Even though a very big manifestation had already taken place two Sundays ago, at the very heart of Malta’s capital, they decided to march again on the streets, this time in the surroundings of where Mrs Caruana Galizia was brought up.

During the speech written by Jacques and so well delivered by Antonio, Jacques stressed that “Qiegħdin hawn biex inwasslu messaġġ fejn ngħidu li ilkoll kemm aħna nirrifjutaw li dan huwa THE NEW NORMAL. Li nirrifjutaw li dan huwa BUSINESS AS USUAL. » (yes, I am learning Maltese and yes, it is a beautiful language, though I only end up practicing it through politics nowadays ).

Why am I mentioning this particular bit of Jacques’ speech right now?

Because one of the first Maltese expressions that I’ve learnt when I started my second semester of Maltese was “Rajt ma rajtx, smajt ma smajtx”. An expression whose meaning I think only a Mediterranean mind fully grasps: the idea of pretending not to have seen nor heard for the sake of staying out of trouble. The idea of ignavia. The idea of omertà.

Those citizens protesting yesterday where calling for justice, but most important of all, were asking their countrymen and women to play a more active role in what’s happening in the country right now. Pia Zammit called for people to be engaged in what needs to be done right now to restore the Rule of law in Malta and honor Daphne’s memory by calling for more justice and transparence at all levels of the Maltese society.

And how can you start this tremendous job?

I think surely by not letting anyone around you forget or undermine what’s happening in your country. Daphne’s murder – because we’re not talking about someone’s death, we’re talking about someone’s murder – marked a turning point that cannot and has not to be forgotten.

However, there are those who are trying to make you go back to the passive status of the “ignavi” by calling this situation “merely exceptional”. They want to you to feel that after all business can and actually HAS to go back to usual, because there are other priorities on the agenda and it’s better that people forget this ridiculous quest for the Rule of Law.

And how do they achieve that?

First, they attack you. They call you whores, traitors and assassins if you decide to give up precious days of your life and devote them to protesting outside the PM’s office in Castille. They degrade you by stressing that you are nothing but mere random people whose place is not in the streets, calling for more justice, but back to where they belong – he wrote “Strada Stretta” (he even misspelled it) but even my poor command of Malti allows me to understand that he implied the former prostitutes’ district.

According to this logic, you people are tamed creatures who are useful because you possess the right to vote. Once the ballot is cast, forget about accountability and the sovereignty of the people. It’s them who take the lead. And by undermining your actions and the potential of these actions they make sure that you fully understand where you belong.

Secondly, instead of directly attacking you, they try to defend themselves and make you go back to your place by using a more subtle language. A language – in this instance it was used by your PM during last week- that can both threaten those who want to stand up and exercise their freedom of speech (“All those trying to make political mileage out of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia would see it blow up in their face”) and bluntly state what the country’s priorities are: business as usual, i.e.“The murder of blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia triggered off a difficult moment for Malta, but it should not be allowed to derail the country’s long-term plans.”

Let’s read it again: “IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DERAIL THE COUNTRY’S LONG-TERM PLANS.”

When I read this last sentence I was petrified. Seriously, is he saying out loud that it is the murder’s fault if you, the sovereign people, are now marching in the streets and that, by doing so, you are derailing the country from its never-ending Aqwa Zmien?

It’s because of these attitudes and the use of such a language that you all need to keep up the good work that has already been done over the past two weeks and go back to monitoring what is done by those who have the obligation to represent you.

Jiena smajt u rajt, u intom?

Categories
Constitutional Development

Diskors Dimostrazzjoni Socjeta’ Civili

This is the speech that Antonio Tufigno read on my behalf at the Civil Society Demonstration today.

X’intom tagħmlu hawn? X’inġbartu tagħmlu għal darba oħra madwar din l-għajta għall-Ġustizzja? Għadkom ma xbajtux? Għadkom ma għajjejtux? Ħarsu waħda fuq il-lemin u fuq ix-xellug tagħkom. X’ġew jagħmlu hawnhekk dawn in-nies illum? X’inhi din is-socjeta’ civili? Għalfejn dal-kjass, dan l-istorbju kollu? Għalfejn dawn it-talbiet? Għalfejn qed ngħidu li hawn min għandu jirrizenja? Aħna jew m’aħniex f’bidu ta’ rivoluzzjoni? U rivoluzzjoni f’isem xiex u min?

Ġimagħtejn ilu seħħ assassinju oxxen. Inqatlet bl-iktar mod premeditat mara qalbiena, omm kuraġġuża u kittieba sbukkata. Ġimagħtejn ilu seħħet skossa kbir fis-socjeta’ Maltija u minn dakinhar xejn ma jista jerga’ jkun l-istess. Is-socjeta civili qamet mir-raqda twila li kienet ilha fiha. Kienet ilha ma tridx temmen u ma tridx tisma’ li l-qafas ta’ pajjiżna sejjer lura bil-ħeden.

Lura mhux f’sens ekonomiku għax dik l-illużjoni hemm għada. Le, mhux f’sens ekonomiku. F’sens ieħor. Għax filwaqt li qed ngħixu fi żmien is-surplus ekonomiku qed nassistu żmien id-deficit civiku u socjali. X’intom tagħmlu hawn? Staqsejtkom. Ħafna minnkom issa draw ilissnu l-kliem “Saltna tad-Dritt” – il-famuża “Rule of Law”. Issa li qomna mir-raqda qed nindunaw u nitgħallmu li din tfisser ugwaljanza quddiem il-liġi…

Li l-liġi hija l-istess għal kullħadd …

u li min hu fdat bit-tmexxija tal-pajjiż huwa marbut u suġġett għall-istess liġijiet daqs kull wieħed u waħda minna.

U għaliex qed nitkellmu dwar dan issa? Għaliex kellu jkun assassinju kiefer ta’ ġurnalista biex nibdew nitkellmu dwar riformi ta’ pajjiż? X’inhu in-ness, il-link, bejn ħaġa u oħra?

Matthew, Andrew u Paul – t-tfal ta’ Daphne – qalu li ma jridux biss ġustizzja penali – jiġifieri li jinstab min hu ħati tad-delitt specifiku – iżda jixtiequ riżultati iktar wiesgħa – iktar dejjiema. Jixtiequ li l-pajjiż jirritorna għal stat fejn id-dritt jirrenja – fejn kull wieħed u waħda minna iħossu cittadin liberu u cittadin li m’għandux minn xiex jibża’..

Sabiex isir dan it-tibdil, sabiex jintlaħqu dawn il-miri hemm bżonn li tqum fuq tagħha s-socjeta’ civili. Hemm bżonn li dan il-moviment magħmul minn kull wieħed u waħda minnkom ikompli jikber u jitgħallem u jemmen dak li qed jipproponi.

Għalhekk qiegħdin hawn. Qiegħdin hawn għax l-istat naqasna.

Naqas magħna lkoll. L-istat fis-sens wiesgħa tal-kelma m’għadux iservi lil pajjiż iżda kull ma jmur qiegħed iservi biss lic-crieki ta’ poter.

L-istat naqasna għax tħalla isir, jew jissawwar, sabiex jaqdi l-bżonnijiet tribalistici ta’ dawk li jifirduna. Falla għax il-kostituzzjoni u il-liġijiet tagħna baqgħu jitbagħbsu sabiex jinqdew l-allat foloz u sakemm spicca intesa’ ic-cittadin.

Għalhekk qiegħdin hawn. Għax sabiex titqajjem kuxjenza dwar dawn il-problemi hemm bżonn li l-poplu – li s-socjeta’ civili – jiftakar li huwa s-Sovran.

Iva sovran. Fis-saltna tad-dritt, dik li tiggarantilna li il-liberta’ – il-poter bażiku – jinstab fil-poplu. Dak il-poter jiġi fdat lill-politici għal peridjodu ta’ żmien u huwa dmir tagħhom li jużawh fl-interess tal-ġid komuni.

Qiegħdin hawn għax dawk li fdajnilhom il-kuruna tas-saltna tad-dritt naqsuna lkoll. Naqsuna kull darba li ippermettew li jitmermru l-istituzzjonijiet li xogħlhom kien li jipproteguna. Naqsuna kull meta ippermettew li tissikket kull tip ta’ kritika jew oppozizzjoni. Naqsuna kull meta ħadu sehem dirett f’azzjonijiet sabiex jissiktu l-kritici. Naqsuna meta biegħu il-valuri tagħna lkoll sabiex igawdu il-ftit.

Qiegħdin hawn, fl-aħħar, għax kellha tkun xokk lis-sistema bl-assassinju atroci ta’ Daphne Caruana Galizia. Issa ma nistgħu nonqsu la lilha u lanqas lil dak li ħadmet hi ukoll għalih.

Qiegħdin hawn proprju fil-belt fejn trabbiet biex l-ewwelnett ma ninsewx lil Daphne u dik il-ħidma tagħha li biha għenet biex jinkixfu l-problemi ta’ pajjiżna.

Qiegħdin hawn biex ma ninsewx. Għaliex nonqsu aħna mir-rispett lejn Daphne jekk inħallu l-memorja tagħha tintesa wara ftit żmien u jekk ma jsir xejn sabiex tinbidel is-sitwazzjoni preżenti li kienet ukoll il-kaġun li waslet għal mewtha.

Qiegħdin hawn biex inwasslu messaġġ fejn ngħidu li ilkoll kemm aħna nirrifjutaw li dan huwa THE NEW NORMAL. Li nirrifjutaw li dan huwa BUSINESS AS USUAL. Li nirrifjutaw li kull min qiegħed jgħolli leħnu dwar il-bżonn ta’ bidla jiġi sistematikament attakkat bħala traditur jew bħala partiġġjan. Li nirrifjutaw l-akkuża li xi roadmap ta’ xi politiku qed jiġi sabotaġġat b’din l-għajta għall-Ġustizzja.

Qiegħdin hawn bħala l-ewwel pass ta’ bidla importanti għal pajjiż li jrid jreġġa lura lejn is-saltna tad-dritt, bħala pajjiż fil-qalba ta’ l-ewropa b’vokazzjoni li jkun l-aqwa – iva – imma l-aqwa xempju ta’ liberta’, demokrazija u ġustizzja.

Qiegħdin hawn għal-vjaġġ twil. Il-bidla mhix ser issir minn jum għall-ieħor. Għad irridu nikkonvincu ħafna nies dwar kemm din il-bidla hija siewja għal pajjiżna, għalina u għal uliedna. Intom ilkoll li qiegħdin hawn tistgħu tkunu xhieda iżda anki attivi f’din il-bidla. Nista’ ngħidilkom li magħkom hemm ħafna Maltin u Għawdxin li, bħali,  jgħixu barra – Maltin ta’ Londra, Maltin ta’ Brussell, Maltin tal-Lussemburgu, Maltin tal-Isvizzera. Maltin li baqgħu marbuta sew ma dak li qed jiġri f’pajjiżna u li għandhom ħafna x’jikkontribwixxu għal din il-bidla.

Jien fost il-ħafna li kibru jaqraw il-kolonni ta’ Daphne fil-gazzetti u li ġejt ispirat minnha sabiex nuża l-pinna bħala arma politika.  Forsi irreciprokajt ftit din l-ispirazzjoni meta permezz tal-blog tiegħi, waqt iljieli ta’ diskussjonijiet jaħarqu fuq l-istess blog fi żmien l-elezzjoni tal-elfejn u tmienja, Daphne iddecidiet tiftaħ blog tagħha. The rest, kif jgħidu, is history.

Jien ukoll għadni immur  fuq il-blog tagħha b’mod awtomatiku sabiex nara x’inhu jiġri f’pajjiżi. Il-vojt li ħalliet warajha huwa enormi. Ma rridux ninsew li dan il-vojt inħoloq għax kienet tikteb. Għax ma beżgħet minn xejn u ħadd.

Ippermettuli insellem lill-familjari kollha ta’ Daphne f’dan il-mument. L-ebda kliem ma huma biżżejjed biex jimlew il-vojt li qed tħossu. Ma hemm l-ebda mod aħjar kif nirrispettaw il-memorja ta’ Daphne ħlief li nissuktaw f’din it-taqbida għall-Ġustizzja.

Aħna is-socjeta’ civili. Il-poplu magħqud qatt ma jkun mirbuħ.

GRAZZI.

Categories
Zolabytes

Corradin No

A reader joins the increasing number of J’accuse contributors. “As You Are” kicks off his contributions with a poem called Corradin No.

 

Corradin No

Maltese politicians will never know
what it’s like to do time at Corradino
and then, when it’s over, to go back home
to your mum, or your girlfriend, or your wife,
or whoever,
who will lovingly try to heal
all the wounds you suffered,
except the wounds deep inside your anus
and the wounds deep inside your heart
because, of course,
you’ll never tell anyone
about those.

Maltese politicians will never know
any of that at all.
They will never know Corradino,
no matter what they do.

But you can know.
And you will
if you push your luck too far.
Just grow some weed
and wait your turn.
It will come eventually
unless you’re a Maltese politician.

As You Are

Categories
Constitutional Development

The part I don’t take

The list of speakers for tomorrow’s Civil Society Demonstration has been published and readers by now will have noticed that I am one of them. I have seen comments directed at me both on the Times and Independent articles on the event. According to one commentator I was an obvious choice because I wrote “against the PL” prior to 2013. Another commentator was convinced that my time served as president of the university student’s union was served in the capacity of a PN representative.

To be fair, that was just about it. Not much fodder it seems. Which probably means that I am sufficiently of an unknown factor to pass the grade of most suspicious observers. I could answer both the comments stating firstly that I have written “against the PL” both before and after 2013. My track record is such that my writings took me “against the PN” often too – especially when the PN deserved more scrutiny as the party in government. Luckily I have 12 years of blogging to back my claims.

As for my time in KSU – the allegation is risible to say the least. My time spent both in SDM and in KSU was at the service of students and the student community. I proudly state that together with my colleagues of the time I was responsible for a (albeit temporary) rift between the SDM and the Nationalist Party. The reason is simple – I did not take kindly to being dictated how to do politics for a party’s sake.

This is not an apologia for my past or for my credentials to address tomorrow’s crowd. This is more of a look at why I believe that the kind of activism that is developing in and around the current crisis is perforce a non-partisan one. The wider aims and goals of the civil society that has begun to stir go beyond the immediate demands made by the Civil Society Network. The fundamental aim is constitutional reform. Constitutional reform that is radical and has to be so.

Such Constitutional Reform must be party-free. Understand this. Party-free not party neutral. The thinking outside the box begins at that point. We have had a constitutional system that developed around and at the service of two parties. I have repeated this notion ad nauseam. The reason for the institutional rot is also because there is a limit to how much you can bend and twist the rules to serve two masters. The reason for institutional rot is not to be placed at the foot of one party or another. There is no measure that can blame one party more than the other. The reason must be placed squarely at the feet of both parties. Yes. The PLPN.

So think outside the box we must. The movement must become a constitutional movement. The proposals of what a new Malta should look like will be manifold. Already there are disagreements among proponents as to which system will be better however there is one crucial matter that must be remembered: the discourse has been brought to the forefront of the national agenda.

Before the election I founded the Advocates for the Rule of Law together with some colleagues of mine. Our aim was to highlight the deficit of rule of law that was becoming increasingly obvious. Yes, it became increasingly obvious under Labour’s watch but be careful, the problem was rooted much much earlier. Here is a snippet from a blog post (and from my Independent on Sunday column at the time) in March 2010: what many would call less suspicious times:

“All three branches of the state are currently under heavy attack and the levels of trust that “the people” seem to have in the administrative, executive and the judiciary appear to be alarmingly low. This is not healthy for our democracy – it’s a rot that is setting in. The rot must be exposed, not in a partisan, self-interested kind of way but rather in an objective attempt at rediscovering what we want for the future of our nation.”

I reread my posts over the years since 2005 and to me it sounds like a broken record. Not – as an observer on Daphne’s blog observed tauntingly very recently – the broken clock that is right twice a day. No, this was a constant consistent message. Over the years I and other like-minded individuals explored possibilities for constitutional change. We believed that the change should start from the house of representatives. Transforming it into a truly representative institution would mean proportional representation and having a clear cut separation from the executive. It did not make sense to have a third of parliament sitting in the cabinet.

The discourse of reform needed a crisis to be kicked off. Sadly the crisis took the ugliest form that one would never have wished for – the death of a vociferous journalist. The agenda of reform that had been hinted at mildly during Panamagate and its aftermath was now catapulted to the forefront. The Advocates for the Rule of Law (AFTROL) had managed to put the words on the nations mouth: Rule of Law. The discussion had remained at a technical level and the election had pummelled a people into silence.

The new crisis has brought the discussion back with a vengeance. What needs to be understood is that this is not about asking Joseph Muscat to resign. It is not about advocating or pushing for the usual alternation. It is much deeper than that. The nation desperately needs the reform for its own good. Citizens need to understand that so long as they pin their hopes on the partisan assessment of politics then all hope is lost. The two political parties will always be in survival mode. It is parallel to their need to be in power to make the system work to their advantage. The rules  must stay the same – even if they will pay lip service to constitutional reform.

Now more than ever it is imperative that we are not partisan. The part I don’t take is the part in part-isan. It is imperative that we begin to understand that the Civil Society Movement must establish itself with even higher standards than the temporary ones that are being  asked for right now. Constitutional reform must come from the heart of the nation. From its sovereign. We the people.

I am not partisan. I don’t need to be and cannot be. My duty as a civil activist is to fight for constitutional change that brings about the proper reforms. That brings about the rule of law.

We are servants of the law so that we may be free.