Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Constitutional Development

Il Triangolo No

triangolo_akkuza

 

I. Stability is a partisan word

Third parties, third ways. An online poll conducted by the paper Illum showed, among other things, that 14% of respondents would vote for a new party since they have no more faith in either the PN or the PL. Talk about a possible third way being a panacea for our political representation problems has belatedly gathered momentum on the island. Muscat’s government is on rapid implosion mode while the general feeling is that the PN alternative would generate more of the same style of politics – one that is deeply enmeshed in corruption and deceit to the detriment of the citizen. Marlene Farrugia’s rumblings as a dissenting politician within parliament are much stronger and coherent than those we have heard until now during the last months of the Gonzi executive. Add to that the fact that scandal after scandal the tempo of public discontent does not seem to subside and a few “public personae” are prepared to throw their weight into the ring and you have the recipe of what is being touted as the panacea for all this evil feeling: a third party.

Regular readers if this blog may well recall that the “Third Way” solution has long been advocated over the whole stretch of our blogging history. Often the election of a third party’s representatives in parliament has been described here as “driving a wedge in the bipartisan hegemony”. I still believe that a third party (and fourth and fifth) can have positive effects on our political system. The problem however lies elsewhere since the third party is not a solution in itself but it is actually a possible result of the solution that is necessary in order to definitely improve the state of our politics and consequently the health of our nation.

What do I mean? Let’s take a look at the PLPN reaction to the very public rumblings of a possible third party. Their rare chorus of unanimous disapproval was to be expected. More parties in parliament would cause “instability” they claimed. Worse still they could not envisage having to share the burden of government with some coalition party – anathema.

The PN might be investing in the concept of good governance but the philosophy behind the driving forces of this rekindling of values stops short of contemplating an utter reform of our representative system that might not be two-party-centric. Of course we can have good governance they will tell you, but applied to our system of alternation – and not beyond. In other words the current set of rules should be good enough for Busuttil’s new party philosophy – we only have to ensure that the tenets of good governance are properly applied therein and all will be fine. I beg to differ.

II. Self-preservation is a natural instinct

Let us use a coding metaphor. The structure of our constitutional system has been built using a language that reasons in bi-partisan terms. A bi-party rationale is written directly into the building blocks of our political system – both legally and politically. Since 1964 the constitutional and electoral elements of our political system have been consolidated in such a manner as to only make sense when two parties are contemplated – one as government and one as the opposition.

We are wired to think of this as being a situation of normality. The two political parties are constructed around such a system – we have repeated this over the last ten years in this blog – and this results in the infamous “race to mediocrity” because standards are progressively lowered when all you have to do is simply be more attractive than the alternative. The effect of this system is an erosion of what political parties is all about.

The political parties operating within this system are destined to become intellectually lazy and a vacuum of value. The intricate structure of networks and dependencies required to sustain the system negates any possibility of objective creation of value-driven politics with the latter being replaced by interest-driven mechanisms gravitating around the alternating power structure. Within the parties armies of clone “politicians” are generated repeating the same nonsense that originates at the party source. Meaningless drivel replaces debate and this is endorsed by party faithfuls with a superficial nod towards “issues”.

The whole structure is geared for parties to operate that way. Once in parliament the constitutional division of labour comes into play – posts are filled according to party requirements and even the most independent of authorities is tainted by this power struggle of sorts. Muscat’s team promised Meritocracy and we all saw what that resulted in once the votes were counted. In a way it was inevitable that this would happen because many promises needed to be fulfilled – promises that are a direct result of how the system works. With all the goodwill in the world Busuttil’s team promising Good Governance will be placed in the same position with the same rules as Muscat’s and Gonzi’s before them.

The point is that the system needs to be rebooted. Even a third party elected under these parameters would do little to shake the system at its foundations. What needs to be targeted are the laws and structures that have developed into an intricate network of power-mongering and twisted all sense of representative politics. A third party might be the result of that change of system but what is needed right now is that one (or both) of the two parties enjoying the uncanny and undemocratic advantages of their home-made rules is forced to accepting a program of constitutional change.

III – Restoring the supremacy of parliament

Malta’s constitution owes much to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Constitutionally political parties did not count for much. When forming a government the Head of State was invited to choose from among the members of parliament that member who enjoyed the support of the majority of members elected. No mention of parties. It is only through a series of shenanigans and legal changes to electoral laws that the parties became the be-all and end-all of the electoral process. Laws were changed to ensure majorities, seats in parliament and quotas – all in relation to the bi-partisan system. It led us to the infamous wasted vote.

The problem was not so much the theoretical guarantee of stability afforded by a bi-partisan system. No, the problem lay in how the guarantees afforded by alternation gradually became a threat to the “political” nature of the parties themselves. Instead they were replaced by careerist powermongers eager to climb up the ladder of our home-grown system of power-broking: from candidate to backbench MP to Secretary to Minister. Fiefdoms developed and by taking advantage of a system that guaranteed their presence on authorities, boards and watchdogs the constitution would play second-fiddle to the needs of the party in power while the opposition barked and whinged waiting their turn for a piece of the action.

How does this change? it changes by changing the whole system starting from its building blocks. Parliament has to be strengthened and revalued as the supreme guardian of constitutional representation. The new system should ensure that politicians elected to parliament fulfil their role of representatives of the people by acting as proper legislators and competent watchdogs on the operation of the executive that must remain subservient to their will. In order to obtain this we must wean parliamentarians away from the ladder of power as currently perceived while strengthening their role and function.

I have already put forward the four points that should be the groundwork for such a reform:

  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.

As I said in an earlier post this would remove the idea of careerist politicians. By clearly differentiating between the roles of the executive and the legislative/representative aspects we would ensure that parties are rewired to become effective in both. A technical executive with a proper plan and project will be one side of the coin while a strong representative body acting on behalf of the people monitoring and endorsing the work of the executive would be the other. Such parliaments could afford to have a hundred Marlene Farrugia’s who do not bow to a party whip for the party’s sake but use their vote in the best interests of those who elected them to parliament.

Conclusion

Electing a third party for the sake of electing a third party and simply out of spite to the two main parties is not a solution as things stand. This blog would advocate for stronger pressure on the party that is most willing to take up this programme of groundbreaking constitutional reform with the express understanding that should it get elected this would be its top priority. That mandate would end once the reform is achieved and new elections based on the new parameters would be held. What Malta needs is a Reform Movement that picks on the current momentum that is not endemic to Malta. What it certainly does not need is more parties playing from the same score as we have till now.

Categories
Mediawatch

A call for Union

brussels_akkuza

It’s been a long break. I had planned to post earlier but the events in Brussels have been at the back of my mind for some time now and had sapped at the will to write and make whatever little difference another opinion could make – especially in this world that gives the impression of getting more cynicial by the minute.

Last week saw confessors of the world’s largest religion prepare for the most intense period of meditation and contemplation. Believer or unbeliever you could still listen to the words of Yeshua from Nazareth – a simple maxim – thta could have been revolutionary for mankind. Sat at a table of equals he would reportedly tell us that all humans had to do was to love others as they do themselves and do to others what they would do themselves. Simple really.

In Palmyra the Syrian forces advanced and freed the ancient city forcing ISIS forces back to stronger holds like Raqqa and Homs. They left behind them a trail of destruction – around these supposed “religious fanatics” hangs a stench of death, misery and desolation. Reports in the media informed the gawking world that a kidnapped priest had been crucified by ISIS over Easter. Humanity? Not much. Religion and faith? Another excuse to justify psychopathic actions, nothing more. Not in my name shouted millions of muslims worldwide.

As I am sure there are muslims in Pakistan who condemned the atrocious attacks in Lahore where over 60 christians died in an attack. Same goes for Iraq where an innocuous soccer event was cut short with an explosion causing over 30 deaths. Not in their name.

Which brings me to Brussels and Zaventem. ISIS have claimed authorship of the vile attack that took place at the airport and metro. For many Maltese this is even more familiar territory than Paris and New York were after previous criminal attacks. Around 36 hours before the blasts ripped through the departure lounges I was travelling home exceptionally via Brussels. Our check in row was row 8 – apparently only two rows away from the site of the main explosion. As the news pored out familiar marks of the airport were mentioned – the Starbucks in the main gallery where I had sat with my dad for a long, long coffee a couple of months ago stuck out.

It’s more personal for us now but it does not change the way we are all handling the matter. We still speak of “terrorism” and we are quick to link the issue to the wave of immigrants that has become a constant in Europe. The failure of integration is proclaimed. The EU’s nations retrench to their nationalistic stances and the biggest menace now is to one of the fundamental and most obvious pillars and advantages of EU membership – Schengen and free movement.

There are a few reflections to be made:

1. Terrorism as a label

It is worth noting that the way the media report the issue is facilitating ISIS’ business. A brilliant article in the Guardian noted that the media are acting as a lunga manu PR for the IS by attributing a larger sense of organisation where there is none. We are quick to rush to the label of “Terrorism” combined with “Islamic Fanatics”. In reality, and viewed with a cooler mind, these are cells of instability in our own society that are the result of multiple causes – and not just a religious orientation gone awry.

Europe has a long, recent history of terrorist cells of political, religious or sectarian and independentist inspiration. “Terrorism” is a label we use for a sophisticated type of crime against the general public – car bombs, explosions, gun attacks and now even a belt full explosives for a kamikaze ending. These perpetrators need to be treated as criminals first and terrorists later. By exalting their actions as being the result of some kind of intricate organised network and hidden army we are falling in the hands of ISIS and its supporters.

Finally these are mostly home-grown citizens who have a bone to pick with society in general. ISIS offers them a great means of escape and an excuse to unleash their anger with such devastating consequences. They must be treated as criminals – home-grown criminals – and the punishment must be exemplary of a society that deals strongly with these problems. Deportation to some trumped up “country of origin is an escapist solution. It is a solution adopted by nations that are in denial that social and economic problems within their borders lie at the real base of what is going on.

2. Crime exists and it is Europe-wide

Having said that the “terrorist” label is not helping the cause does not mean a denial of the existence of criminal elements that use the religious angle as an excuse for their psychopathic actions. What Brussels (and even Paris) taught us is that there is a systemic problem of lack of coordination in the EU. Too many hands, too many seperate limbs of enforcement that fail to communicate with each other and too much ambiguity about our common border.

The calls are out to suspend Schengen and for a retrenching to nationalist lines of control. The calls are wrong. The problems with which the member states of the European Union are faced today are in need of exactly the opposite remedy. The Union was built on the pooling of sovereignty in areas where the whole is better than the parts. We’ve all heard how the Common Market became the driving force of an Economic Community that strengthened its connections.

Now, more than ever the areas of Security and Justice require a stringer pooling – not a breaking down. A Union Police that acts across borders and on all borders is required. It cannot have the face and interest of the few states that are facing the problem of the moment – in other words it cannot be a Frontex that begs for the attention of states that are far from the action. This Union Police should have Union-wide powers of monitoring entry, exit, and also internal activity within the Union. Intelligence would be pooled and enabled by all parties, a budget would ensure it has the resources possible to combat crime and a clear delineation of its competences would enure it can work within its own range as well as collaborate with national forces.

Schengen is the target of the bomb touting criminals. Suspending Schengen, restricting the fundamental freedom that European Union citizens have so proudly achieved is not a solution. It is a dangerous step towards submission.

3. Integration

Finally, one last point about integration. As I said earlier the existence of such criminals cannot be linked to problems of integration. The religious angle is an excuse to unleash destructive wills – an excuse that could very well have been found elsewhere. Having said that a Union that is teetering on establishing its own ideals needs to take up this challenge and face up to it. Rather than speaking of integration we should be looking at the common values that the European Union member states hold dear and ensuring that anybody who is born or enters into their territories understands that these are the rules by which civil society lives.

Once again in the name of humanity the Union should be working to strengthen the commitment to the universal values of human rights and anybody wanting to live within its confines should be prepared to live along and not against such precepts.

Categories
Panamagate

No flowers in Panama (II – fertile soil)

panamaII_akkuza

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.

Categories
Panamagate Politics

No flowers in Panama (I – the seeds)

filpanama_akkuza

It’s Sunday morning and the nationalist party is gearing up for what it dubs a national protest against corruption. The Sunday papers are full to the brim with opinion articles, spin and (if you look really hard) factual reports about the issue that has a name: Panamagate. Over the week the men in Castille shifted through deny, downplay, riposte and finally deflect and distract motions. Nothing seems to work, and rightly so, because the issue is national, important and immediate. Mark Anthony Falzon’s column in the Sunday Times best explains why in the small picture Konrad Mizzi’s position is untenable. Falzon’s column can be added on to an earlier post in this blog explaining why even before delving deeply into Mizzi’s doings we could conclude that he was unfit for purpose. Mizzi, not Falzon.

I did say small picture though and I was careful when I said that. Don’t get me wrong, Panamagate is a scandal of gargantuan proportions. We are still coming to terms with the ramifications of what it all really means in terms of this government’s general program. Indian frauds and Azeri business deals have only just been brought into the fray while the feeble counter-ripostes from the government side have included reminders of how ex-Nationalist ministers (Ninu Zammit in particular) held millions in accounts abroad before being granted an amnesty by Joseph Muscat’s government. So yes, of itself and within its confines Panamagate is huge and insofar as the story of this bumbling government is concerned it should be a huge blow to its overall credentials for governance.

There is a bigger picture that we should objectively be looking at. It’s a wider look at the nature and workings of our body politic as a whole – beyond Panamagate, beyond the other PL government scandals, beyond the cases of corruption of ex-PN ministers that have come to surface and might yet surface. The bigger picture should be what the whole business of running our democracy is all about and understanding how it could be improved – not for the sakes and interests of the duopoly and a bit (I’ll get to that “bit” later) but for the sakes of a young Republic that needs renewal and revival.

Sunday’s protest is supposed to be a national one against corruption in politics. J’accuse is taking this cue in this time when trust in politics and politicians to take a wider angle look at what is happening, at how we got to Panamagate and the options of where we can go from here.

Getting to Panamagate

sowing the seeds of bad governance

Corruption. It did not start with Konrad Mizzi. It will not stop with Konrad Mizzi. At the heart of corruption is the misuse of the powers that have been entrusted in the hands of those chosen to administer the state on behalf of the people. This is, in essence, why and how corruption exists. Do not only see it in monetary terms – the pilfering of funds isn’t half the full story. Corruption is the abuse of trust pure and simple. It is the use of powers that have been lent to you in order to give, grant or allow things to people who do not deserve or would not have deserved such things had they gone through the right channel. Corruption is nepotism. Corruption is legislating as a favour for an interest group. Corruption is closing one eye. Corruption is abusing of the rules in order to get your way. Corruption is the conscious fettering of one’s discretion. Corruption is the creaton of networks that favour closed groups without transparency or merit.

The structures of a democratic state are intended to counter, as far as possible, the possibilities of corruption. Furthermore, when such preventive methods fail, the same structures should be able to counter with a remedy – investigation, prosecution and more. The Maltese Constitution, sovereign in 1964 and republican in 1974, was built around the concept of a sovereign parliament as inherited from our colonial rulers. It is clear from a reading of the constitution that with all the mechanisms of checks and balances in place, with all the power afforded to the head of state, the main engine of the system is the parliament. It may be fettered by a few absolute majority clauses but there is no doubt that parliament reigns supreme. The power of the people lies in parliament. It’s not exactly “if parliament wills pigs can fly” but it’s pretty damn close.

Over the sixty odd years of sovereign existence our parliament evolved into a two-party structure with more and more importance given to the main parties concerned. Laws were written, amended and “abused” in favour of this dual perversion – comfortable with the notion that if the world’s oldest liberal democracy can live with dualism then so can we. While China and Soviet Russia could work with the one party system (factoid: China actually has thousands of parties but only one counts) we developed a perverse system in which the constitution and all laws enacted would be subservient to the needs of the duopoly’s concept of power. Even notions of Equity and Justice had to be based on the notion of par condicio. The PLPN behemoth was born. Electoral laws would be drafted to ensure that as far as is humanly possible only two types of interests would be represented in parliament and the rest of the laws requiring political distribution would follow suit – government and opposition making up the numbers.

Many moons ago this blog was not alone among a movement of people warning that not all is right under the PN government. Our main argument at the time was that the PN government had lost its sense of purpose – from the 1987 calls of Work, Justice, Liberty to the 90s reconstruction and growth , to the push to join the European Union in 2004, the nationalist’s had a clear direction in their mind. They were driven with that purpose and their role in governing the country was underpinned by that purpose. Once Malta had joined the EU that sense of purpose and rive was lost. The PN was doomed to falter from then on. It’s unwillingness to engage on social issues would not be the first petard with which it would be hoist. The PN would fail to admit that the system that fed the two-party alternation was eroding the nation’s backbone from within. The next decade from 2004 would be spent with the Gonzi government suffering the rot that would ensue. Left to their own devices politicians without a cause beyond their district duties and obligations end up doing what they know best – peddling in influence and toying with power.

It is not surprising that the John Dalli’s and the Pullicino Orlando’s of this world were born under a nationalist administration. In a panicked attempt to hold on to the reigns of power the PN turned a twisted form of populist – hoisting upon the electors a pick and mix of politicians that were anything but while failing to see where the real remedy lay: tackling the source of our ills – the magnet of corruption that was our political structure of networks, friends of friends and die-hard flag wavers.

Which is when Joseph Muscat stepped in. On paper it was all promise of transparency, meritocracy and a battle on corruption. The sovereign power of the people was supposed to revert to the Maltese- Taghna Lkoll. On paper. Yet Muscat operated within the same parameters as had the previous government. Worse still the new Labour team has shown that it has no capacity for self-restraint. The trough was thrown out in the middle of the brand new Castlile square and the nation could only stand back gobsmacked watching the pigs feast on it day after day. Meritocracy? Spare me. Transparency? Say what? Corruption? Ouch. Muscat’s finely honed electoral campaign was meant to work under the current parameters of electoral mediocrity. Those same parameters encourage the development of corrupt networks of dependency and trading in power. In a twisted chicken and egg conundrum it became evident that in order to take a big slice of the power cake, the networks of dependencies and IOUs had to be in place BEFORE even getting elected. The government promising transparency, meritocracy and an end to corruption had set the mold for a corrupt system before it was elected.

Meanwhile, calls by (admittedly small) sectors of society to elect the third party into parliament and break the power mold fell on deaf ears. Most times it was derided as madness and as a failure to understand that the rules only allow one winner and one runner-up. Critics missed the point. They still miss the point today when they speak of the “need of redemption” for what was done by third-way enthusiasts at the time. It is only ignorance of the system and a blind affiliation to the idea of alternation that can foment such ideas.

In 2016 this blog will be among the first to say that the third way is not the way to break the system and change it. It cannot be any longer. Change must perforce come from elsewhere. more about this in the next posts. Keep reading. And you might still be in time to get to Valletta for the protest.

 

 

 

Categories
Values

Untrustworthy. Unfit for purpose.

untrustworthy_akkuza

 

Matthew Vella did a good job grilling Konrad Mizzi about his “financial structure” based in New Zealand and Panama. ‘It’s a free world. Everyone can choose whatever they wish and should seek advice on what is best for them’ – that is the clip that Matthew Vella chose to put in the headline (at least on the online version of the article) and he does have a point highlighting this braggadocio premise that underlies Mizzi’s attitude with regard to the whole business.

It’s a free world indeed and Mizzi’s financial arrangements are under scrutiny because somebody somewhere leaked some crucial information about the financial set up to a journalist who packs a pair of the metaphorical and who went on and published the information. In another case also involving Konrad Mizzi, Daphne Caruana Galizia (the journalist with the metaphorical pair) was under attack in court, being pressured to uncover the sources (informants/spies/leakers) who brought her some alleged information. The importance of standing by Caruana Galizia on that particular point is brought to bear now with much more factual and pertinent information coming into play.

It’s a free world where our Prime Minister and his entourage still find it within their power to sell the lie that there is nothing wrong with a minister of the state having a financial structure that is ordinarily used for money laundering and hiding illicitly obtained funds. They think that they can get away with it because they still operate with the propaganda method that has served labour for long – it’s not what you see that counts, it’s what we tell you that there is. This blog has dubbed it the Magritte method. Also, Joseph Muscat speaks to the ignorant masses when he compares unlike with unlike – deeming the forgotten undeclared Swiss investment by Austin Gatt to be on the same lines as the Panama/New Zealand Structure set up by Konrad Mizzi. And by Keith Schembri.

It’s a free world where the aforementioned ignorant masses still do not understand the immense importance of the revelations regarding financial structures. Those who are not blinded by the ridiculous assertion that once it has been declared it is even better than the Austin Gatt situation will still defend Mizzi’s right to do whatever he wants and aspires to do because – in fact – it IS a free world and he is rich so stuff your jealousy. It will take much much explanation for the man in the street to shed his partisan blindfold and understand that in no way does Konrad Mizzi’s declared income justify the tax structure used by criminal millionaires. Such explanations tend to be boring, tedious and technical – easily shut down by  the Labour style non-sequiturs.

It’s a free world and some journalists and pundits will still insist on giving Konrad Mizzi the benefit of the doubt. In criminal parlance they are not satisfied with finding the blood and the weapon, in the absence of a body there is no murder. Unless they see a corpse then no murder has been committed. These are the ones who believe the spiel by Mizzi and Schembri that some Commissioner of Taxes or self-appointed investigation will actually manage to do what international anti-crime organisations have never done : find out what really lies in the black hole of Panama.

The thing is that we need none of all this. We do not really need proof of any real corrupt transaction taking place. The mere fact that this kind of structure exists for the benefit of a government Minister and for the benefit of the aide to the Prime Minister should be enough to get the whole castle tumbling down. The additional fact that the Prime Minister seems to be intent on protecting this set-up and giving it his blessing should mean that the Prime Minister should be falling down like Humpty Dumpty along with all his horses and all his men.

It is not just about Caesar’s wife either. Let’s get back to the Vella-Mizzi interview. Konrad Mizzi has given us another reason why he should go and why he does not deserve to stay on as a servant of the Republic. Thankfully this has nothing to do with the technicalities of offshore funds and deposits. For the second time within a week Mizzi inadvertently gave us a very good reason why he should be kicked out of government (and parliament I would add) with immediate effect… and the reason was political and emotional:

Rewind back to the first interviews when the whole Panama/New Zealand business came out. One of Mizzi’s first statements/justifications were regarding New Zealand’s status as an open democracy, stable, lacking corruption and ideal for holding a trust. Forget the suspicions of using the trust for corrupt reasons for a second. This was still a Minister of a government that sells itself ot the world as “l-aqwa fl-Ewropa” and pushes the nation as one hell of a financial centre, competing with countries like Luxembourg to attract the kind of financial investments such as trust funds. Here was a Minister of that same government that is supposed to be attracting such investments choosing to set up a trust in New Zealand. Not Malta. New Zealand. Because it’s democratic, stable, and lacks corruption. The question begged to be asked: Why not Malta then?

And now we come to the Vella – Mizzi interview. Hidden among all the faffle about his assets and properties and how he cannot trust Maltese fund managers (!) and how he is dedicated to family planning and looking at the long-term views and bla and bla and bla, Mizzi comes up with a gem of a statement: “I don’t know where I will live in the future.”

Take a deep breath.

This man had just been elected as Deputy Leader of the Malta Labour Party. During his goggle-eyed speech of acceptance he expressed his commitment to working for a better Malta. That is the same Malta that he has contributed to tying down with contractual commitments with Azeris, Saudis and Chinese. Contracts that he would like us to believe would make for a better country – a better future. You’d expect this Minister who is so determined and convinced that he is improving the state of a nation to be committed to this future. So bloody committed to commit himself to living in this paradise in the future.

Alas no. The second reason Konrad Mizzi set up a structure in which his funds will be untraceable overseas is basically that he does not know whether he will still be in Malta in the future. I don’t know about you but this smacks like a betrayal of Malta and the Maltese of the highest order. First Minister Mizzi practically tells us that he would not trust Malta for his “financial investments” – it’s probably not as democratic, stable and non-corrupt as New Zealand. Now he tells us that once he is done with Malta he will probably not live here in the future. I can’t wait for his inevitable third foray in denying his own country. In biblical terms we’d need one hell of a mega-cock to crow three times following his denials… lord knows we’re full of those.

So you see, even before we go in the technical part of Panamagate (that would lead to an even more damning condemnation), we have enough elements to show that at least insofar as Konrad Mizzi is concerned he is not only untrustworthy, he is, as he has been known to repeat many a time…  not fit for purpose.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Ignorance of the Law

ignorance_akkuza

Muscat and his Panama collective are not getting on too well with the press right now. Unless you ask the right questions you will be faced with a barrage of childish word play and incosequential “answers” that are anything but. When none of the stonewalling and feigned misunderstandings works, Muscat shifts to aggressive gear and, as in the case of the Frendo journalist who would not stop asking questions, threatens with legal action. “Be careful, you might expose yourself to libel” is the latest trick of this most liberal of government leaders who has civil rights to heart.

Well we have news for Joseph Muscat. Libel requires publication or broadcast of an assertion. A question that remains unanswered can hardly constitute libel material. This bullying must stop and if it does not stop it must be ignored by those putting the question for the threat is ineffective.