Luxembourg’s PM Xavier Bettel was criticized this week for his decision not to attend a farewell dinner for Simona Frankel, the Israeli ambassador to Belgium and Luxembourg. Reports in the Israeli and Luxembourg press suggested that Bettel declined the invitation to the dinner in Brussels because of the support for gay conversion therapy by Israeli education minister Rafi Peretz.
Bettel is the PM many would dream of having. Europe’s first openly gay and married PM, he was confirmed for a second term in 2018. During a recent summit in February between EU and Arab states he took Arab leaders to task over the repression of gay-rights. Bettel’s politics is definitely not limited to the LGBT agenda and extends to strong programmes of integration and inclusivity, solid economic planning and a progressive environmental policy.
This week Bettel will be
receiving Malta’s PM Joseph Muscat. Muscat and his government love to trumpet
their achievements on paper regarding LGBT rights in Malta – achievements that
rocketed Malta to the forefront of states endorsing gay rights. The sincerity
of Muscat’s government though leaves much to be desired; one could safely say
that to a large extent his is an exercise at pinkwashing.
The way the corpus of gay
legislation gets bandied about in Malta’s defence against the criticisms on
rule of law backsliding in international institutions does leave a sour taste about
it all. You get that lasting suspicion that citizen rights is the last thing on
Muscat and his governments’ mind.
Bettel will understandably not refuse to meet a fellow EU leader. A few strong words regarding the rule of law backsliding would be most welcome though. After all, Muscat’s weakening of regulatory bodies and his golden passport scheme are a direct threat to all the partners in the European Union – Luxembourg included. Bettel should not let Muscat’s pink mask dazzle him away from the real problems. The danger of the weak back door entry into Europe can no longer afford to be ignored.
Muscat the disgraced
Muscat’s visit in one of his
first visits on the continent since failing to clinch one of the top EU jobs at
the last EU council meeting. Muscat had made no secret of having coveted one of
the jobs available at the latest musical chairs in Europe but left Brussels
empty-handed. That night of negotiations, Muscat’s communications aide
retweeted that the Maltese PM had been very close to becoming European Council
President – a claim that was later denied by political assistants and
journalists present in Brussels.
Muscat’s fall from potential new
star on the European block to toxic candidate has spiralled quickly ever since
he chose to stand full square behind Minister Konrad Mizzi and right-hand man
Keith Schembri – both heavily implicated in the Panama Papers scandal. Unlike
other politicians around the world, from Iceland to Pakistan to Brazil, the
Muscat led-government refused to accept any responsibility for whatever proof
was forwarded with regard to possible networks of corruption.
Matters were not made easier for
Muscat with the assassination of prominent journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
At the time of her death the journalist had been turned into a pariah thanks to
a veritable “witch-hunt” encouraged amongst others by Muscat’s party machine.
Caruana Galizia had faced a long list of economically crippling libel suits yet
persisted in uncovering scandal after scandal in areas such as public
procurement, sale of public assets, sale of passports and the aforementioned Panama
Papers scandal.
The journalist’s assassination
brought international attention to what had hitherto been a local scenario. Report
after report by leading European institutions was published that warned about
weak rule of law mechanisms, and the concentration of power in the Prime
Minister’s hands. In this context, concerns were expressed on the lack of
progress on the investigation into the journalist’s death.
Only this month, the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved a report on the
investigation into the assassination of Caruana Galizia and the rule of law in
Malta with an overwhelming majority. It concluded that the situation in the
country was so serious it put the whole of Europe at risk. Civil society in the
country has been mobilized. Attempts to commemorate Daphne Caruana Galizia and
renew calls for justice are constantly thwarted by the Government in the guise
of Justice Minister Owen Bonnici.
Muscat’s government sends out
contradictory and unconvincing messages of an intention to reform while at the
same time refusing to assume any responsibility for the backsliding of the rule
of law. Government critics are labelled as traitors of the nation, supposedly
because they are attempting to undermine Muscat’s economic miracle that, his
government claims, makes Malta “the Best in Europe”. Bolstered by regular
positive results from ratings companies, Muscat manages to use the “economic
miracle” mantra to hide the obvious faults in the institutional set-up of the
nation.
The latest challenge by civil
society opposition is in the Maltese courts – a direct challenge to the method
of appointment of the judiciary in Malta. Taking their cue from recent
developments in Poland and Hungary, the civil society activists are requesting
a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union in order to have the
method of appointment of the judiciary thoroughly examined. The judiciary
remains the last institution that risks falling to a complete state capture –
in a nation where meritocracy is just a by-word for “jobs for the boys”.
Malta’s PM continues to dodge calls for a public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia following the Council of Europe resolution. Under Muscat, Malta has quickly shifted from star performer to the sick soft underbelly of Europe with weakened administrative and monitoring authorities meaning an open backdoor into the European Union for all sorts of shifty business.
Raphael Vassallo dedicated his latest opinion column on Saviour Balzan’s portal to what purports to be an analysis of the last post on this blog – The PN must die. Preliminary remarks are in order before tackling the actual content of the column. It would seem that Raphael fell from the sky and suddenly discovered this blog and blogging for the first time. The spectre of that great risk of acknowledging another opinion and its value runs throughout the piece – typical of political engagement nowadays. J’accuse is used to that.
Ah yes, J’accuse. That’s the name of the blog Raphael. I’m sure you know that – we go far back (practically from the start), – the truth if I lie. One important part of the propaganda rule-book nowadays is of course the “shoot the messenger” chapter and nothing works more than attempting to belittle the source. Still, it’s not as though J’accuse is for your eyes only Raphael, it’s been part of the local opinion forum for quite a while now – maybe less frequently lately but still there quietly making its mark when needed.
One last thing on a formal level. It overlaps with content but it’s biggie. The “former nationalists”, “people like Jacques” boxing in. Really Raphael? I’d have hoped to never have to say never again but here we are in 2019 – fourteen years since this blog saw the (living) daylight and we are still confronted with that yawn-inducing argument of having a political party affiliation thrown at us. You almost made me think of my tiffs with Daphne there. Almost of course, because that was a wholly different league. It’s not worth a reply – just pointing out the ridiculous levels to which you descended in order to prop a weak argument.
J’accuse the “former nationalist” will be added to the long line of other masks attributed to me over the years including “the labourite”, the “AD activist” the “liberal” and the “Luxembourger who smells of Gozo cheese” (that was another Vassallo). Lastly, I do no think I should bother with whatever Daily Mail inspired trash led Raphael to play the “cushy Euro jobs” card. We are not here on His Majesty the Kink’s Service but there are probably other cushy jobs that deserve investigative journalists’ attention – much closer to home.
Allow me to start with the end. Raphael got the gist of the argument wrong. His assessment is quite alright insofar as it looks into the issue of the “PN dying”. We may agree or disagree whether it will be a natural death or a euthanasia sped up by circumstances. Whether the PN will die today or another day is an issue and conundrum that forms part of the disquisitions tied directly to playing the game as it stands – within the confines of the rules and expectations of these times.
My argument is completely extricable from the current operating system and as such does not and will not take into consideration the existence and aim of current factions within the PN insofar as their ultimate concern is gaining control of the party as is and resetting it to function within the current system. Therein lies the huge difference.
This was an article about the PN but could have very well been (and there will definitely one day be one) an article about how the PL must die. “The PN’ and “The PL” are much more than the physical parties and institutions that occasionally face internal struggles that cause them to slightly reset. As I have already tried to explain they are also the two parties around which the Constitution and our whole institutional, political and social mindset have been set.
The PN that must die is that PN that is still willing to own and participate in this systemic set-up. That PN is dangerous just as much as the current PL is dangerous. They are both machines created to feed on and abuse the system. Unless that point is grasped then all other parts of the assumptions made by Raphael are useless or, if useful, then they are useful only to prop up a part in the struggle that accepts the constitutional status quo.
Outside the PLPN there is a civil society that is slowly but surely growing stronger. In spite of attempts at denigration (“dwindle to roughly the size of those monthly gatherings at the Great Siege Monument in Valletta”) that are to be expected from those who defend the status quo, civil society is increasingly becoming aware of the importance of systemic change.
It is a slow transformation. The calls for focusing on the Rule of Law found a tough soil to land on and grow. That was because the problem was technical to explain and had no immediate tangible effects for the man in the street. What happened later down the line though is the real eye opener. The sudden construction crisis led to another growing section of civil society becoming more and more vociferous and demanding accountability. Tangibility of the problems led to more direct action.
The environment, the socio-economic gaps and health issues coupled with disastrous urban planning might soon overtake the purely financial corruption problems which are less easily identified by citizens. The Applegren Effect works wonders because it is immediate, tangible and begins to rock the waters. Moviment Graffitti have brought feet to the ground and given shape to citizen discontent. Meanwhile the heritage from the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia is also making headway in the form of different organisations, such as Occupy Justice.
In all of this, the PN is in its death throes. Talk of refounding and rebuilding is good. It is better if it challenges the main problem head on: that the PN must denounce its current shape and form as main participant and cause of the denaturation of our Constitution. That is why a new PN must be very very new. Away from the mindset that seeks to preserve the old.
Is it about destruction? Raphael imputes the destructive wishes to a faction of the PN. Destruction though is happening at a higher level. The backsliding of the rule of law is a sign of systemic implosion. You either don’t see it because you don’t understand or you don’t see it because you don’t want to believe it’s there.
Ah, you may leave here, for four days in space, But when your return, it’s the same old place, The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace, You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace, Hate your next door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace, And you tell me over and over and over and over again my friend, You don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.
(Eve of Destruction, Barry McGuire)
Raphael speaks of Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu and he could very well have quoted the Beastie Boys (it takes a second to wreck it). I am very aware that a destroyed PN leaves a vacuum that needs to be filled. Even from my cushy seat in the EU (I wonder whether Raphael ever asked himself why I need bother about Malta if my seat is so cushy – he might find an answer there) I know that this is the case.
Malta is in need of a huge constitutional change. The deaths of the PLPN behemoths would only be a prelude for that. We are in dire need of a reform of parliament, executive, judiciary and of the constituted bodies. Muscat’s government is edging its way to a one-sided reform that will be the King fashioning a nation in his image. That is where the danger lies. The current PN leadership is in danger of becoming a prop to this governments machinations – just see the latest land deals that zipped through parliament without a whimper from the PN.
As a political observer my instinct would tell me that a vacuum left by the PN could be filled by a movement. A movement of and for change. Experience has shown us that the current political scenario has led to a situation where few are reluctant to lead that movement. Internal mistrust and imputation of agendas among civil society does the rest to kill off any impetus.
The movement of change should be one above factions and above the current system and its workings. Unfortunately, as we have seen, unless this change is provoked by an even worse crisis we will remain in the vicious circle of PLPN alternation. The outcome of the factional disputes within the PN (and within the PL but that seems to have been postponed for a while thanks to Muscat’s failure in Europe) will be simply a resetting within the system that is pushing us all on the brink of destruction.
Predicting that the PN will die is easy, advocating for the change that counts is not. Raphael is right on one point: the potential leaders for change out there should be making their voice heard not working in the background.
The weeks of long knives at the PN HQ have just been put in temporary suspension as an apparent reprieve has been found. ‘Party stalwart’ Louis Galea described as the man who transformed the PN into a ‘slick political machine’ between 1977 and 1987 has been appointed as AZAD Head and given the mission to reform the PN. Here is how the Times of Malta reports the former member of the European Court of Auditors when explaining his mission :
La Cavalleria Rusticana
Dr Galea said he had several meetings with Dr Delia before Thursday’s meeting of the executive and had discussed various ideas. He would now lead a reform process which would include all those within the party and the country who wished to help so that the PN could stand on its own feet. This, he said, was in the interests not just of supporters, but the country as a whole.
Times of Malta, Louis Galea appointed head of PN Think-Tank, 5th July 2019
The reform is apparently motivated by the needs of the party to “stand on its own feet“. What comes next will blow your mind (as the click-bait peddlers are wont to proclaim nowadays): The PN needs to stand on its own feet in the interests of its supporters and of the country. Which is the kind of reasoning that normally precedes the launching of a floating device up a narrow sheltered waterway filled with excretion while inconveniently forgetting to equip said device with any means of propulsion.
Once again half of the PLPN hegemony will go through a process of renewal, regeneration and redesign much in the vein of what Inħobbkom Joseph had done with the Malta Labour Party in order to turn it into a ‘slick political machine’ (see what I did there?) that churns out the kind of electoral victories that are sure to cure any kind of “uġiegh” that any die-hard “partitarju” may have felt. And therein (among a myriad other considerations) lies the crunch… (Qui sta il busillis)
(Not) A man for all seasons
Louis Galea means well. I am sure he does. This is definitely not an attack on Louis Galea. Nor is it intended to be an attack on the current leadership (for want of a better word) of the Nationalist party. This post, like many posts before it on this blog, is an attempt to point out the real needs of the country, its residents and its political parties (strictly in that order). In order to do that we must focus on the current dramatis personae but we must also step outside the political machine that takes many givens for granted and patiently point out the emperor’s nudity for the umpteenth time.
Louis Galea was anointed by Adrian Delia in these times of trouble and overt rebellion in order to quell the forces of evil and convert them to striving for the party’s cause because unity in the party, with the party, for the party is presupposed to be the overriding panacea. We could waste time looking into the factions, the dissent, the anger, the hurt and the damaged pride of what appears to be a party on its last throes. We could. But it is beside the point.
Let us just state the obvious that this transfer of responsibility from Delia to Galea is clear evidence of the failure of the Delia mandate. Leaders are appointed to give vision. A change of leader inevitably implies a change of style and direction with the imprint he or she will give to the party as a whole. It is not just Delia that is being held to such standards… here is what we had to say on Simon Busuttil’s performance as deputy leader (and Muscat). In handing over to Galea on of the most basic of tasks he should be fulfilling as leader Delia has openly admitted his lack of grip over the party.
Galea will do what he has always done. There is no way that the veteran politician who has served the party will change his ways and adapt them to 2019 and the future. His successes in party management occurred in an era when the cold war was in full swing, the end of history had not yet begun and coincided with the period of constitutional tinkering at a national level that set the way for the PLPN Constitution – an adaptation of liberal democracy centred around the pathetic alternation in power of THE parties.
Nostalgics will look back tearfully at the age of Xogħol, Ġustizzja, Liberta’ and wish against wish that Galea will manage to bring back that golden period. What Galea brings to the table though is the iron-clad determination to restore a party to its former slick perfection. What he does not bring is the content, the values, that were advocated by that slick machine in that period of time. Sure enough the good old Fehmiet Bażiċi will be bandied around at some point but they will do so in the same manner as has been done in recent years – one that weighs the importance of policy choices on the shameful scale of positivity and popularity.
Galea’s eighties PN differed from today’s PN in one important aspect. An era kicked off in the late seventies and reached all the way to 2004 and petered out as PM Gonzi soldiered through the economic crisis. That era was one where the PN was driven by consecutive “causes” that allowed an alienation from the mantra that is “in the party, with the party, for the party”. The PN was a party with a national interest acting for the national interest. Which is what a party should always be.
A nation that was born out of constitutional struggles with its colonial masters had seen first independence and then a republican constitution in its first steps on the world stage. The Mintoffian interlude and experimentation with ad hoc socialism had led the country to a developmental stagnation. Fenech Adami’s PN took up the challenge with vigour and the steps that followed involved a transformation into a liberal democracy, an infrastructural boost coupled with the path to membership of the European Union.
Nationalist party electoral victories (and losses) in this period cannot be seen separately from the underlying causes that were being fought. No matter how slick the party machine was, the real reason for the (at times disappointingly marginal) victories was that a sufficient majority of the nation could identify with cause after cause behind which the nationalist party had thrown its weight. At the time, the early signs of backsliding of the rule of law that resulted from party abuse of the law could be sidestepped for the greater cause.
There is no denying that by the time the people voted in the EU referendum, many pro-EU votes were also a vote for change – one that would allow for the raising of standards beyond the grasp of the petty partisan politics. The EU Acquis should have done the rest. Still. The PN had served its purpose for two decades. The last few years of the Gonzi government were concentrated on steadying the ship through the economic crisis but the PN had already begun to lose its hold on the pulse of the people.
A party for all reasons
Any reform of the PN must therefore also be seen in this light. As has always been the case a party must have a reason to exist. Aside from the minutiae of everyday policy development one must also be able to identify a party with an overarching cause – of the type that marked the PN’s double-decade of success at leading the country. Call it ideology if you will, though that gets complicated in this day and age what with the modus operandi of the current political arena.
The party’s mission with such a cause would be to convince first of all the people that they must espouse it and this for their own sake. That, in itself, is not the easiest of tasks. Just consider for a moment that the ground-breaking election of 1987 that launched the era of change was won by… wait for it… a margin of 4,785 votes. The cause must transcend the party. There is no other way of going about this for real effectiveness.
As things stand the reasoning that underlies ideas of reform is pinned strongly in the heart of the current system. Here is how I described it in 2016 in a blog post entitled Il Triangolo No:
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.
The “intellectually lazy and value vacuum” parties are what needs to be reformed. This requires a rebooting of the system. 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. Reform of this kind goes a much longer way than merely rebooting the party and putting it back in the same fray.
Forza Nazzjonali was a last-minute attempt to mobilise the forces of opposition to corruption in this country. It is telling that the part of the PN that viewed the coalition as anathema would justify their aversion to the idea with the fact that this damaged the “party”. It is the same part of the PN that is unable to see the greater picture regarding the backsliding of the rule of law in the country. In their eyes the difference between them and Muscat is that Muscat has hit on a winning formula and has raised his party to new heights of glory. You can bet your last euro cent that had Muscat been PN they would be applauding him till the cows come home.
As things stand though, the reform of the PN does not seem to be pointed in the direction of greater causes. The reform will in all probability get mired in the usual bull concerning street leaders, committees, local councils, regional structures, partition of party fiefdoms, “listening” mechanisms and such. Nahsbu fin-nies taghna. Nisimghu il-wegghat. Partit miftuh u lest ghal bidla. Yada yada yada.
That kind of reform deserves only a slow death. It would just be a tinkering of the ladders of power that are built within our parties with the hope of getting a chance of replicating them on a national scale once in “the power” (For more on how this works see yesterday’s fresh report from the Commissioner on Standards – or if you’re lazy just watch the Yes Minister episode called Jobs for the Boys). It is the kind of reform that assumes all is ok with the laws of the land and how they are applied. Again. That reform deserves a slow and painful death.
Death becomes them
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that calling for the death of the party will attract all sorts of opprobrium from the party core. That should not matter. What matters is that the message gets across. The PN must die is really a call to rebuild from scratch. Thinking within the confines of an age-old mentality of parties wired to mirror and milk the state machine can only cause further damage. Instead the PN must rebuild as a party that owns the biggest cause at the moment : the need for a radical constitutional change that inoculates the nation against state capture.
After his failed mission at the last EU #topjobs summit Joseph Muscat flew to the Czech Republic and met PM Babis. The squares of the Czech republic have been filled with protesting citizens unhappy with Babis who is under investigation for fraud. Muscat could give a lesson or two to Babis on how to convert the baying crowds into comfortable electoral margin wins. That’s the Muscat who was not considered for an EU Top job because of his governmental track record.
The new PN should be out there leading the battle against corruption on all fronts. It should be reminding the people that this battle is for their best because the backsliding of the rule of law will ultimately have one big victim: the very people who currently blindly follow Muscat’s every turn. That new PN can only exist if the current format and mindset are ditched. This is the chance to take the lead in a wide coalition of opposition for real change. In 2020 the seeds for a new forward looking movement could be sown. The odds are stacked against that though – the system is a survivor, the system feeds on the core nostalgics and will show a strong will of self-preservation.
Never forget, and beware, that old Mediterranean adage: “if we want everything to stay the same, then everything must change”.
Paul Gavan (Ireland, UEL) for the people of Malta. In the background Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, for the government. “disappointed by the amendments tabled by the Maltese colleagues… when you are in a hole stop digging!”
The Assembly also noted that “The rule of law in Malta is seriously undermined by the extreme weakness of its system of checks and balances.”. It called on Malta to urgently implement, in their entirety, reforms recommended by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and its anti-corruption body GRECO, noting that the recent State Advocate bill was “inadequate to reform the office of Attorney General”.
Not many international media outlets carried the result of the resolution in its immediate aftermath. Bar the chatter on Maltese media and on social networks the impression would be that the Malta Government’s damage limitation exercise has worked. Has it? Are we faced with another international institution that has more bark than bite? Will there be any consequences following the resolution? What can we expect?
What can the PACE do for me?
To begin with here is what the PACE consists of:
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is the parliamentary arm of the Council of Europe, a 47-nation international organisation charged dues to their members, dedicated to upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The Council of Europe is an older and wider circle of nations than the 28-member European Union – it includes, for example, Russia and Turkey among its member states – and oversees the European Court of Human Rights.
It’s larger and older than the European Union structures and it has contributed to the development of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. As one of the French MPs observed in yesterday’s debate, a newly independent Malta was eager to sign up as part of the family of democratic states and became a member of the Council of Europe back in 1965. PACE also elects judges to the European Court of Human Rights from among the three nominees that each state sends. It is not just a talking shop, the resolutions and actions of PACE have direct consequences on democratic development – from election monitoring to rule of law campaigns. Where it differs from the EU parliament is that its decisions can never be binding.
Why bother then? Resolutions of the PACE as well as those of other constituted bodies under the Council of Europe – notably the Venice Commission – carry weight not just within the CoE institutional framework but also beyond. The European Court of Justice has referred to reports by the Venice Commission in its jurisprudence as recently as this week in the Commission v. Poland (ECLI:EU:C:2019:531) case where the ECJ found that the Polish legislation reforming its judiciary to be contrary to EU law.
The investigative work that precedes the report and the reports themselves that are then subject to votes to become resolutions by the PACE have been shown to have a strong probative value in international fora. While these do not have an obligatory nature insofar as the recommendations are concerned, they will still carry much weight in procedures such as the EU rule of law framework.
The Debate in Strasbourg
Yesterday’s debate that preceded the vote on the final resolution on Omtzigt’s report was an eye opener in many ways. We have been used to the nationalistic and protectionist rhetoric that Malta government propaganda uses to distract from the matters at hand. The discourse of “traitors” often crops up in such situations when, as the government would have it, “our linen are hung in public for all to see”. The reality is different of course.
Yesterday’s debate was a look into the deficiencies that have become more and more apparent in the functioning of Maltese democracy. The government of Malta would want this to seem as an attack on the nation. As the narrative goes, Malta is a thriving, successful economic miracle that is now being regarded with jealous eyes by others. The death of a high profile journalist, the narrative continues, is only being used as an expedient by the enemies of the state to undermine its success. Not too strangely this is the same kind of narrative spun by autocratic nations when defending themselves in such fora. Such, as we shall see, was the call of the Azeri spokespersons who went so far as to allege corruption in the CoE.
Objectively speaking though, the concern by the CoE and within the CoE for the democratic and constitutional structures of one of its member states is a concern for democracy, rights and the rule of law. Such values concern directly the citizens of that very state that is under scrutiny. Checks and balances for proper representation, access to rights, absence of corruption are all in there in the interest of the citizen. What the report tries to establish is (a) the existence of the problem and (b) solutions thereto.
Let’s be absolutely clear about this: the “problem” is a problem that will eventually be felt by the Maltese people. The concerns raised at the Council of Europe are raised in the interest of the good of the Maltese people. It is anything but an attack on the people. It is an “intervention” and a call to make sure that the interests of the Maltese people are safeguarded.
With friends like these
So the Government of the Republic had more than one option and approach available to it. It could, as it has done since the first international observations of the Maltese legal framework had begun, spin the counter-attack of denial and counter-propaganda. It could have also stood up, taken note of these concerns and taken immediate action to remedy the problem – in the interest of the very people who have mandated it into power.
That the Government of the Republic chose the first option – a defence of counter-attack and spin – is not surprising given its track record. What needs to be made clear is that by taking this position it placed itself in a diametrically opposite position to that of its people. Yes. The position of defence and denial was a first step in admission of responsibility. By denying the existence of a well-documented problem, by rabidly opposing any notion of backsliding of the rule of law, the Government of the Republic adopted the position of the accused who was responsible for all of this.
This was no longer simply a vote on a report. This became the case of “the People of Malta vs the Government of the Republic”.
That responsibility puts the Government at direct loggerheads with the interests of its people, the very same interests that the CoE through its resolution is intending to safeguard. Any doubts that remained at the start of the debate regarding this assertion would immediately vanish once the debate started.
To begin with the government’s counter-resolution aimed at torpedoeing the process was backed by three states who, let’s just say, are not the first states that come to mind when one thinks of champions of democracy. Azerbaijan, Malta’s eurovision douze points buddy, was accompanied by Viktor Orban’s Hungary and San Marino. San Marino might come as a surprise if you are unaware that the micro-state has been acting as a trojan horse for Putin’s Russia and this in not too covert a manner. With friends like these who needs enemies?
When the debate got going the divide became all the more evident. The bleating by Muscat’s emissaries was echoed only by their Azeri counterparts. A pathetic display of dictatorial rhetoric was echoed across their lines shooting the messenger (Omtzigt) and accusing the Council of Europe of using the death of a journalist for whatever obscure political motives their minds could conjure. The irony of being on the same side as the government of Azerbaijan notoriously illiberal with its press was completely lost on the Malta Government delegation.
The speakers from across the political spectrum were unanimous not only in their support for the report but also in their condemnation of the behaviour of Muscat’s government. From the French to the Icelandic to the British (to the Turkish to the Armenian); they all expressed their dismay about the fact that the wonderful nation of Malta and its beautiful people have been brought to this situation. The powerful phrase uttered by Paul Gavan (UEL) echoed around the walls of the chamber ” when in a hole… stop digging”.
No amount of landslide populist electoral victories would erase this logic. And that is where the irony of it is at this stage. The People who were being defended and advocated for in the hemisphere are still, in their majority, blissfully unaware of the dangers of the erosion of the rule of law. While the omnishambles that is the official opposition fails to direct its resources to this gravest of problems it is left up to civil society and the few advocates for the rule of law to carry the flag to these international fora with the hope that something is done before it is too late.
The recent construction crisis in Malta might have been a first flash into the real consequences of rule of law breakdown. Legislative laxity, poor monitoring, government by lobby and general impunity will eventually have their negative effects and the main sufferers are the people. Unfortunately we might have to wait for more such effects before the people get on board of their own side and stop getting wooed by the empty rhetoric of those who are supposed to be managing the country in their interests.
The case continues…
The case of the People of Malta vs the Government of Malta is not finished yet. The next step is a potential reference by a Maltese court to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a case concerning the appointment of the judiciary in Malta. The momentum might be building up for the people to find its voice again. If only the opposition, in the wider sense of the term, would get its act together and unite with one voice. As they have seen there are allies to be found everywhere… the crooks are beginning to be outnumbered.
Ahora tienen suerte los que nunca tienen suerte Y los que murieron podrán evitar la muerte Las cartas me hablan de lo lindo y de lo feo Tus manos las leo y te cuento lo que veo Estan son mis predicciones pa’ que no nos tropecemos El futuro es nuestro cuando ya lo conocemos En el futuro ya no habrá carne de vaca (carne de vaca) En las granjas ya no quedan ni las gordas ni las flacas En el futuro comeremos cucarachas como en China Porque ocupan poco espacio y tienen mucha proteína El país con más insectos controlará las naciones Por eso la nueva potencia mundial (¡Será Mexico cabrones!)
Y las mujeres dominarán toda la población Porque nunca perderán una cabrona discusión En el futuro los hombres caerán en menstruación Y nunca nos entenderán aunque tengamos la razón Los policías racistas seguirán siendo gente mala Pero con tanto tiro los negros se volverán inmune a las balas Al final será una raza nueva la que nos represente Porque los extraterrestres tendrán sexo con la gente El futuro de este verso es que el coro viene más duro Yo predigo que en dos segundos brincarán como canguros
El futuro es nuestro El fu- El futuro es nuestro El- El futuro es nuestro El fu- El futuro es nuestro El futuro es nuestro El fu- El futuro es nuestro El- El futuro es nuestro El fu- El futuro es nuestro
En el futuro yo calculo que tendremos internet en todos lados Porque naceremos con Wi-Fi en el culo Los lobos ya no aúllan Y los monjes no meditan Porque los terroristas explotarán la luna con dinamita En el futuro descubren semen en los evangelios oficiales ¡Y confirman que la biblia fue escrita por homosexuales Con desordenes mentales! (Empezando por Mateo ¡Un caos!) Los religiosos se convierten en ateos Y baja Cristo del cielo a entregarles amor propio Y se dan cuenta de que es negro y de que está fumando opio Y a todo el mundo le da ira Hasta al Papa le dio ira A los creyentes les dio más porque todo era mentira Ya el pecado no es pecado Ya no somos pecadores Somos gente normal, porque normal son los errores Aunque huela mal, abraza al que tienes al lado Los que no brinquen ahora se quedarán en el pasado
Hoy es nuestro momento para que el presente evolucione Lo que siento ahora es lo que siento Y que el futuro nos perdone Hoy es nuestro momento para que el presente evolucione Lo que siento ahora es lo que siento Y que el futuro nos perdone
Speaker Bercow stood up and made a statement. He did so from his position within an old and respectable institution and what he said was firmly embedded and rooted in tradition. It was not tradition for the sake of tradition but rather the kind of tradition that forms part of an ongoing process of institutional development. The kind of tradition that gives direction, certainty and clarity.
Founding his position on a strong 415-year old rule fortified by precedent Bercow explained to the gathered members of the House that there could be no new meaningful vote unless there is a ‘new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same‘ as the previous ones. Erskine-May, that biblical volume(s) of reference on parliamentary procedure, was never intended to gather cobwebs; rather it was intended to be at the throbbing heart of an institution that has oftentimes been described as “the mother of all parliaments”. Rather than bellowing empty air, Bercow was the metatron – the channel of the divine voice – and in this case the divinity was the rule of the land that holds everything together.
I have often thought that it is a blessing that of all the EU Member States it was the United Kingdom that would go through the test phases of the process of leaving the European Union. As constitutional and representative mechanisms go there could be no better testing ground for the first time enactment of a multi-dimensional constitutional disentanglement to take place. The institutional self-awareness built over centuries of development and precedent should be able to withstand even the worst assault of today’s popular and populistic politicians.
That the ultimate distillation of all that is parliamentary representation would be severely put to test was a scripted inevitability. Once you had a parliament in session that overwhelmingly was against Brexit in principle but that was also tasked to go through the motions of trying to transform “the people’s will” (17 million reminder) into reality then it was clear that there would be a constant struggle to simply understand what the sovereign will ultimately was. I have dealt with one side of this conundrum in the post Unpopular Representation.
Add to this formula the internal party splits, the devolved interests (particularly Scot and Northern Irish) and the macchiavellian manoeuvering that would take place at a national level as well as the understandable negotiating limits with the European Counterparts then you would hope that as much as possible the institutional underpinnings of the process remain such as to guarantee the full purpose and functioning of a parliamentary democracy.
Bercow’s ruling ostensibly defends parliament (mostly backbenchers) from the actions of a “bullying” executive. May’s third attempt at pushing the “meaningful vote” (MV3) can not happen because it would be the third time too many of trying to get her own way by hook or by crook. The symbolic gesture of Bercow’s announcement is much more important than the practical consequences. I say that because there is always a workaround that is possible for May however any workaround that results in forcing the meaningful vote notwithstanding the Speaker’s warning risks taking on the wrong meaning of meaningful.
It is facile to impute motive to Bercow’s ruling. Truth is that the rule existed before Bercow. It has a purpose. In the wider picture we can see it as a safeguard against deception. An executive that attempts to “weaponize” time to force the hand of parliament is suddenly caught with its proverbial pants down. This could in effect be seen as a first step of parliament fighting back after it had lost a motion to wrestle the process from May’s hands earlier last week.
Returning to the issue of delegated and trustee representation we could see this kind of ruling as another pressure valve that sends a clear signal that on this particular issue – and unless some meaningful change is brought through (highly unlikely given the noises coming from Europe) – the matter might be slowly slipping out of the hands of the elected representatives themselves.
If they really want to fulfill their centuries old function of popular representation then they might want to realise that the mother of all parliaments is due a consultation with its people. If only to see whether their original mandate still stands given the new facts and circumstances that have arisen since the last popular vote.
