Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Campaign 2013 Politics

So it shall be done…

Simon says, Tonio does

The contest for Tonio Borg’s seat is giving us another very interesting glimpse into the workings of the nationalist party. Lawrence Gonzi believed that a contest would be healthy for the party, that still remains to be seen. The impression we get is that no matter how united a front the two candidates will show before the media (and the united grilling of Joseph Muscat is an example of that) this is a battle that has inevitably reopened old scars and divides within the decision making bodies of the PN. This kind of battle would have been postponed to after the election. Instead it will be held right on the eve of an election almost contemporaneously with one of the latest budgets in Maltese history. Did you say healthy Lawrence?

Simon Busuttil. The (relatively) young lawyer is supposed to be the breath of fresh air that is much needed by the PN. Like Obama he has invested much of his campaign in the concept of “change”. Unlike Obama he has a habit of hitting obvious bumps as his strategy unfurls – not the best sign for a future leader. He started with the big bump with regards to Franco Debono et al. The doors are always open he said. That made him sound like Joseph Muscat at the start of his leadership – a bit of a contradiction really because it is (Inhobbkom) Joseph’s openness that led to the PN criticism of his new team (cue billboards). It also turns out that Simon had voted against Franco’s interests in the original vote at PN HQ – which makes his appeal for inclusion sound a bit superficial.

Simon’s strong point seems to be media coverage. He is everywhere – and even gets weird boosts such as when (Greek PM) Samaras barged into an interview in order to tell a stunned Times interviewer that Simon is the best MEP. It is not clear whether the “too good” image of babyface Busuttil is sellable as leadership material in the future – I am sure the polls will help in that respect. It is one thing garnering votes on the basis of expertise in a field that has been plugged to kingdom come (viz EU) and another to suddenly become the all round politician – warts and all.

The latest forays by Simon Busuttil make a very interesting read. Judging by some media reports he seems to have been the first PN politician to give a clear indication of a time-frame for both budget and elections. Was this on purpose? Did he pull the carpet from under both the Finance Minister’s legs and the PM’s? It is no small detail that the Finance Minister happens to be his rival in the upcoming deputy leader showdown.

In the same interview on TVAM, Simon Busuttil told viewers that he was writing the new PN manifesto and that he had also written the 2008 manifesto. Where do I begin? Let me start from the end. It is ever so easy to own up for the writing of what ended up to be a winning manifesto. Nothing was mentioned of Simon Busuttil’s role in 2008 so why should we hear of it now? The only reason we can think of is for Simon Busuttil to pin the  medal of the 2008 victory firmly to his chest as being his own. Not that the manifesto had much to do with the victory did it?

Which is another interesting point. Does Simon really want to arrogate to himself the ugly baggage of PN2008? Did he form part of that strategy team that called the shots with regards to the JPO lies and the anything goes philosophy that lumped us with this rainbow value government for five years? What does that say about change?

Which brings me to the now. Simon says that he is writing this year’s manifesto. The most obvious reaction has been universal: so it’s not just Aaron Farrugia and Karmenu Vella who are late with their homework? And then a myriad questions more. Such as is this Simon’s manifesto? What about all the dialogue and consultation? What values will Simon’s imprint leave on the manifesto? We’ll need another blog post just to see the implications of this decision. One thing that we hope is that Simon is a little more creative with his slogans – from Obama’s “Change” to Sarkozy’s “Together everything is possible” there seems to be no end to the amount of leeching going on.

Also with regards to this point, the day after Simon had announced his authoring of this election’s manifesto, PM Gonzi sat at his computer for a Q&A session with voters in order to listen to their suggestions. Was this another case of Simon grabbing the limelight?

At this point we can only measure Simon by these “moves”. His novel, clean act might be just what certain disgruntled PN voters will look forward too. The danger is that it is a thinly constructed mask that counts too much on being pleasant and that continues to drag the PN into the field of ambiguity, much in the same way as Joseph Muscat has done with the PL and its non-agenda.

Tonio Fenech on the other hand is fast proving to be the champion of the old guard. His nomination to the contest was a statement in itself – getting 136 endorsements compared to Simon’s 26. The Minister carries a difficult portfolio to sell and is also responsible for the budget – which Simon reminded us that Tonio is writing. He is definitely tied to the conservative wing of the PN and is less of an agent of change than Simon Busuttil in that respect. In many ways, the vote that Tonio Fenech manages to garner within the PN council will be a clear indication of exactly what dose of change the PN wants. This is not only the result of Simon’s pitch for the “change” corner but also because Tonio Fenech has become one of the current government’s representatives of the “nothing’s really wrong” policy.

Therein lies quite a tough nut to crack. While Busuttil’s pitch seems to include an implicit admission that change is needed because not everything is right, Fenech’s pitch includes an element of continuity because “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Insofar as leadership qualities are concerned, Fenech too does not cut quite the imposing figure that we have come to expect of the nationalist party. Often in his impromptu interviews (not Q&A’s on a paper) he seems to be unable to keep his calm and manages to lose his nerve and become imprecise. Nothing that a few coaching sessions with the right people might not fix mind you but a telling factor just the same.

Round up

Elsewhere I have described the deputy leader race as an irrelevant distraction. In many ways I still stand by my original assertion. I still believe that the real race for posts within the PN will happen after the election should there be a Labour victory – and so far the polls seem to point in that direction. On the other hand, the gamble that is being made on this race might turn out to be an interesting weapon for the PN. First of all it allows them to gauge the feel of their own electorate. By creating a battle between two possible alternatives (and styles) the PN might be allowing their faithful to do the talking.

The distraction from the real election that is to come is minor, granted, but a distraction it remains. And now we also know that the race involves the two men who are responsible for two very important documents : the PN electoral manifesto and the budget. There is another point that cannot be overlooked: the PN is parading its assets with this race. This hits home hard to the undecided and the garrulous. For you see, while Simon Busuttil writes the PN electoral manifesto, the PL manifesto is written by … Aaron Farrugia and Karmenu Vella. Tonio Fenech is responsible for a financial situation that is winning plaudits from the Commission and the EU – while we still do not know how MuscatEconomy will work.

That simple contrast is more than enough to justify the collateral damage of a bit of resetting within the PN before the big war. Everybody seems to be writing something at this point and soon it will be time to produce the wares. Scripta manent indeed.

Categories
Politics

So it shall be written

It’s a juicy time for pundits out there. Try as they might to feign boredom and blame it on the infantile tactics that were manifested via the billboard wars commentators cannot ignore that the pre-election has entered an interesting phase thanks in no small amount to the sudden injection of life caused by Dalligate.

Of pigs and men

Tonio Borg’s grill-non-grill allowed us to revisit the debate about liberalism, progressivism and values. The fact that we are on the cusp of a national election does not help most of the political parties (I say most because AD are quite at ease with calling a spade a spade). The final judgement seems to be unanimous – Malta’s political scene is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, divided  along progressive vs conservative lines. The conclusion can be reached primarily because of the fact that party fidelity has proven time and again strong enough to trump any need to remove the cobwebs of value-ambiguity that the PLPN seem to be quite happy to nurture.

That your average voter does not think in terms of progressive vs conservative is an issue that is further complicated by the current battle raging about the true meaning of being liberal. It is as though the “real liberals” and the “faux liberals” cannot co-exist because of what are being described as the “wrong motives” of the “faux liberals”. A case in point is the issue of Tonio Borg where the “faux liberals” where accused of imposing their opinions on the Commissioner designate. In our view both sides are “sinning” of excessive zeal. On the one hand the “faux liberals” did fail to fact-check and went for the jugular without any chance of success.

On the other hand the criticism that I have just mentioned fails to consider that the main test for Tonio Borg is whether he is capable of not letting his personal opinions (those of Dr Borg) interfere with his work (that of Commissioner Borg). It’s not an irrelevant question and the seven extra commitments that have been asked of him only go to show how important it is.

They had to get them in writing, the commitments, because as the old latin adage goes .. verba volant, scripta manent….

 

 

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tonio’s Non-Metamorphoses

Was it a case of “Veni Vidi Vici”? Did the Commissioner designate “sail-through” the grilling that never was last Tuesday? Has the dinosaur really convinced the trough-addicted pigs of his inveterate submission to the constitutional bible of this “sui generis” system of state collaboration? There was a telling moment during the marathon session when Tonio Borg addressed his interlocutors and reminded them that in politics “perception is important”. Indeed. Perception nowadays is a huge part of the pie and politicians are as much made or broken by the creation of a hash tag (that’s twitter talk for a subject such as #BorgEU) than by anything else.

The speed with which media will deal with a story – compounded by technological Chinese whispers – not only means that a media avatar of a politician can be created with uncanny expeditiousness but also that such avatar might morph in accordance to the predominant push of whoever is throwing the most information into the system. Tonio Borg was contemporaneously both a victim and a victor of this kind of phenomenon. The time it took Borg to study the files and dossiers relating to his new “portofolio” (sic) the liberals-in-hiding got working with their European counterparts in order to  fill them in on the “true nature” of Tonio.

What “true nature”? Well they referred to Borg’s handling of immigration affairs, to his position on IVF and on divorce, to his consorting with the Gift of Life movement and to his previous stances on homosexual rights. The spiel essentially that Borg was an uncompromising imposer of conservative values and that his political activity clearly reflected this stance. The link to the Health and Consumer portfolio was not exactly tenuous and to put it mildly there WAS a point to be made. The point though was meant to be and should have been limited to the capacity of Tonio Borg to perform his duty as a Commissioner independently of his views – unlike his performance in Maltese politics where he had no problem mixing the two.

It’s the EU Law, Stupid

And this is where Tonio Borg built his defence. It was obvious from the start who had been involved in prepping the Commissioner designate. For all his protests that he was not “thinking as a lawyer” I’m prepared to safely bet that many a night was spent in the company of Simon Busuttil and a former EU Ambassador. Nothing wrong there either. The most telling moment was Tonio’s slight hesitation in reformulating the classic description of the European Law system – many a law student would have recognised that brief moment of panic when the explanation that was just at the tip of your tongue has rushed away only to return in the form of a rehash of the original definition “in your own words”. Hence Tonio and his version of “a sui generis system of international law and an agreement between sovereign states”. (He could also have quipped a happy 50th birthday to the Van Gend & Loos case while he was at it – much more important than the International Day of Courtesy in this part of the world).

The prepping was necessary because Tonio had to use every trick in the book (better known as “the treaties”) in order to justify his speedy metamorphoses from Maltese politician to European Commissioner. In doing so he highlighted the most difficult barrier that Europe faces with regards to social harmony. For while economic barriers have come crumbling down at a faster rate than the Visigoth invasion of Rome, social mores have found the borders of old to be less permeable. Subsidiarity that great concept first brought to the world in a Papal Encyclical came to the rescue and suddenly Tonio was raising the Commissioner’s equivalent of “taking the sixth”.

You’ve seen it all so no need to dwell on it. Dr Borg could get away with packaging his national performance in a tight corner by stating that he can not and will not be able to act similarly at an EU level because the rules that apply there are different. So for the sake of argument Tonio Borg’s catholic values will have to be put in abeyance whenever he is dealing with the Commission programs to promote the use of contraceptives. He claims not to have a problem with that and I guess that his conscience will deal with the “superior orders” dilemma in its own time.

Those Shoddy Liberals

Tonio Borg did not metamorphose. He remains the same man committed to the same principles (save maybe the gaffe regarding the gender quota ) a sudden rush of arse-licking could be a most simple explanation. Or even euphoria experienced with the sudden rush of endorphins at the realisation that the Liberal Inquisition was really conducted by a bunch of pussy-footed, ill-informed bungling radicals. That last point actually really got to me. For here we were – as my friend David Friggieri puts it – with a representative of the conservative parties (yes plural) in Malta in the dock and with no real prosecutor asking the real questions.

I’d have asked a simple question to Dr Borg. What does he think of the fact that a person who is a doctor in an EU country where abortion is legal and who performs a legal abortion on a Maltese woman (who has willingly travelled to his country and consented to such an operation) is criminally liable in Malta? Simple really. In case you are wondering it’s Article 5(1)(d) of the Criminal Code in combination with article 241(1). Incidentally once said doctor is condemned to a term of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months to three years, the willing patient also becomes liable to the same punishment. But I guess that’s OK because she’s Maltese anyway.

We did not get these questions. We got questions that were obviously fed to MEPs by the type of shoddy activists who base their accusations on hearsay and conspiracy theories rather than facts. How else do you explain that Dutch liberal’s question about contraceptives in Malta that was an invitation to Tonio Borg to eat her alive (which he did with the usual classy rhetoric of a PN politician who knows he has the upper hand).

A Metamorphoses?

In the end we have what the French call a “match nul” – which means a draw but the word “nul” also means “useless”. At an EU level Borg might not really “sail through” when the voting time comes. The ALDE (liberals) and European Greens have unsurprisingly called themselves out of any support vote – they’ll be voting against. The Popular Party will back him (and also heap lauds and praise that will be hyped in the relevant media). The socialists might dilly-dally for a while and make Tonio Borg (and Tonio Fenech and Simon Busuttil) sweat a little bit more but in the end they might just give in and vote him in after having asked for more “written commitments” from his part.

Tonio Borg did not really metamorphose in the end. His was no apostasy before the baying house of atheists and agnostics. This was more of a modern Give Unto Ceasar kind of business that left many of us Maltese questioning the use of a two-tier Europe when it comes to social rights. Yes the liberals – particularly the Maltese liberals – were bitten and if you are really fond of the term then they were “defeated”. Their defeat lies in the lack of organisation and lack of clarity. It lies in the lack of identifiable leaders who could take the battle to the next level. It lies in the fact that Maltese politics rarely translates into conservative vs liberal when push comes to shove.

That is why Joseph Muscat feels comfortable standing up in parliament without any hint of irony on his face and saying “I’m a liberal” while at the same time sanctioning the PN position on embryo freezing. Joseph will continue to woo the liberal fold that have elsewhere been described as the “ex-stricklandjani” so long as his credentials are not questioned and so long as he can be contrasted to the dinosaurs that have long camped in the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately for the silent liberal movement in Malta change will never come from within any of the two parties. So long as we continue putting our eggs in their basket they’ll be happy doing what they do best – fuck all. Because as we know so well : “if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same”. And long life to our next EU Commissioner !

Pictor has scarcely set foot in paradise when he found himself standing before a tree that had two crowns. In the leaves of one was the face of a man.; in the leaves of the other, the face of a woman. Pictor stood in awe of the tree and timidly asked, “Are you the Tree of Life?”

Read also today’s article in the Times by Ranier Fsadni.

Categories
Mediawatch

J’accuse goes MOMA

A comment about pigs is all it takes for the inevitable viral. I wonder whether once the pc is turned off, the mobile is lost and the tablet is misplaced the main talking point still remains Adrian Vassallo (MD)’s porcine jibe. This is all part of the general conspiratorial plan to bore us to death with pre-pre-electoral exchanges. Virals and billboard campaigns are the new opiates for the people… in the end when push comes to shove they will forget their feigned boredom and vote – ostensibly for what in their minds is the lesser evil.

So in the meantime let us enjoy the ride. In the UK they had the Whigs and the Tories for quite a while. In the US we are used to the imagery of the Elephant and the Donkey for the two main formations. Our parties are as fertile as Abraham at 30 when it comes to values so the “Pig vs Dinosaur” dichotomy does not really fall cleanly along party lines. You should rather imagine the two parties sitting on the fence wondering how best to milk the two. If pig or dinosaur milk were worth milking that is.

Thank you Adrian Vassallo and anonimous Swede Lutheran MEP for the very appropriate imagery that you have provided. Nothing better than a badge under which to rally the forces. So what are you? A dinosaur or a pig? We present you with SHTF’s latest creation: DINOPIG… loves divorce but is absolutely against same-sex marriages.

 

 

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Porcine Anatomy

Following the last presidential elections  in the United States a couple of states will be legislating the universal right to marry (including same-sex marriages) and a couple of others will be legalizing the personal use of marijuana. The French government has itself begun to debate a bill this week that if successful will pave the way for same sex marriages in the hexagon. British society is dealing with the ghosts of paedophilia while Italy is in the throes of the umpteenth attempt to “clean up”its political act.

It could be a banal exercise in comparative politics – or rather comparative hyperbole but it would only be as sensational as the Fat Moustachoed Lady at the circus. We no longer afford to, and nor are we interested in, laughing at the latest vestiges of ottocentismo that has struck our island’s politics. On Tuesday afternoon Tonio Borg is in the dock having the values in his head examined in order to see whether or not he is fit to be one of Europe’s 27 commissioners. The EU itself went into a sort of seizure the moment somebody somewhere (Is that you Mr Giscard d’Estaing?) tried to define the value heritage it incorporates. We went something between comatose and autistic as words such as Judaeo-Christian and Humanist were whispered in halls between croissants and beer. In the end we gave up and thrashed the grandiose thoughts of a Constitution for the less optimistic (but equally radical) Lisbon reforms.

So our dinosaur is getting his head bashed in Brussels by an institution that is itself at the heart of a wider system that prefers the sanitary non-controversy of non-commitment than the idealistic aspirations of a society trusting in a deity and his inspiration much like the cousins across the pond with their “In God We Trust”spiel. Still. Still our island does manage to make a hash about our approach to ideals and ideas, to principles and to values. It’s less of a question of not having them and much more of a question of how to use them.

The supposed depositories of condensed popular values have long abdicated from their duty of guiding or elucidating a combination of lesser common factors in order to make the society of ours an open one that is acceptable for those who live therein. Concerned as they are with populistic masochism they have condemned our society’s development to a series of hiccups and bumps.

Which brings me to Adrian Vassallo. Apparently in a bout of pipe-induced fury he has condemned his calumniators to forever carry the moniker of “pigs”. Their crime? Having described him and those of his ilk as “dinosaurs”. It’s all a freak show in the end. A trumped up charade designed to make us believe that these are people who would die for their principles. Vassallo will be paraded as the pariah that he is (ironically with only those such as Tonio Borg who could embrace his ideals) both within and without his party. His shenanigans and porcine vocabulary will definitely serve to fan the flames of facile satire on the web but it will serve more the likes of the leader of his party who by distancing himself from the Vassallo position will end up sounding much more progressive than he really is. Actually he isn’t. Progressive. At all.

The misfits of the current band of parliamentarians will take their last stand in this particular parliamentary session of folly. They are irrelevant. irrelevant because their voices are in representation of no one but themselves. What remains to be seen is whether the population will accept the bland non-committal positions of our two parties in such areas as are normally labelled progressive and liberal. Given that none of the PLPN lot will be tempted to corner the sty for their own the real question is how much of the voting population can be tied to the liberal vote and what will they do with it?

The divorce debate had been one great window of opportunity for the liberals of the island to break ranks from the behemoth party of dinosaurs and fence-sitters. That occasion was lost and the spearheads of that liberal campaign were soon absorbed into the fold of false propaganda and hope. This election might not be too late for the liberal vote to form a critical mass that stands up to be counted. Will they find an alternative means of expression or will they insist on biting their nose to spite their face – voting for the parties that con them year in year out only to laugh at them and their temptation to waste their vote when the time comes?

The liberal movement needs to start seriously weighing the use of its vote. It’s either that or make a pig’s meal out of it all.

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tonio in Europe

Tuesday is Tonio Borg’s big day. He faces what increasingly promises to be a grilling before a European parliament committee that is tasked to metaphorically expose the worst traits of potential Commissioners to be. They don’t always work, these grillings. Had someone in the committee bothered to ask John Dalli his opinion on having intermediaries (canvassers) interceding for his cause with potential lobbyists then I strongly doubt whether Tonio would he having his three hours of sweat tomorrow.

Tonio is outraged. To begin with I believe that he is right to be outraged by the allegations with regards to Nursultan Nazarbaev’s son-in-law and the Maltese visa. An ex-East German PM is really pushing the “southern, tin-pot, corrupt country” agenda a bit too far for anyone’s liking – enough to stir the “we are Maltese and we don’t take no shit” kind of sentiments that make the Times of Malta comment board such a funny (if not sad) read. That Borg was the relevant Minister at the relevant moment is neither here nor there. Nor is the fact that a lawyer hiked his fees because of the “difficulty in obtaining the permit”. In short, the Kazakh business is not so “yakshemash” and rather overstretched.

On the other hand the general principle behind the fact of people like Mr Nazarbaev-in-law getting visas in Malta while line after line of “immigrants” get the not so kosher treatment does fall squarely at the foot of Minister Borg’s agenda. There is a concept of responsibility lying not so vaguely around Mr Borg’s portfolio – and consequently this can be used as a measure of assessment of the man’s political non-achievements.

It is not the field (or waters) of immigration that will mostly be used as a Punch and Judy stick to beat at the former Deputy PM as though he were some huge piñata. The big words being thrown at the Commissioner-in-waiting are IVF and abortion. Particularly jarring for many was Tonio Borg’s activist stance in such campaigns as the GoL’s (Gift of Life) vain attempts to entrench anti-abortion provisions in the constitution. Borg seems to be labouring under the impression that this is some kind of “persecution” for his Catholic beliefs and values. He is after all a vociferous exponent of the confessional wing of the Christian Democrat party – whatever is left of it in this day and age of opportunistic populism.

Unfortunately the pinata has got the wrong end of the stick. Buttiglione could state that he was persecuted for his beliefs because in his case he was “punished” for his opinions and thoughts notwithstanding the fact that he had not actively tried to impose them on someone else. Not so with Dr Borg. His political track record speaks with his vote if not with his active support. From the divorce issues to the GoL campaign Borg stood squarely with the movement that would have transformed “personal opinion” into national law (and in the GoL campaign case, constitutionally entrenched law). At that point it no longer becomes a matter of personal opinion.

There is no denying therefore that political formations within the EU Parliament could have a vested interest in avoiding the “embarrassment” of a mitre-wielding lay bishop positioning himself at the helm of the Commission’s health policies. It is not a question of persecuting catholics but a question of ensuring that a the Commission does not become a medium for Catholic propagation and propaganda. There’s a Vatican for that.

So yes. Expect the Greens and the Liberals to vote as they would. Expect the Popular Party to rally behind the nationalist party candidate if only out of a sense of twisted camaraderie. Inevitably the surprise ticket upon which all the vote  hinges will be the Socialist vote. We had poker-faced Muscat claiming that he will not stand in the way of the nomination  but that he cannot guarantee the Socialists giving Borg a hard time. Which is neither here nor there – and not surprising given that it is Muscat. On the one hand he wants to ring the patriotic bell – hopefully he is aware of the amount of national reputation points at stake behind this new nomination (especially after the battering our pride got with Dalligate). On the other hand he cannot resist the tribal call that would celebrate the nomination’s failure as yet another “falliment” by GonziPN.

As for GonziPN itself. Well they have a Deputy Leadership contest to dazzle the faithful (some real challengers for the leadership have wisely called themselves out of the race – “this is not the right moment”). Come Wednesday morning Tonio Borg will either find himself a comfortable office at the Berlaymont or at sea on a tiny dinghy with not much hope that the rescuers will turn up. Which would be quite ironic. Don’t you think?