Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Campaign 2013

Future views

Until I find time to post about “the issues that aren’t” I’d like to take a quick look (and provocation) at the idea of “the future” that has slipped in among the top hit concepts in Maltese political discourse.

“The future” and its natural antithesis “the past” feature prominently both as the centre-stage of marketing spin as well as the obvious underpinning building blocks behind most arguments. It is of course inevitable that if you are plugging change from a situation of quasi-inertia you will be pushing an agenda that automatically projects you to a future that is (another catch-word) different. This is a key question at this point in time since change and difference are strong selling points once you accept that the current situation just won’t do.

On a superficial level – one that is easily pricked into reaction by billboards that provoke and appeal to the instant idea – being associated with the past is supposed to be an immediate point-killer. You’re stuck in the middle ages, you’re backward or you’ve failed to shed some heavy luggage. Unless of course you manage to retaliate that too much talk of the past implies a misplaced nostalgia or, worse still, a deceptive lie. The bad thing about the past – in marketing terms – is that it lies there like a giant wart for all to see. It has happened. It is a fact. Indisputably so. You can hardly contradict it without engaging on a principled level – without talking politics.

The future? Now that’s something else. Campaigns built on the future appeal on a number of levels. Look at Obama’s hope-filled “Yes we can” campaign. It’s all about what could be done in the future. It builds on aspirations and desire for change. Look closer to home. Sarkozy’s “Ensemble tout est possible” cloned to the PN’s “Flimkien kollox possibli” relied on a promise that working together could make everything possible. That was when the promise was still a future possibility. We’ve seen how that “together” quickly crumbled to an impossibility – that future is now another past, another wart crying out to be analysed.

Joseph Muscat and Labour are trying hard to portray the image of having a project for the future. Their language is replete with concepts such as the famous “road-map“. The Labour party relies heavily on the sale of dreams – a future that is not only unquantifiable but also one that cannot be assessed. The selling of a dream involves simply being careful enough not to step on anyone’s dislikes. It is a combination of band-wagon politics and fence-sitting. The final key to this strategy is the reliance on the electorate’s general disgruntlement with the current band and their apparent inertia. In order to promise everything to everyone Joseph Muscat simply has to sit back and promise nothing. At least not tangibly.

The moment there is the danger of being associated with a fixed idea Muscat will shy away into the clouds of non-commitment or denial. He will return with words about road-maps and consultation. It’s less of a case of leadership with direction and more of a case of blind man’s bluff. The excuse of not being in election campaign is wearing thin. Especially when Muscat’s party has long delivered the judgement that (a) PN is no longer fit to govern and (b) Labour is.

Nationalist futures are worse than bleak at the moment. With a 12 point gap in the polls and a seeming inability to take control of the pre-electoral agenda setting it will take a miracle to get back into a fighting chance at this stage. Much will depend on the PN machine’s ability to bring Labour down to discussing the real and now. If the language of politics is shifted into the present temporal dimension – ignoring the histrionics of back-benchers on the way out and the media circus – then the tired party of government might (might) be back with a fighting chance. This will require stronger displays of clarity of vision, brutally honest introspectives that reflect upon past mistakes and a strong sense of determination that would finally eradicate the deep-seated doubt that has entrenched itself in the popular mindset.

The intangible politics of the future might only be eclipsed with a presentation of the very tangible politics of the present. It’ll be a hard trek but given the alternative scenarios and possibilities it is not only worth a try… it is their duty to do so.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Election fever

Recent events in the holy of holies that is parliament are beginning to make the Council of Trent seem like a walk in the park. I have already registered my consternation at what seems to have been a missed opportunity by the PN to take the initiative following the summer recess and to finally call the damn election. My observations seem to have found an echo in (of all places) Franco Debono’s latest rant (Gonzi had planned an October election) – and I am not sure whether this is a good thing. It would seem that the initiative was not taken because of a +12% gap at the polls that did not augur well or a snap October/November scrutiny.

Whatever the case may be and no matter how much of my guesswork was actually right I would like to look at another element in this pre-election frenzy and that is the magic BUDGET. I do not have the powers of foresight that the late Spiridione Sant proclaimed to have with much rasputinian fervour and cannot claim to be privy to the content of the forthcoming budget. What I can do is ask a few questions with regard to the budget and how it places itself in an eventual election run.

Some pundits are assuming that a PN budget is planned as some sort of “show and tell” exercise with the electorate. In this scenario, Gonzi and Fenech would present a budget that clearly shows the direction that the PN is taking with the management of the country. Bar any contradictory hiccups (St. Philip’s being the prime candidate for contradictory hiccup material) we would have a budget that doubles as a practical electoral manifesto that would presumably contrast greatly with Muscat’s pie in the sky lists of “ma nindaħlux lill-business” style.

The grand underpinning point in this plan is that Gonzi’s PN knows full well that Franco Debono is bound to hijack the budget and will be lying around in wait like a taliban strapped to his panties with dynamite, semtex and more ready to blow the project to smithereens with his (now openly declared) vote against the budget. The idea here is simple (pace the spinmeisters at Pieta)… a lovely budget that will most likely be endorsed by Brussels (we have to get a nod of sorts because of the concerted austerity plan – there IS a world beyond Joseph and Lawrence) that might even tickle the fancy of the doubters but that gets shot down by the new villain in the story – Master Debono of Għaxaq. Q.E.D.

Now I am no master of the polls and statistics but I do have a legitimate question to ask. What weight are we supposed to give a budget that is very evidently being presented with the extreme likelihood that it will not be adopted or accepted? I mean, in the long run it’s a case of “You know that I know that you know” and Fenech & Gonzi’s hopes about the Franco party-pooper business are not exactly secret. So with that perspective don’t you think that this budget would be a budget lite?

We might not get to answer the question should Franco and Labour continue with the barrage of motions trying desperately to alter the orders of the house. On the other hand it is beginning to seem extremely likely that the current interpretation of the house rules will lead us to a November Budget as the first real vote that would make the PN’s plans re Franco and his sabotage come true.

Whatever the case don’t forget to ask yourself – is it a budget or the modern PN equivalent of a trojan horse?

 

Beware of the nationalist finance minister bearing budgets.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Digital Lies

Only yesterday Austin Gatt and two of his sidekicks were busy presenting a White Paper that was almost being hailed as a quantum leap in the state of digital rights on the island. Essentially Gatt, IT Claudio and Arriva Delia were promoting a suggested new constitutional provision that would enshrine the digital rights of every Maltese citizen – the digital right amendment. Kudos to all this sci-fi and all that but J’accuse’s feet remain firmly entrenched in the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach to legislation and we will not be easily impressed by the special effects of a proposed provision.

Not too far from the realm of digital rights is the issue of data and its protection. We do not need new rights to be enacted for that – we already have a snazzy Data Protection Act. The basic principles of this act are quite easy to grasp. Consider first of all that data is any information related to an identified or identifiable person. You then have the principle that in order to gather “data” that is yours or that identifies you, the potential gatherer (or “controller”) requires your permission. Once he has obtained that permission he can only use it for a specific purpose and for that purpose only.

Why am I saying all this? Well. Here’s the thing. I decided that it is high time I should log onto mychoice.pn and subscribe to updates so that I would be able to analyse what everyone else seems to be receiving. I proceeded to the lovely page and was asked to register. I gave the page my real name and my real surname as well as my email address (there’s always the spam folder). I did not wish to give the PN a remote chance of having my mobile number so I input what I believed to be a credible but phoney mobile number. No probs there.

Then came the ID Card business. I figured that if I subtract one from the progressive number allocated to me when I was registered I would come up with a credible ID card – not mine but credible enough… so if for example my ID was 500075 – the 5000th registered kid in 1975 then all I had to do was input 499975 and hey presto mychoice.pn would let me in.

Let me in my digital rights arse! Imagine my surprise when the validation system on mychoice.pn told informed me that the ID card number input does not match the name or surname provided. Wow. Let’s see what happened there. Essentially the ID number was checked against a database that mychoice.pn OBVIOUSLY has and the validation process checks whether the ID card corresponds to the right name and surname. Lovely. I was never asked by the site whether I acquiesced to the use of my ID number and name (the only box to be ticked is the one were you accept to recieve PBO’s updates). So mychoice.pn is in possession of a database (little need to guess that they are using the electoral register) that contains MY INFORMATION and are actively using it for data processing WITHOUT MY CONSENT. Without your consent either.

So what? I hear you say. Don’t we all know that political parties regularly use the electoral register in their day to day meddling. Sure. But they are definitely going out on a limb here and stretching the rubbish exception that they planted in the Data Protection Act to an incredible extreme. In any case, whether or not they manage to find some loophole to the Data Protection Act in this case what does this really say about the ever so grand initiative of DIGITAL RIGHTS and the white paper?

You’re right. Digital rights? They don’t give a rat’s arse. So much for all the high falutin’ consultation process.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Gays and bendy buses

Magistrate Peralta’s decision this morning seems to have caused quite a ripple effect in the ether and beyond. What seems to have irked most people is the assertion that the accused in the case in question was justified in feeling provoked by an Australian (drunk) man’s implication that he (the man) was gay. Prominent among the court’s considerations was the fact that the events took place in the village of Mellieha and that it appeared to be “part of the mentality of society there” to feel offended by the insinuation that one was homosexual.

Conclusions are drawn quickly by the public jury but we might be missing the wood for the trees. Magistrate Peralta’s assessment is not that it is ok for people to be provoked whenever there was an insinuation that they were gay. What the Magistrate was bound to do is to assess whether any man in the same circumstances and context was justified in claiming that he felt provoked. It is a sort of “when in Rome standard”. Unfortunately, in such situations, the court is called upon to take a snapshot of our society as it is and work with the tools at hand.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously think that in our country (and not just in Mellieha) the general feeling when someone implies that you are gay is not one of contentment and pride. Last I checked the term “pufta” was not exactly used within the context of lauds and accolades. Which is not to say that I agree with the judgement handed down – I have an absolute aversion for people who hide behind the “I saw red” theory – whatever the provocation they might feel to have suffered. All the derision of Mellieha and its residents can only be extended to all of this sad country of ours that seems to be genuinely shocked whenever one of its warts props up in the mirror.

Speaking of warts, Minister Austin Gatt surely has better things to do than to attempt (feebly) to reply to Boris Johnson (not Johnston) and his bendy bus statements at the Tory conference. To begin with I do not feel that Malta was given pride of place in that comment and was only a postilla to the primary idea that Boris’ mayorship had actually gotten rid of the bendy bus affliction that had littered the London streets like a latter day pestilence. To follow, Gatt and his minions best keep their mouths shut when it comes to anything Arriva, let alone the bendy buses. For heaven’s sake what’s all this nonsense about “mathematical calculations” when we all know of the bendy buses stuck in Mrabat and Mater Dei roundabout?

So what? Johnson’s joke about getting rid of bendy buses was at Malta’s expense. So what, Emmanuel Delia cannot take a jibe lying down so he gets his master’s ministry to type what he must have felt believed to be a witty retort (hoho the Labourites are agreeing with the Tories) and doesn’t even manage to get the Mayor’s surname right. Once again we demonstrate an incapacity to stare the truth of our warts in the face (or warts on our face). Bendy buses suck, Austin (and Manuel) and no amount of attempts at replying to the magnificent stage master that is the Mop of London will change that.

Next time, Austin (or Manuel), if you want to really get the feel of your average Maltese reaction in such situations just write a short telegram to Boris. One word would suffice…

“Pufta”.

Categories
Campaign 2013

This order of the house

Random thoughts on parliamentary democracy.

1. October 9th. Luxembourg’s parliament reopens after the summer recess as does Belgium’s senate. L’essentiel reports that 30% of the members have sat in parliament for over 15 years. A commentary on Belgian radio remarked that it will be a slow period of work for the Belgian lawmakers marked by a series of long delays that will hamper any new progress on important legislation. Local elections are expected to give more bargaining clout to the nationalistic Flemish movements.

2. Yesterday’s session in the Maltese parliament was overshadowed by the need for Speaker Michael Frendo to consult the Standing Orders in order to rule about a motion of adjournment related to the Opposition’s pressing need to discuss a shelved plan for the privatisation of the management of public car parks. The Hon. Franco Debono also seemed rather concerned that his motion of no confidence in Minister Austin Gatt should be given the priority that he believes it deserves.

3. Much high talk was wasted on the ether as a few political aficionados spoke of a crumbling democracy, a government addicted to power or an opposition that busied itself with causing trouble. A road of bollocks, I hasten to add because, to corrupt the words of Trapattoni “bad democracy it is when the will of the majority as expressed in parliament is not respected”. The day of the showdown has not come yet. The car park excuse is not working wonders for either government or opposition. Government loses points for the image being portrayed of a decision maker that does not involve the parts (councils) and ignores issues of subsidiarity (Mosta Council, Rabat Council and more would rightly expect more involvement). The opposition has had its eagerness for power come what may unmasked by insisting on discussing plans that have been shelved.

4. Some signs of a revision of Opposition strategy in today’s papers. Joseph Muscat distanced himself from the Debono No Confidence motion. A sly move. It could go some way in abating the growing perception that Muscat is just as power hungry as the man who is supposedly clutching desperately to the seat of power. We’re in no hurry to present such a motion – said Muscat. What he did not obviously commit to is whether his party would vote in line with Franco should such a motion see the light of day before the budget. Given that the motion is based on the spurious car park issue then the holier than thou approach could be hoist by Franco’s petard.

5. Petards and fireworks is what the current government is specialising in. J’accuse remains of the opinion that government on life support will be ultimately perceived as a weak government. The summer plans should have culminated in a Sturm und Drang announcement of an election around the time of the reconvening of parliament. The key here was initiative. By taking the initiative and redrawing the battle ground (including the erasing of Franco, JPO and any dithering backbencher such as Mugliett) the PN would have regained precious ground in the eyes of public perception. Instead by hanging on to the power and leaving gaping questions as to the fabric and workings of democratic representation among Joe Public the PN is fast losing the perception game.

6. New issues such as the lease/sale of St. Philip’s (well documented by Carmel Cacopardo on his blog) or the retaining of the title of ambassador by Richard Cachia Caruana (what the hell were they thinking? noblesse obligée?) will not help settle this dust cloud of confusion. The failure to take the initative and the misplaced trust in the magic effect of such things as the 5+5 conference might be rued later on when the campaign really hots up (will it ever?). Furthermore the PN tantrums with regard to the Broadcasting Authority decisions regarding Public Broadcasting programmes will not help sweeten their image either. Meanwhile AD continues to be consistently ignored by the paladins of the future of journalism on PBS’ main programmes.

“Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.” – P.J. O’ Rourke

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Car parks

For the record, just for the record, there is a difference between selling off the MANAGEMENT of car parks and selling off the OWNERSHIP of car parks. Yep. Before we rush off to create petitions and cry about the sale of public land to private entrepreneurs let us just make sure we got this one right.

The SALE of public land to a car park company would entail the actual transfer of ownership on land rights. As far as I know no such deals ever happen and the government retains ultimate ownership of public land. Land that the government itself owns in trust for the people. See MCP. See agreement to extend lease in order to allow for further investment in MCP (conditional on public garden).

The transfer of MANAGEMENT entails the simple reasoning that while government (and therefore you) remains the ultimate owner of the land, such land is managed as a car park by a private firm/individual who will (hopefully) also be obliged to make such improvements (considering advances in technology) as necessary to make the actual use of a car park worthwhile. This would probably (you never know with our politician’s brilliant ideas: see Arriva planning) entail the installation of machines for tickets, security cameras and the usual small print that waives the responsibility of car park management if you decided to leave your brand new laptop/ipad/camera in the car. At no point in the duration of a management agreement is the ownership of public land alienated to a third party.

Tant biex jaghraf jixrob l-Earl grey bilmod.