Category: Articles

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Show me the funny

Laughter, they say, is the best medicine. More often than not a good sense of humour is the ideal sort of equipment to deal with hard times – that and a constant reminder that “this too shall pass”. The intelligent ability to make light of one’s own troubles must not be confused with ignorance of the predicament in which one finds oneself. Any event has an inherent absurd ring to it and humour is the exploration of the absurdity in a conscious decision to highlight the very absurd while assuaging the potential discomfort.

There comes a point though when the shield of humour starts to melt in your own hands. It’s the point where it stops being funny. The joke is old, the joke is stale or, worse still, the joke risks backfiring into something more dangerous. At that point it becomes very difficult to continue to rely on the medicine that is laughter. At that point it is difficult to “find it funny”.

It stops being funny when it happens too often

Take Thursday morning. I’m sure quite a few who found themselves waking up to what seemed to be the zillionth power failure thought of a hundred new jokes. The first reaction is the “Only in Malta” syndrome – you know the type; we’ve been cracking this kind of joke ever since Freedom/Indepen-dence. As a kid I remember finding the “Malta, We Love Malta” song side-splittingly hilarious what with all its references to driving wherever there is shade and all. In the eighties period of electricity by ration, we coped and we coped through humour. In the noughties we developed a panoply of repartees about the infamous Boiler No. 7.

Yep. The inanimate creaking boiler in Marsa became the star of the show with its own Facebook page and fans. Meanwhile, where was everybody? Everybody was in the dark. The humour had been accompanied with a sort of resignation. The “Xi trid taghmel?” (What can one do?) mentality stepped in. It is the net result of a coping mechanism on a national scale: the humoured tolerance of mediocre alternation at the head and administration of our country. We’ll joke about it even when another committee is appointed, in James Hacker style, to investigate the latest fault and conclude to a bemused populace that: “Yes, we can screw it up… again (and again)”.

Humour can help us cope with the darnest of abuses in a democracy. We joke that it is only in totalitarian countries that facts are suppressed – in democracies they take decisions not to publish them. Once the joke is said it is practically OK. A little mantra that delivers these sins away from our heads. Like the gaseous build up in the stomach, it is soon forgotten once the fart is delivered. (Pardon my toilet metaphor but hey, I HAVE to make you laugh along the way).

So while we have been regaled with sufficient blackouts to qualify for BBC Africa’s online competition for “Best Power Cut Story” (yes, it’s true – and there is no European version), we still find no problem with the fact that our two surest bets for representation (on current rules) seem to be taking the joke a bit too far. I am not too sure how much longer the man in the street can keep wielding his humour shield the next time the South is thrown into chaos because of one traffic light (one,) but somehow I think it has all got to do with the inability to link that occurrence to Labour’s walk-out from the Committee of Strengthening Democracy and PN’s Sir Humphreyesque flustering away from accountability. Vote for change? Ha! Now that’s a funny one.

It’s not funny if the wrong people heard it

Karl Farrugia, aged 24 with a residence in Swieqi, was reluctantly rocketed to the top ten list of “Only in Malta” notoriety under the special section ‘weird but true’. Farrugia provided more living proof of the current human inability to manage his Internet presence with the necessary care. As a citizen of proud Roman Catholic Malta, he should have known better than join the Facebook group called “No to the Pope in Malta”. His greater crime was to suggest in a comment on the same group that should Ben XVI want to feel closer to J.C. then all we had to do was to perforate his limbs with the use of projectiles. In other words shoot bullets through the papal palms and feet.

No doubt, Farrugia’s comment will not register as the most intelligent to date but there is something infinitely sad in the story that followed. Farrugia was prosecuted under the Press Act provisions on, among other things, “incitement to violence” and ended up being fined €500 for his fine work on the website. You guessed it Karl… it ain’t funny and nobody is laughing. I had quite a few problems digesting this case and a thorough discussion is still open ended on J’accuse the blog. I will refrain from such legalistic phraseology like context and intent, but I’d like to dwell on the relative issues involved.

A man called Mario Grech gave a speech to an assembled congregation in a largish hall last week. During that speech Mario warned the congregation of the perils of liberalism while describing such liberalism as a “disease” that required some form of “cure”. Quite exactly what kind of pills Mario would be suggesting to cure this latest affliction (I hope it’s not as bad as avian flu) is beyond me and beside the point. Now this speech could (and I stress the could) have offended a few individuals who call themselves humanists. They are appalled that an individual can stand up before a crowd in public and make such calls that are vaguely reminiscent of purges and suchlike.

It simplifies matters no end that the aforementioned man Mario is one who is often seen wearing a pointy hat and armed with a long stick (mostly harmless though), and that the largish hall was a temple of worship of what is by many considered the dominant religious denomination of the country. Yep. Bishop Mario Galea thinks liberalism is up to no good and the humanists are furious. They are doubly furious actually – firstly that His Pointy Hattedness should even consider equating their philosophy to a disease, and secondly that the laws of the land did not pounce to their rescue with the same readiness and willingness as they did in the case of Karl. Ben XVIth was after all a foreigner in our land – humanists such as Raphael Vassallo are not. What then?

I find all this contradictory mess worrying. Malta is not alone in asking these questions (and in having had enough with the coping mechanism that is humour). A colleague recently pointed out a brilliant essay by Gustavo Zagrebelsky – former Italian constitutional court judge. Written in 2006, it is called “The Paladins of Identity and Tolerance in the West”. Here’s Zagrebelsky on the problem of democratic society: “Whoever recognises himself in democracy would say: in order to defend it let us operate with a spirit of concord, let us battle the arrogance and plutocracy, let us respect each other, cultivate legality, promote solidarity, give security to the poor and slow down social competition. In other words: let us not give up on ourselves, on what we are and what we believe, let us correct the defects and combat that which disfigures us. Instead no. Instead we say: enough of this (identity), let us give ourselves another, a militant identity that makes us recognisable not to each other but against each other. Instead we say that the institutions should not be neutral but should serve this battle and all the worse for he who does not recognise them. Instead we believe that identity justifies the sacrifice of others. Giving ourselves this very kind of identity means precisely to promote a battle between civilisations.”

I want to live in a society where both the Church and the Humanists can feel comfortable expressing themselves and their idea of what a just society is about. I don’t want to live in a society where any of the two (or anyone else) is busy imposing their idea on all the rest. I’d hate to live in that kind of joke, and quite frankly I don’t think it’s funny.

bert4j_100523

The secret of comedy? … timing

Someone who has no time for humour at the moment is Madame Merkel. She’s been shaking the markets like there’s no tomorrow, and although I never thought I’d say this, I think that the Germans do have a point. The euro states cannot expect to have a free ride only to go sucking at the German breast whenever there is a problem. The benefits of the eurozone will require the strict rigours of better discipline. Even General Sarkozy has recognised that as he prepares to amend the French Constitution to that effect.

Another unfunny bit of sabre rattling is going on in the Far East. The two Ks are at it again as a report has finally shown that a North Korean torpedo had actually sunk a South Korean warship. It’s not exactly battleships we are talking about and there is a real risk of war that would only add to the unsettling state of affairs that we have witnessed in Thailand in the past days. All the more worry for the economic markets – all the worse for our beloved euro.

Lastly, look out at the big battle of Facebook v the World as the social networking giant faces its moment of truth. Will its lackadaisical treatment of private data signal the beginning of the end for the facebook model? Will Facebook and Google recover from recent slips in PR thanks to their gaffes on the data protection side? All that and more promises to be an interesting development – is Web 3.0 round the corner?

www.akkuza.com featured Humanists, Catholics, Bondiplus and the BA this week. More fun coming up next week as the sun has finally come to Luxembourg.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Stable government and its price

So David Cameron got to move to number 10 after all. With a little help from his new-found friends, Cameron (and Clegg) ushered in an era of “collaborative politics” that promises to combine effective representation with reasoned administration for the greater good of the people. The much-maligned monster that is coalition government settled in and is already working on an Emergency Budget to tackle the continuing ails of the economy (British, European and worldwide). And there we were thinking that pesky third parties would ruin the show.

When the pros and cons of coalition governments are being discussed, the question of stable government always figures as one of primary concern. The fear of government breaking down or collapsing mid-term and of provoking multiple elections over short spans of time have been one of the main arguments against the possibility of coalition governments – that and the ugly duckling of a “kingmaker” party – a minor party able to call the shots on who gets to form a government.

Whenever such considerations are made we are making implied choices between stronger representation and stable government. The implication seems to be that perfect, proportional representation is not conducive to stable government. In a way that is because, given our “black or white” bipartisan all-or-nothing approach, we are automatically suspicious of compromise politics and confidence building. But is our “stable government” system really so perfect after all?

Stable or bust

Speaking to the party faithful at the PN General Council on Friday, minister Tonio Borg reassured those present that “the government will be safeguarding the people’s clear verdict given in the general election two years ago which was for the Nationalist Party to govern the country for five years.” This was Tonio’s summary refusal of the PL thesis of a government hanging onto power by its talons. Forget Auditor General investigations, forget disquisitions on Erskine-May and forget companies with ugly acronyms like BWSC.

It’s all about who is in power for five years. The reverse side of the coin is the same. Look at the fracas in parliament – the yelling, the motions, counter-motions, the childish insults and defences (you’re drunk and she’s pregnant – oh the shame) – it all boils down to one thing and one thing only: the PL wanted so desperately to bring this one seat-majority government crumbling down (on a vote which technically does not do that) and to undermine whatever sense of legitimacy GonziPN still has to govern.

gonzidhondt

When the results of the last election were out, our Bertoon had Gonzi celebrating on a small bucket representing his “relative majority”. A party that garnered less than 50 per cent of the vote in the country would govern, thanks to a constitutional mechanism of seat compensation. Our caption read: “D’hondt worry, we’re happy” – a nod to the D’hondt system of calculation in elections – invented by a Belgian (Belgian? now that’s a sure source for stable governments). The toon was our way of saying “at least someone’s happy”. Sure. GonziPN had every right to be happy as the next legitimate government of the nation, having snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. But was the voter really getting a good deal in constitutional and representative terms?

The cost of ‘stable government’

Two years ago a party that had a 1,500 vote advantage over the next party that had failed to get to the 50 per cent threshold could claim two extra seats in “constitutional compensation”. Those two extra seats (voting value approximately 7,000) are given to the party with the relative majority in order to ensure that it can govern for the next five or so years – assuming that all the members on its side of the House will vote in its favour.

So we have constructed our “stable government” around a fictive majority that in effect exercises something akin to absolute legislative power in parliament. If government wills it, anything becomes law – unless its bench members decide (knowingly or out of fatigue) to vote against it. The Opposition may – rightly or wrongly – yell, cry, perform its least flattering resurrection of 80’s parliamentary thuggery, walk out in indignation and shout “foul” to an angry nation. It may do all that and more but, barring a revolution, the government is as firmly in place as a limpet – crisis averted, n’est-ce pas?

There is no coalition partner forced upon a party that has not obtained the majority of national votes. No coalition partner to act as a moderator of the more radical of the government policies that might only have enjoyed the favour of a national minority (relative majority it well may be, but it is still a government by national minority). The closest we can get to the coalition partner scenario is in the infamous “rebel backbenchers” picture where, for reasons that can be highly volatile (not as clear as those of an elected coalition partner), a fraction of the party in government decides to make use of his newfound disproportionate weight.

I don’t know about you but if that’s stability, then give me instability any day. Not that I would want instability, but this kind of conundrum really makes the examination of an alternative scenario with coalition partner worth revisiting. AD chairman Mike Briguglio wrote of the current state of affairs in an article that also appeared in J’accuse (Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly). At one point Mike suggests that the Nationalist Party might even pull off a victory at the next general election. What then?

Mike wrote: “The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone, in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights.” The “if in government alone” bit did not escape me. It is obvious that AD of all parties would entertain thoughts of coalitions in Clegg style and Briguglio’s message is clear – if the Nationalists were to be part of the next government it would best be with a check and balance system guaranteed by a coalition partner.

bert4j_100516
Cleggmania?

The problem in Malta is that voters will weigh this option with the usual suspicion. Elections are depicted as an all or nothing battle themselves. The rules are such that – as I have shown – the trophy of governance is intricately merged with the trophy of absolute power at all costs. Even in such telling times as these, when the bipartisan representation exposes all its ugly warts, messengers like Briguglio will find it incredibly hard to sell the idea of a different form of “collaborative government” that has just been launched in the UK. Selling the idea might not be enough – without electoral reform, laws on party financing and a clear awareness among the voting population, we are far, very far, from being anywhere near the kind of movement that brought the UK Cleggmania.

Meanwhile the BWSC saga with all the parliamentary repercussions rolls on. Joseph Muscat of the Same, Same but Different Party has just presented his 15 points to battle corruption. The monster, once defined, failed to bring the PN government down. So now Don Quixote invents a few swords and sabres and bandies them about. We shall see how gullible the voters can be by the way they accept this new set of “promises”. In our analysis of the 15 points on the blog we point out (among other things) that:

(a) promising a working electricity system is just the mediocre kind of electoral gimmick you can expect from our bipartisan stable system in the 21st century; (b) you cannot fight corruption if you are unable to define it legally; (c) there is no such thing as retroactive application of criminal law; (d) when Joseph Muscat promises to implement a directive he is stating the obvious – he will have to implement directives when in government whether he likes it or not; and (e) a law on party financing must not be limited to “corruption” whatever that means – transparency means knowing even what are the “legitimate” sources of party funds.

Somebody stabilise that euro

I know it’s egoistic of me but I have begun to notice that ever since I booked a June trip to New York, there seems to be a general conspiracy to threaten my holiday. As if Iceland’s bucolic volcano and its random outbursts of paralytic ash were not enough, the combined effect of Greek woes and economic disaster on the continent have daily gnawed away at the purchasing power of the beloved euro, once I cross the pond to the other side. Also, if you please, those bigoted maniacs that fabricate religious excuses at the same rate as they strap bombs to their chests have upped the ante once again in the city that never sleeps.

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, I have “New York or Burst” (as Balki Bartokamous would have it) tattooed on my brain. No volcano, euro devaluation or fanatic terrorist will come between me and the joys of the 24-hour Apple Store on Fifth Avenue – open 24/365… beat that GRTU! How’s that for stable determination?

www.akkuza.com has been on a go-slow this Ascension Long Weekend in Luxembourg. We’ll be discussing stable governments all next week so do not miss out on the action.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Articles

Well Hung

Why Cameron would love to be Maltese

I cannot help wondering how David Cameron must wish that he was a Maltese politician. Rather than sitting at the negotiating table with that pesky Nick Clegg (the tiddler that he is) he’d be sitting firmly, decisively and stably at the head of some carcade on Tower Road, Sliema, celebrating his relative majority victory – the constitutional provisions written for the “Big Two” would have done the rest.

How silly of the Brits not to have thought of the advanced electoral systems that have been refined through the ages by the PLPN. Cameron would not be fretting over conjuring some “big, open and comprehensive” offer to lure Nick into his coalition government. He would be sitting happily at the head of a fictitiously constructed majority of seats – purposely engineered to compensate for any defects resulting from the expression of the will of the people.

Of course, the above scenario would perforce include an electoral system that would preclude any of the Lib Dems obtaining a seat in the first place – and Dave’s your uncle. Poor Dave. He cannot enjoy the automatic coronation for relative majorities proffered to the anointed ones under the Maltese Constitution: instead he will have to sweat it out to build a government that really represents a majority of the elected parties. A coalition between Tories and Lib Dems (18 million votes) just makes it into a decent 59 per cent of the electorate.

Numerologies

Let’s face it: the UK election results were disappointing for the movement of reform that was promised under Cleggmania. The Lib Dems actually obtained five fewer seats than last time around but, and that is a big but, let us look at the numbers that count. Out of 30 million voters, 11 million chose Tory, nine million chose Labour and seven million opted for the Lib Dems. A close call, no?

Let us translate those figures into percentages of the voting population. The Tories had 36 per cent of the votes, Labour 29 per cent and the Lib Dems 23 per cent. No absolute majority. No biggie here. Vote-wise, a Lib-Lab coalition (52 per cent) forms a parliamentary majority as much as a Tory-Lib Dem coalition (59 per cent) would.

The situation goes awry when we see the number of seats that each party won in Parliament expressed as a percentage. The Tories got 47 per cent of the seats (with 36 per cent of the vote), Brown’s Labour got 39 per cent of the seats (with 29 per cent of the vote) and the Liberals? Ah, the Liberals’ nine million votes (23 per cent of the voting population) got… drum roll please…. nine per cent of the seats in Parliament. Nine per cent. You read it right.

So, disappointing as the result may be, it is not for the reasons most people have come to expect. You see the result is NOT disappointing because now, more than ever, it is an eye-opener of the blatant distortive effect that an electoral system plotted out to ensure bipartisan “stability” has on effective parliamentary representation. An electoral law that serves to dumb down representation in order to preserve stability has this twisted effect on democratic rationality: there is none.

Election Night
Image by Patrick Rasenberg via Flickr

Clegg’s Law

It might not be about to replace Sod’s Law, but Clegg’s Law is a firm candidate for the prizes of Phyrric Victory, Lose-lose Situation of the Year and Sacrificial Lamb on the Altar of Democracy rolled into one. Clegg, you see, is in a dilemma. He is exactly at the point where all the naysayers of proportional representation want him to be: the much demonised and warned-against “kingmaker”.

Before the election Clegg made two semi-commitments regarding possible coalition governments. The first was that he believed (erroneously, according to J’accuse) that the party with the relative majority of votes had some sort of moral right to govern. The second was that no matter who he formed a coalition with, Gordon Brown would no longer be Prime Minister (again, with the benefit of hindsight a premature claim). As things stand, these conditions would point to a coalition government with the Bullingdon Babyface.

It’s not so easy though. Following the early results, the Lib Dems put their kingmaker position up to auction. The initial bid had to conform to a number of conditions, but most important of all was the eternally elusive question of voting reform. Because, you see, the Lib Dems had to wear two hats in these elections. First they wore the hat of the normal party, with policies to iron out, programmes to put into effect and plans for government – coalition or otherwise. Secondly though, they also had to wear the hat of pioneers of change – the hat of the only party insisting openly on a clear reform of the rules of the game.

The kingmaker has no crown

It is this dilemma that risks turning Clegg’s brave stand into a schizophrenic disaster. The Lib Dem’s bipolar situation raises their stakes tenfold. They have a duty to the electorate – a mandate obtained both via policy promises (Hat number 1) and reform promises (Hat number 2). Sitting at the coalition table with someone like Cameron means negotiating a compromise plan. Cameron knows that. His “openness” has involved, until now, no offer for electoral reform.

Clegg can stand firm on electoral reform – making it a sine qua non of the negotiations, thus risking being labelled a stirrer of instability. This would not only throw mud on Clegg’s face but also on future possibilities of stronger electoral performances of the Lib Dems as a party. In the eyes of the electorate, Cameron’s refusal to work for a fairer representative system will be eclipsed by Clegg’s breaking down of a possible stronger stable government. The kingmaker shamed – every naysayer’s dream.

Then there is Brown. Rather than bow out gracefully, he has (rightly, again in our opinion) pointed out that, should Cameron fail to entice Clegg with his all or nothing approach, then he is willing to provide the second option for a coalition. Clegg is still bound by his “governing without Brown” promise and Brown knows that. Which is probably why he has dangled the electoral reform carrot in front of him. Brown accepts a fast track for a referendum on electoral reform. With Brown, Clegg would get a fair chance to discuss reform (note, though, that the referendum might not succeed).

Constitutionally, there would be nothing wrong should Clegg opt for a Lib-Lab coalition. Cameron’s questionable moral authority to govern simply because of his relative majority of votes can be put even further into representative perspective when we look at it geographically. Do you know how many seats the Conservatives won in Scotland? One out of 59: Dumfriesshire. They only did slightly better in Wales, wining eight out of 40 seats. The best bet for a strong Tory government would probably be an Independent England. Otherwise, they have about as much moral authority to govern certain parts of the UK as Edward Longshanks.

Democracy in the 21st

So Clegg is in a right fix. Stable and moral government under current rules means playing along with the game and forgetting about electoral reform. A Labour coalition might open a long shot for the referendum, but what does that say for the chances of the referendum actually succeeding after the predictable vilification Clegg will suffer for not having chosen the horse with the highest feelings of legitimacy?

Clegg’s fix is the fix of every other party that will try to break a bipartisan mentality, and I have begun to strongly believe that the solution for change is not to wait for the incumbents (PLPN, Labservatives) to cash in on their feeble promises of reform – but to educate, educate and educate the electorate. It is after all the electorate that needs to understand that the current status quo only results in electing two versions of the same, the same but different politics intent on performing in the inevitable race to mediocrity.

Joseph 2010 tries Eddie 1981

That was the verdict after a tearful (is that true?) Joseph Muscat led his angered troops out of what passes as our temple of representative democracy following a heated vote and ruling by newbie speaker Frendo. Labour stormed out of Parliament in a collective tantrum after Frendo opted to re-listen to votes in order to understand whether allegations by members from the government benches would be substantiated – and whether MP for Gozo Justyne Caruana had also erred in her vote.

’Coz Mario did it first, you know. He was tired, miskin. Exhausting, this government business. He said “yes” instead of “no” and then it was too late. The House of Representatives (of what?) descended into absolute chaos as bullies started a yelling competition while Tonio Borg tried to make a point of order. Our representative relative majority government and relatively incapable Opposition went about representing us as well as they could.

Prior to the voting debacle, grown-up men on the government benches defended the Power Station contract and agreements blindly and ignored the big questions that had been raised in the Auditor General’s report. Then grown-up men from the Opposition benches had a parallel discussion with presumably a different interlocutor. It was evident from the discussion that all sides were intent on speaking and no one was listening. Our young journalist of an Opposition leader rued the opportunity to have the debate screened live on public TV so he could preen and crow in a show paid for by our taxes.

At the bottom of the power station contract issues lie the problems of transparency, of political party funding, of reforming our system of representation in order to create a wider gap between private interests and partisan politics. None of this was discussed, except for when the renegade Franco Debono reminded the House of the need for a law on party funding. His calls were soon drowned by the ruckus and by what has been described farcically as an “attakk fahxi” on Justyne Caruana – Malta’s new version of Burma’s Aun San Suu Kyi.

bert4j_100509

Well Hung

It’s pretty clear that if the UK electorate did not vote strongly enough to force through the necessary electoral reform, it will be a hundred times more difficult to get that kind of message through to this masochistic electorate of ours. Our PLPN farce that has once again descended to incredible levels of mediocrity this week will hang on for another mandate. Whether we have the not so smooth operators of PN or the bungling drama queens of Labour in government after the next election, J’accuse is still of the same opinion as it has been in recent times – the greatest losers are the voters, hung parliament or not.

Malta’s number one political blog and mediawatch still has the same address: www.akkuza.com – blogging so you don’t have to.

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s Malta Independent on Sunday.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Articles

Daphne says Give Up

I got some advice from fellow blogger/columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia this week. “Here’s a tip, Jacques,” she said, “try writing things that people want to read. If you haven’t got yourself an audience in five years I’d say it’s time to give up.” Now it’s probably good to know that other people take such a level of interest in your welfare and blogging, and it’s probably even greater that a seasoned old-time columnist has some tips to dispense to a newbie like myself, but there’s much more to be read in that tip than appears at first.

The clue is to be found in one tiny phrase that DCG let slip in her prescription: “things that people want to read”. I know you wouldn’t guess it but you see DCG is a public relations (PR) person – a self-made marketing/communications product of the nineties and noughties. Finding out what people want to read is her bread and butter. It’s not just that though. As a dabbler in the arts of PR and marketing, she is in the business of packaging anything to make it sellable. An expert PR specialist can package something normal and make it seem to be the most desirable item in the world. Expert PR people work at Apple, Google and the like.

A dabbler in the arts of PR will not reach those dizzy levels of success – they will not become the new Steve Jobs. Instead he or she will be sufficiently well versed to understand the tricks of the trade among which is one very basic tenet: feed on the buyers’ curiosity. Being able to get as wide an audience as possible means being able to provide what that wide audience wants as effectively as possible. What could possibly attract large audiences in today’s world? Sensationalism, trash and tabloid style voyeurism that’s what. In his appreciation of DCG in MaltaToday, columnist David Friggieri described her adopted style as “trash and destroy” – aptly so.

The Romans had “panem et circenses”, the Victorians had “PT Barnum and circus freaks”, the 21st century Malta blogging scene has TYOM and Running Commentary – and boy do they have an audience. If you want to set up a blog and get “an audience” before five years then all you have to do is follow Daphne’s advice: write what the people want to read… or give up.

Thanks. But no thanks.

You see marketing people invaded the political scene in the early nineties. Look at the UK – they constructed the Blair persona and are in the process of constructing Clegg and Cameron. Now Brown is a different kettle of fish. The man has a volatile temper, is very much a down-to-earth old style politician who has little time for the marketing shenanigans of pandering for the photo-op. The poor man tries but just look what happens when he drops his guard for a moment – Bigotgate: the ultimate blunder for a politician occurred.

After having been cross-examined by a voter in a rival constituency, Brown forgot that he had his microphone still on and proceeded to describe her as a “bigoted woman”. It’s probably what most politicians think of even the most fawning of voters (just look at DCG’s appreciation of John Attard Montalto in the Indy to see what I mean,) but you don’t need a marketing expert to tell a politician that it’s just not done to be frank about these things. Don’t get me wrong – PR management and marketing definitely have a role to play in today’s communication driven political struggle but the danger is in letting them take over completely.

When I started J’accuse five years back my intention was to openly discuss ideas – not just political – with anyone interested in listening. The blog grew into a regular platform where ideas are exchanged (and yes, sometimes – thankfully rarely – insults are traded). Someone ingrained in PR cannot conceive of a different form of result than “audience” in the vulgar term of audience. J’accuse is not in the business of “selling” but is simply an expression of opinion using a (not so) new medium.

The surprise is that around 800 people log onto J’accuse on a daily basis to read what DCG describes as “boring and irrelevant” content. Others log in on a less regular basis. Frankly, we’d be happy with 50 or 10 regulars because ours is not the business of numbers. We’ve proved time and again that the moment we dabble with sensational or “what people want to read” our figures explode into the thousands – just see what happened in the recent case of The Times spoof. You need not look far for that phenomenon – the instant success that the despicable and sensational TYOM formula enjoys is proof enough.


Frankie says ‘Relax’ – DCG says ‘Give Up’

The measure of success in the PR world is audience. We’ve taken to measure the success of our arguments by the deafening wall of silence that surrounds our more inquisitive of arguments. Particularly when we know for a fact that our questions are read and that it is easier not to answer them. The advice they give us is “give up”. The hope is that the irritating presence of those asking the relevant questions will fade away if ignored. We are the elephant in the room of communications experts – those who can only write or present “what people want to read” (or what they want people to read).

This column (and blog) has asked questions of Daphne (Why now? in Plategate), Lou Bondi (the death of journalism) and (Fr) Joe Borg (more deafening silences). The questions were not complicated – they were not difficult to comprehend and they were there for all to see. It’s true – if they are ignored they will fade away and Lou Bondi will trump up another highly relevant programme like resuscitating the ghost of Norman Lowell in order to give the people what they want (rather than what would be a service to what they need). Daphne will yell until she is blue in the face that nobody reads our complicated articles while simultaneously ignoring the very pertinent questions posed therein.

It’s happened before. A year ago we asked Daphne to follow proper netiquette and provide links to J’accuse whenever she quoted huge chunks from the “boring and irrelevant content” on the blog that nobody reads. We were told that we were “bitching” and that we should be grateful for the “free publicity”. Once again DCG laboured under the impression that we should somehow feel sufficiently rewarded by gaining notoriety with the masses. Furthermore, even though we never asked for an apology, DCG told us “I am not going to apologise and backtrack”.

A year later UK blogger Charles Crawford, who had a brush with Maltese politics thanks to some conspiracy theory linking him to Gonzi’s choices for Cabinet, told Daphne off for having “quoted great chunks from my blog but without the usual blogging courtesy of giving her readers the link to my original work” (his words not mine). DCG apologised without batting an eyelid. Weights and measures? Who would have thought?

Obsessions

Yes, we do have an obsession. It’s called blogging. We love it. We love the tool as a free form of expression and quite frankly we will not be told what the measure of success of a blog is from someone who cannot even grasp the basic concept of netiquette. The reason J’accuse is also a column in The Independent is because someone somewhere saw what was written in the blog and decided it was interesting for some people. We are more than happy with the fact that the sensational content (and sporadically excellent articles – such as this week’s Pigeonhole business) are what keeps DCG’s columns in The Independent – there’s all kinds of readers for every kind of stuff.

Daphne was not the only fellow columnist this week dispensing the kind of advice to “give up”. Stephen Calleja’s column last week was called “Too weak to be called a force”. In it he invited Alternattiva Demokratika to “give up” in so many words. AD and any other respectable third party has a mountain to climb. It has to sell political ideas to voters who are trained to interact with politicians in a certain way. The Pierre Portellis and Georg Sapianos of this world will be back come next election telling people what they want to read: that a vote for the third party is a wasted vote. That these irritants should have called it a day ages ago and leave the political business to the experts – to those who have mastered the combination of marketing and politics to a T.

AD and their likes are the “tiddlers”, the small fry who will not count because their message is not packaged in proper marketing material and they do not tell the people what they want to hear. They do not “twitter” frivolous messages on Church/State separation (viz Joseph Muscat) while espousing contradictory policies. They do not pitch a marketing campaign that is good for the hunter AND for the environmentalist (gonziPN’s rainbow candidates). They are “boringly irrelevant” because of their frank and direct messages on the environment and on divorce. They might not be what people want to hear – which when combined with the obstacles of electoral law and voting traditions might be just the right formula for “giving up” and calling it a day. Or not.

Twenty years in politics and five years in blogging and what do AD and J’accuse have in common? Consistency and dedication to the truth. Frankly, I’d rather be on that side of the fence than “trashing and destroying” any day.

Breaking the rules

Well, that’s another column dedicated to confusing people with the J’accuse “boring and irrelevant” message. I’ve had to break my self-imposed limit again but I still have a few more things to add.

First of all do take a look at www.ideat.org.mt. Labour’s fledgling think-tank has published the first edition of what will be an online quarterly. The J’accuse verdict is “a job well done” – full review on the blog. Finally, there’s an attempt at engaging in politics and not marketing – let’s see if it gets viral or is destined to be marginalised like most things truly political.

It’s the first of May as I type so I should be wishing all workers a good day of rest (not too sure about shopkeepers resting though). Worker’s Day brings back memories of the stress of preparing for exams when – admit it or not – even in the later stages of university you were always thankful for a motherly figure refilling the coffee cup and keeping you going physically and morally till exam day. Ten years ago I was in Bruges, delivering my Master’s thesis and though there was no mother around to pamper and encourage, I was always grateful for the supporting phone call.

So it’s thanks again mum 10 years on, and happy 60th birthday. It’s not just the kids at Stella Maris College and the La Sallian Freres who are lucky to have that great headmistress around. It’s also this hard-headed son of yours who does “cause trouble” as you would say – but always in a constant and well-meaning way.

www.akkuza.com promises to be as boringly irrelevant as always this week. Be there or be square (or tabloid).

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Categories
Articles Mediawatch

Never mind the tiddlers (2)

As I said in the previous post, speculation on Cleggmania is ripe in the papers. I just came across another article as I ran through today’s Times. Incidentally, for an election that is only ten days away it is incredible how (proportionally) little newspaper space it takes up. The front page of the printed Times has news items on Thai revolts(main article), oil spill in Mexico and the London Marathon. A reference to the election can only be found in the “In the news” section (Labour in turmoil).

Back to Cleggmania though. Here is columnist Martin Bell interpreting Cleggmania  in his article “This is more than a revolt against the big two” (subtitled, for good measure , “Voters want to loosen the grip of political parties on the windpipe of democracy”):

Many people who were previously indifferent to politics, and especially to party politics, are finding a sense of wonder and excitement in this the most enigmatic election of modern times. Something extraordinary is churning out there. The immediate casualty is two-party politics and the pendulum-swinging assumptions that go with it: first one major party holds office for a while, and then the other, and no one else gets much of a look in. This is beginning to seem as out of date as the competition between two superpowers.

My friends in the old order, and their cheerleaders in the press, have long been assuring me that the public revulsion against MPs’ expenses was a passing phase that would have lost its momentum by the election. They believed that once the obvious miscreants had been purged (though many remain, including certain absolute crooks), the politics of the status quo would return, slightly purged but still intact.

This has not happened.

Not bad for a starter. But Bell is not rooting for the LibDems. He declares his interest as adviser to the Independent Network – “a loose coaltion that helps Independents to help each other.”

I believe that we are witnesses of a phenomenon that goes beyond the Lib Dems’ traditional election pitch of a-plague-on-both-your-houses. Anti-politics as usual would not work in the way that Nick Clegg’s campaign has if it did not connect with a wider belief that our system of government has fallen sick; and that a gap has opened up between the politicians and the people that only the people can close through act of democratic insurgency.

The insurgents on May 6 will include 315 Independent candidates — twice the number who stood in 2005. Most will fail. Some will lose their deposits. But others are serious challengers.

So the thesis here is slightly nuanced. It is not the LibDems that are breaking the strnaglehold of the two main parties. It can only happen if the disillusioned voters transform their disillusionment into effective votes. And yes… there is the danger of their being “wasted” thanks to the outdated electoral system. Martin Bell has something to say on that too:

The Lib Dem surge may make it harder for them, but the Independent appeal is still a strong one.

And this is just the start of it. This election will surely be the last under the first-past-the-post system. Its result will be such a distorted reflection of the popular will, in the ratio of seats gained to votes cast, that it can hardly be called democratic. Any future, fairer system will remove the bias against Independents, who may well be the voters’ second choice if not their first.

The Independents are back — and here to stay. They should be welcomed.

Finally, here is Peter Riddell on Election Briefing (also the Times) explaining why talks on coalitions and other solutions to hung parliaments are useless until after the election:

The talks are speculative rather than substantive, for three reasons. First, we still live in a winner-takes-all culture at Westminster, unlike most of the rest of the EU, Scotland and Wales where, under proportional representation, it is assumed that an election will result in a coalition or minority administration. The main parties, therefore, say that they are fighting to win outright, since any hint of pre-election talks would be seen as weakness. Moreover, in PR systems, talks invariably take place after rather than before elections, producing an average 40-day delay between polling and the formation of a government, unlike the familiar changing of prime minister the day after polling day in Britain.

Second, the parties are not remotely prepared for a hung Parliament. The leaders’ advisers are belatedly starting to think out the options. But their main focus is still on the final ten days before May 6. The Lib Dems have considered hung Parliament scenarios since the early 1980s, but these have mainly highlighted the awkward dilemmas of which party to back — which have now been exposed.

Third, the parties are divided about what to do. What happens is crucial for the careers of individual politicians. Whatever their private conversations, Cabinet ministers are not going to say anything firm about negotiating positions before the polls close. But some are preparing to go public immediately afterwards.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Traffic

Traffic is an interesting phenomenon. The paths of a multiplicity of freethinking vehicle-driving individuals possessing varying levels of intelligence quotients converge for a short period of time as they attempt to negotiate their own way from A to B. For a short time these paths converge and the momentary confusion of priorities and interpretations on the best way to move forward can have observable scientific consequences that have often been the object of academic study.

Most times, just like magic (and thanks to a prudent observation of a basic set of rules), the result is a constant parallel movement, such as is observable among the shoals, packs and prides of the animal kingdom. Other times, due to a myriad factors beyond the control of the group as a whole, a sinister event occurs: the momentum is lost, the various components slow down to a standstill and before you know it you have what we call a “traffic jam”.

Observations of traffic movements have shown that the so-called “butterfly effect” (sudden slowing down causing stoppages further back) can be initiated by a single abrupt manoeuvre (sudden swerving or readjusting of direction) without any actual accidents having happened. On the other hand, when a truck’s jib hits a pedestrian bridge above one of the main arteries on a small island, what you get is not a butterfly effect but a national disaster that is almost equivalent to the much feared “gridlock” in large cities.

One particular bit of news that struck me from the reporting of the Triq Aldo Moro accident – apart from the four hours it took to resume normal service – was the observation of the negative effects of egocentric drivers who put their plight above everyone else’s with the result of increasing and worsening the congestion. It reminded me of particular drivers in Malta who are eager to overtake to win those extra 10 metres towards their destination – as though having overtaken one more driver would make a world of a difference.

I have often thought that given universal automated cars limited to travelling at speeds of 40km/h Maltese traffic would be much more efficient than it is now. But that would mean foregoing the right to be individual oafs of the road… Can you imagine? After the hunters (or part-time farmers) all we need is a drivers lobby!

Congested skies

Another kind of traffic is still dominating the headlines worldwide. The ban on flying that started with the eruption of the unpronounceable Icelandic volcano has been lifted. As the dust settles, the continent examines its original reaction and tries to fine-tune its plans should a similar event occur in the future. The “prudence v money” argument is a no-brainer for me. I would rather be stuck on the ground than hurtling towards it at breakneck speed thanks to multiple engine failure thank you very much.

It’s not just that. It’s also the fact that given the reluctance of certain airlines to grant consumers their basic rights, I’d rather not think of what other penny-pinching schemes they come up with in order to scrounge on costly security checks. The Ryanair conundrum was a particularly amusing scenario this weekend (at least for those who did not have to fly with them). You see, the inspired flawed-cost airline decided to inform all of its stranded passengers that it only felt obliged to reimburse them with the full cost of whatever they had paid in the first place. No hotel bills, no feeding costs for Ryanair. Only the €4 (or so) that you paid for the ticket. There’s an eye opener if ever was needed – you get what you pay for with Ryanair. Nothing less. Nothing more.

Mass repentance

Every cloud has a silver lining and Pope B-XVI’s visit will not, after all, be remembered for the early reactions to an artistic decoration installed on a traffic roundabout. Instead, the Pope’s stay in Malta has echoed all over the world for the unscheduled visit with the victims of abuse. On mediatic terms this was a winner for Malta – it is comparable to the Bush-Gorbachev visit in 1989 that was a crucial step towards the end of the Cold War. Benedict XVI’s visit gave a human, repenting face to an institution that still has a lot of decisions and answers to give but that showed these first steps in his “meeting in Malta”.

I cannot stop repeating that the Roman Catholic Church is not a democratic institution and that people inside the Church (let alone those outside) cannot expect it to change its ways on a referendum style basis. On the other hand, there are some consequences of the actions of members of the Church (with a big C) that cannot only be dealt with within the institution.

I am not one to judge whether priests should be celibate or – that is a question of faith. I am even loath to create links between celibacy and the atrocious stories of abuse we have heard. What I definitely feel well positioned to judge – as a lay citizen – is the civil and criminal responsibilities of whoever commits such atrocities. No Catholic Church authority, or any other religious authority for that matter, can substitute itself for the law. Ecclesiastic immunity ended a long, long time ago.

Third ways

Most times, when you are stuck in a jam you desperately look for a way out. While it is not always possible, sometimes you find that you can take the long way faster. European politics seems to be heading towards a sort of impasse. Government incumbents are burdened with a track record tainted by recession and blockage. The natural oppositions seem to be all opportunistic talk and no substance – of the “same, same but different” type. The instability of this “crisis” point is leading to the surfacing of more and more third way alternatives. Witness the Clegg phenomenon in the UK and the threatened split by Gianfranco Fini in Berlusconi’s PdL.

It may be early days but we may be about to witness the first reactions to the fact that duopolistic politics for the sake of duopolistic politics does not really work. It will all boil down to voters’ changing habits (in the UK – for now Fini will criticise from within, but for how long?). Are there enough elements to provoke them away from their habitual voting patterns? Will the “either/or” formula still work for much longer? The Internet and new media might hold the key to open new doors in participative and representative democracy.

Blog traffic

Traffic on J’accuse slowed to an abrupt halt this week as I went on a happy trip of pushing the wrong buttons risking the very existence of www.akkuza.com in the process. Thanks to the hard work of net-savvier colleagues of mine (thanks Simon!), the world as we know it was saved and J’accuse is back up and running. In this edition of the Independent on Sunday you will also find a page of posts from the TH!NK3 competition. They are a sample of the hundreds of blog posts from around the world discussing the UN Millennium Goals and the Development World. Do check it out and if you like what you see go to www.thinkaboutit.eu for more.

Speaking of traffic, it turns out that the man who had been pointing fingers and playing the victim in 2006 had been busy generating a high traffic of phone calls to referees and the like. Massimo Moratti’s Inter-cettati have been on a roll since they fed off the carcass of the World Cup Winning Juventus team (10/11 players in Italian squad) in 2006. Every “achievement” of the past four years must be seen in the perspective of their having neutralised their opponents off the pitch.

Inter-cettati might feel happy to have legal prescription on their side but that only means that rather than pay for their deeds as Juve have done, they will have to live with the stain on their “achievements” – give me Serie B any day than a scudetto or Champions League won with the sweat of hypocrisy and strength of jealousy.

www.akkuza.com is up and running again. We are now also twitter compatible – highlight your fav quote from j’accuse and tweet it. It also works on mobile phones – so you can do it when you’re in your next traffic jam!