Category: Articles

Categories
Articles

J’accuse: Plebiscites in the age of clicktivism

The mass is a weird being. I am not referring to the Eucharistic celebration in Catholic rites but to the “mass” as a collective of human beings that can be formed either randomly or purposely within a particular context or aim.

At worst a “mass” is a loose connection of humans, each going about their independent lives that happen to have a common element at one particular moment − the best example are commuters on public transport. Think, for example, of the mass of commuters at peak hour in a metropolitan city. At its most effective the mass is a flock, a herd or a gaggle of humans who assemble with a particular intention − such as famously assembled on the morning of the 14th of July 1789 in Paris with the very clear intention of taking possession of the arms in the Bastille.

Apart from the religious connotation, we are used to hearing about “mass meetings” on this island. It’s a national sport that has grown since the formation of political parties and for a few decades (possibly still nowadays) these “mass meetings” have been attended with such religious fervour that one would be forgiven for confusing the religious with the profane. The nineties brought us the full explosion of “mass marketing” − that ended when the personal and different became exalted (see the great Desigual campaign) − before that the mantra of maxploitative products would be capturing the attention of as large a part of the mass as possible.

The social network

In this day and age, the principles underlying successful Internet companies also rely on capturing the masses. Social networks such as Facebook and Google Plus rely heavily on the basic building block of a particular form of mass connections. Having lured the masses into their fold with the bait of “connectivity”, the social networks proceed to fence them off from the rest of the net and to attempt to keep them in their corner of the virtual world.

A problem that both companies like Facebook and Google or parties like our political behemoths may face is the unpredictable frivolity of the masses. A mass is fickle and oftentimes misrepresented. Its power lies in sheer numbers and it is a very rare mass that is constantly clear and uniform on what it wants unless there are very clearly defined rules to calculate its wishes.

Take modern democracy, as envisaged mainly in post-war constitutions, as an example. We had taken the Greek city-state idea of a demos (the mass described as a people or commonwealth) and created a set of rules by which the people through majority voting entrusted a part of them to enact laws in their name and for their better comfort.

Even if we were to set aside the cliché of “the least of all evils” that is often bandied around when talking about the democratic system of government, we would have to acknowledge that the tyranny of the majority business is limited to periodical assessments of the general political orientation that the mass might prefer. In our case we vote every five years. In matters of utmost importance (or in our case when the representatives do not have the balls to legislate the obvious), the ball is thrown back into the mass’ court for it to decide by way of what is commonly known as “the referendum”.

I heart populism

But, as I said in the beginning, the mass is a weird being. There is an increasing tendency to talk in terms of masses. To assume that some kind of majority idea exists about this or that idea. The tools of the net I mentioned earlier have served to exacerbate this tendency and encourage it to the point of legal fallacy and sublime foolishness. The language of engagement in a country where every person is a politician born can only make matters worse. In a perfect utopia (allow me the tautology) the marvels of the Internet would be harnessed to be able to accurately gauge the thoughts and ideas of the masses. But is it a good idea? Should we be governed, judged and policed by the masses?

Ironically, when viewed through the eyes of the press, the noise from Malta’s society presents an inherent contradiction. On the one hand there are the conspiracy theorists − those who assume that anything (from the naming of a bus stop to the arraignment of an individual in court) is decided in some control room by an elite of Freemasons, networked politicians and whatever other label the conspiracy theorist may fancy. On the other hand there is a trend of speaking for the masses: you know the kind that generalise their thoughts as though they represent a huge chunk of the community.

The mass-stirrers are the latest trend in our desert of political values. Having ditched their respective ideological grounds for the fluid umbrella approach, our political parties are now victims of their own populist trends. I have bored you to death with the example of the non-policy of the Labour Party in the divorce debate. It will not be the last time that you will see Labour (and possibly even the PN) operate in this manner. The basic building block of their modus operandi is the pandering to the masses − which is after all what populism is all about. We risk having a government run on vox pops and referenda.

A brave new world

Did I hear you say not bad? Well, let me put it this way. The danger of “the mass” and its frivolous wills can only be appreciated when you look back at the way “the mass” has acted in recent past. Take for example the sad case of the pederast priests. Sure, what the priests did deserves a shower of opprobrium and condemnation of the harshest kind. Which is what the courts of law are there for. Had it been left to the masses and the mass reaction (as stirred by the media) we would have most probably witnessed a lynch mob.

It’s not that the deeds of the two men do not stir feelings of anger and disgust in me but that I would rather entrust their fate in the hands of a clear law with clear punishment than in the hands of a jury of the masses any day. A mass thinks with a hot head. It does not factor calmly and has a short-term rationale. Which is why the only details a mass is worried with is “how high is the tree?” and “is the rope long enough?” or “is the straw dry enough for the fire?”

Mass fail

With Internet activism (or clicktivism) you risk running away with the idea that there is a huge interest in a particular idea or principle. There’s a lot of noise on comment boards and “Likes” being clicked like there is no tomorrow.

When push comes to shove matters may not turn out to be as noisy or likeable as we may have thought. A Facebook friend pointed out two separate incidents that seem to confirm this trend.

First there was the huge online fuss about “The Oasis” development that could have given the impression that all Malta was against the desecration of another green corner of the island. It turns out that when the developer invited the online “complainers” for a meeting to air their complaints only two people turned out. That’s a slap in the face for clicktivism.

The other story was that of the Eritrean Ashih, who had recently lost his life tragically while saving another person from drowning. It seemed that notwithstanding all the bla and rhetoric acknowledging the man’s ultimate sacrifice, when it came to donations to a special fund, the masses were nowhere to be seen. The figure representing “private donations” out of the sum of €6,673 collected was a mere €50. The rest came from various funds and from the hotel where Ashih had worked. I’m not being a bean-counting Scrooge here but it does say much about the much trumpeted “generosity and open heart” of the Maltese public does it not?

Politics for the masses

The populist politicians have fashioned a symbiotic system that guarantees a fast track to the pinnacles of power. Modern day Neros do not fiddle while Rome burns. They are instead so engrossed with the micro-management of pleasing the peasants and keeping their pitchforks at bay that they lost the plot on the real business of responsible government away from the whimsical frivolity of the masses. I’d like to say that that is the case only in our little corner of the world but I would be lying.

The US credit rating downgrading for the first time ever and the imminent clouds of doom that are hovering in the European economic skies (and that’s ALL Europe, including The Cocooned Republic), are in a way the result of the modern day fiddlers. For a long time now they have been busy manufacturing politics for the masses while faking obeisance to the economic rules that bound a still fragile Union. Now the disparate leaders of the European Union are reluctant to break up their holidaymaking as their economy burns. What could they do anyway? Ask the people how to solve the woes? The masses are already gathering in Greece and Spain. The Spanish “Indignados” are “summoning the spirits of ’68” in order to express their disappointment with the current governors. Meanwhile, further south the protracted Jasmine Revolution has reached the bloody confines of Syria… and history, as they tend to say, seems to have gone full circle.

Ite, missa est

We get the word “mass” for the liturgical celebration from the Latin “missa” which originally meant “dismissed”. It’s from the phrase at the end of the celebration when the celebrant invites the congregation to leave. In this day and age mass movements seem to have the power to install and dismiss the leaders of nations at their will. It is an intelligent nation that learns from past mistakes and distinguishes between the frivolous, immediate and spontaneous will of the masses and the informed guidance based on long-term planning and values.

Do we have what it takes to tell the difference? And more importantly, are our representatives investing enough thought and time to develop the right value based policies? Or are we to be saddled with more headless politics for the masses? Ite, missa est.

www.akkuza.com has moved to the island of mass beaching for the next two weeks. Here’s to hoping there’s no mass jellyfish invasion.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : You can't always get what you want

This is the J’accuse column from yesterday’s The Malta Independent on Sunday (July 31st).

I cannot stand conspiracy theories. Worse still, I cannot stand most conspiracy theorists for their willingness to accept half-truths and bent facts much more readily than keeping their feet firmly on the ground. The stubborn manner with which a conspiracy theorist will bark out his “facts” and non sequiturs, without pausing to allow some much needed oxygen to reach his brain cells, is extremely frustrating. For someone who cannot stand conspiracy theories, the behaviour of Malta’s press world (commentators included) over the past week has been crazy to say the least.

A series of curious incidents that would each merit a separate chapter in the burgeoning annals of Maltese political and social eccentricity were pounced upon by a media circus that was all too eager to fill columns and pixels with whatever qualifies as a “scoop” or “exclusive” this day. The colourful summer recipe included some amateur spinning, some hastily assembled assumptions, a dash of insinuations and (in most of these cases) plenty of blind hope in partisan savoir-faire.

Cyrus the grate

If you set aside the Norway massacres, the latest life-vest thrown to the euro and the stories about the US’s battle to avoid economic hell (or if you actually thought of those before), then you would probably be thinking of the manner in which Cyrus is getting his name slapped across the headlines. He seems to manage to do so with grating irregularity and has long surpassed the star factor that his fellow councilman Nikki Dimech had achieved with his little bit of shenanigans some time back.

The latest instalment in the record-running show “PLPN’s Got Talent (kemm ahna sbieh min jaf jarana) is a series of events that − if you believe the conspiracy theorists − was triggered off by Cyrus’ Great Switch. Incidentally, here is one for the Black Belt Conspiracy Theorists − did you know that the name Cyrus has been linked to the Indo-European meaning “humiliator of the enemy”? Now that’s some food for thought. A kiwi, almost.

I cannot bore you with all the sordid details of the step by step accounts of what happened, who phoned whom and who called for who’s resignation. I’ll let you be bored elsewhere because frankly, if you have not picked up the various truths and colourings-in, then you might as well go on living the life of the blissfully ignorant. For those of you who love to perform the weekly hara-kiri of senseless speculation I have a few questions prepared.

A series of interesting questions

The PN first. Do you ever intend to start vetting candidates in such a manner as to avoid indecent surprises once they are elected to Parliament? Do you have any mechanism that somehow tests candidate suitability on the basis of the supposed basic set of values your party used to proudly carry? Do you still think that backing JPO to the hilt in the run up to the elections was a brilliant scheme?

And now Labour. The vetting question holds true for you too. Is it really enough for someone to say “I don’t like PN anymore” for them to suddenly waltz in and become a prized asset in your roadshow? Your “Dear Leader” called for the resignation of Edgar G C for having called the police commissioner. Are you telling me that a Labour PM would not be worried about having a politically motivated police force and that therefore no phone calls would be made asking for reassurance that none of it is happening?

Worse still, it is a fact that EGC called Commissioner Rizzo upon instigation and in the presence of Cyrus Engerer. The same Engerer is under investigation for criminal offences. The worst that could have happened, politically speaking, is that such accusations and process are now public knowledge − but that does not change the nature of the offence for which he is ultimately accused. It does not in any way absolve Cyrus from the necessity to go through the due process. My question is − given the stinking web of networks and interests that seem to be weaved into the case − wouldn’t a temporary suspension from the Labour Party be the least you could do to ensure that Engerer gets to defend himself without the burden/excuse of political manipulation?

Networks

I dealt with the role of networks in the whole story before it unfolded any further. For further elucidation do pop over at www.akkuza.com and check out the post entitled “I.M. Jack − the one about Cyrusgate”. The way I see it we have a perfectly normal course of events in Maltese politics and social life that is suddenly being given a specific twist because of the convenience it has for certain parts of the partisan charade (and possibly for Cyrus himself).

Maltese social life is based on the building of networks. As I said in the blog: our PLPN society is built on webs and connections and networks. You publicly move up the ladder and before you know it you are a wheel in the power machine: sometimes you end up using that wheel’s power in complicated rituals that involve the exchanging of favours. Within that power system lies an unwritten rule that family and close friends might be given added consideration: it’s private you know. Think of the last time you saw someone getting his friend through on the VIP list in some nightclub and then think wider, bigger.

Look around you. Whether you are at the bank or at the grocer or at the public registry or negotiating a discount on your fine with a warden, there is one thing in common. You look at them beyond the normal confines of basic social interaction. You try to get to the banker who knows you or is a cousin twice removed, you prefer the grocer who treats you as a friend or the tax assessor who is married to your office mate’s brother and hopefully you are lucky enough to be dealing with a reasonable warden. These connections are crucial (as Google+ and Facebook have long found out) because the main currency on which these circles operate is the trading of power units.

Buying power

The policeman who meets a politician in the street and guarantees that a hush-hush case will probably be heard behind closed doors is attempting to wield the power he has in his sphere of influence. You find this kind of power all over the place − take civil services everywhere for example. Sometimes it is impressive what will open a door or close another. In Luxembourg, where the civil service employs mainly Luxembourgers, I learnt a crucial lesson that oils the wheels in your favour. It was simple really. Do not address the public servants in French. Short of Luxembourgish try English. Often it makes the difference between being ignored or misdirected and getting what you want immediately without as much as a huff.

What I believe lies behind the grossly inflated Cyrusgate is the wielding of multiple bits of power with the mistaken intention of upsetting or strengthening partisan loyalties. When suspicion falls on the police force about expediting or delaying the application of justice, what we are really saying is that there is a PC somewhere who holds the key to the speed of treatment of a dossier with Cyrus’ name on it. The mere fact that he can choose to speed it up is his little corner of power. Did this constable use it to ingratiate himself with one of the two parties? I doubt it. Can it happen? Possibly. And it can happen in favour of any of the two hubs of the main networks: the PL or the PN. And that is what worries me in the end.

Think also of the intricate network of lawyering that has been mentioned. Between Cyrus’ lawyer and Marvic’s lawyer we have a confusing cross-section of party and government loyalties. It’s clumsy but it’s done. That is the problem. I have long stopped blaming the policeman or the lawyer. I blame the system encouraged by voters (you know that don’t you?). Even though it should not make sense we accept lawyers shifting between their lawyer’s cap and their political cap as though it is the most obvious thing in the world. It’s not OK. It’s far from being OK but it’s how we do it in this country − whoever is in government.

Getting what you want

There’s no knowing how Cyrusgate will end. Papers like MaltaToday will go on milking the conspiracy theory dry while caught in a web of inherent contradictions. What jars most is not the need for the press to fill their papers with gossip that sells like pastizzi, but the readiness of the observers to swallow the filth without as much as a simple question that should bring the illogical conspiracy theory crumbling down. What will remain is a series of networks that are nurtured to feed the illogical partisan politics that is becoming less and less representative of value-driven politics every day.

The question on everyone’s lips once the police were suspected to be involved in Cyrusgate was “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Well maybe not in Latin but the gist was there. The phrase means “who will guard us from our guardians”? The biggest worry I have goes beyond that issue. In fact, I am convinced that our guardians only operate along the social mores that we have all become accustomed to and accept. They are the same social guidelines and standards that we continue to endorse every election year. Seen in that light, the question everyone is asking should be rephrased into one that is more simple and accurate: “Who will protect us from ourselves?”

www.akkuza.com is still dispensing highhanded advice from grey and rainy Luxembourg. We’re in Malta for August though – just enough time to remember why we still bother aye?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse : The Meaning of Life

This is the J’accuse column that appeared on the Malta Independent on Sunday on the 24th of July.

Speaking to the press after the bombing and shooting that rocked the world, Oslo Mayor Fabian Stang could hardly control his emotions. In a phone interview with the BBC, Stang spoke of how he wished he could have been on Utoya island to put himself between the heartless gunman and his victims: “I would have told him to take me and spare the young campers.” Stang’s words were echoed by both the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Stoltenberg. The nation had been stung and the biggest tragedy among all the unfolding tragedies was that the agent of the grim reaper had chosen to target the promising youth of a peaceful nation.

Although early signals (mostly US based) pointed towards another al Qaeda linked tragedy, it seems to be increasingly probable that the perpetrator was nothing less than a crazed Christian right-winger who could have been acting on the basis of some grudge against the liberal government. Be that as it may, Friday’s focus was on the loss of life. The grief and mourning was based on a common value: that of appreciation of life and of the wasted potential among the 80 or so young men and women who were indiscriminately shot while on their political camp retreat.

Life as we know it

It is normal for a nation to mourn its dead. When the dead are the result of an extremist rampage and include large numbers of people in their youthful prime there is no end to the sense of loss. Society values life. Even the most savage of communities understands the importance and value of life − life is not and cannot be treated lightly. There is a reason why murder ranks above theft or larceny in a criminal code. It is the most obvious demonstration of the importance of life to a society. From Hammurabi to the modern day, life has been treated as the most precious gift and the taking of a life was conversely the most severe of punishments. Life, as we know it, can never be treated lightly.

If we zoom out of the zone of operations of a Christian Fundamentalist in Norway and zoom into Somalia’s regions run by Muslim extremists, we find another example of the abuse of life for the sake of some twisted political agenda. The Al-Shabab Islamists have denied western aid agencies access to the famine stricken parts of Somalia because they believe that reports of famine are all part of “Western propaganda”. The Al-Shabab control regions − Bakool and Lower Shamble − that are among the worst struck by droughts and are still refusing access to the much-needed aid agencies.

Real life choices are being made daily in the regions immediately outside Somalia’s capital Mogadishu. The image of mothers wrapping material tightly around their stomachs in order not to feel hunger pains and save whatever food found for their offspring was an image of ultimate sacrifice. It’s a recurrent story in our “civilisation” − whenever the tyrant or the crazed mass murder has left his mark, you will also find symbols of human self-sacrifice: forgoing their own right to a life in order to save others. We build our greatest narratives around this idea − from the sacrifice of sons of gods to the last Harry Potter installation when even the young wizard has to die for a while (apologies for the mini-spoiler) in order to save the world of Muggles and magic.

Sacrifice

The latest news from Norway describes the attacker as a Christian extremist. We’re dealing with labels here. As a friend commented on Facebook, you cannot describe the work of this man as madness because there is no folly in the manner of execution. This is the work of someone with twisted principles and whose value of life is severely handicapped by a tunnel vision that can only be damaging. There was a kind of sense of relief to note that the hand of al Qaeda and all things claiming to be “Muslim inspired” was not remotely present this time round. The stereotypical assessments (big bomb, big attack therefore Muslim extremists must be behind it Q.E.D) fell on their face rather quickly and there is a lesson to be learnt there too about making rash value judgements on the face of appearances.

This week we had the opportunity to learn an equally important set of lessons in Malta too. The tragic death of young Eritrean Ashih while trying to save the life of a French person at sea gave us a first, important example. Ashih had faced the perils and terrors of open sea in his gamble to start a new life away from the troubles he left behind. He had survived the first part of his Iliad and begun to build a new life in Malta. This was the Malta whose louder members tend to remind men like him that it has no use for them… that they better return to their homeland. I am sure that when he jumped into the sea he did not think for one instant that this would be his last jump. There would have been no time to think that anyway for his thoughts were selfless and his mind was focused on saving the life of another person. Which is why we should be all the more thankful and respectful to the memory of Ashih.

A life in jeopardy

Another life that is in the news this week is that of Emmanuel Cini. The man whose latest label in life is that of “disabled man” has chosen to go on a hunger strike until Austin Gatt resigns his position as minister and Arriva mends its ways. Cini’s plight hit national headlines on his second day of starving and soon became the darling and hero of those who had been making a living out of complaining about the transport system. The nation’s gossip circles got so carried away by the apparent “guts”, “balls” and more demonstrated by the poor moribund that it seemed that nobody asked themselves the simple question: “Is a faulty transport system worth dying for?”

Sure, Cini did colour his protest with the idea that he is a “prisoner in his own home” but somehow the whole shebang did have a ring of “false prima donna” about it. It definitely does not matter to the cause of protesting faulty public transport whether Cini is a bona fide sick person or an ex-gay porn star or an ex-drama teacher or an ex-claimant for other state benefits or an ex-classical radio host, but slowly there is a jigsaw puzzle of clues that point to the conclusion that the kind of help someone like Cini needs goes beyond a direct bus to St Thomas Bay from his doorstep.

His “cause” is in no way aided by those who glorify his actions and equate him to some modern day Mahatma Gandhi without pointing out the absurd disproportionality in his “ends and means” calculations. I’d hate to think that there are idiots out there who would secretly hope for to him pass away simply to be able to lump his death on Austin Gatt’s conscience.

By day five of his hunger strike Emmanuel Cini mysteriously disappeared from the mainstream press reporting. Although some people had begun to unearth his very colourful (and interesting) past, the general reaction in the press was one of silence. It may be all the better for him − his cause can never be successful because it is one that is based on a faulty premise: that the teething problems of Arriva are worth dying for. It is a premise that makes a mockery of the value of life and needs to be changed before it is too late. Cini may be in too fragile a state to notice that at most he can be a temporary tool for yet another bandwagon of opportunist jerks. It is hopefully not too late for him to change his ill-advised choice.

Life is beautiful

It is stories like these that can help us appreciate the beauty of life notwithstanding all moments of adversity. “La vita é bella” said the poet who could see it in the smallest and most insignificant of moments. At times all it takes is learning to appreciate the world around you − minus the prejudice, minus the intolerance and minus the grudges we build over time. And smile. Enjoy life… you (probably) only get one chance to do it and it would be such a shame to live to regret it.

www.akkuza.com still thinks life is beautiful notwithstanding the greyest and coldest summer in our seven years of Luxembourg life. Log on to the site for further fun tips on how to carpe diem.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Drawing conclusions

Some time before “The Divorce Debate” went into overdrive, I had pointed out that this would be a good litmus test for the way our society sees itself and its politicians. That big mirror has been held up against our faces for some time now and I find myself in an unenviable situation of still not seeing eye to eye with most sides of the political spectrum. The most obvious conclusion would be that my understanding of the goings on is fatally flawed. Then again there is a possibility that the J’accuse perspective still resides resolutely outside the dualistic-partisan way of thinking. Which is why I cannot see “victors” or “losers” in the aftermath of “Civil Rights Debate Mark I”, I can only draw a number of conclusions. I thought I’d share them with you (sharing being a très social network concept). Feel free to “Like” or “Dislike” (or as the new Google+ lingo would have it: to “+1”).

*The 44 consciences*

I was called a “non-gentleman” on Facebook this week. This was because apparently I could not get myself to “admit” that the divorce bill had got through Parliament “thanks to Labour”. This is just the kind of “Right/Wrong” argumentation that allows people to lose their perspective. I have been arguing for some time that the PL-PN have abdicated their representative duties by not working with a party position on the divorce issue. When it came to voting in Parliament, both PN and PL chose the same formula: “conscience”. Both Muscat and Gonzi gave their members a “free vote” (a term brought into the debate by the Labour leader incidentally).

From that point on neither Labour nor the Nationalists could claim ownership of any votes in Parliament when the day of reckoning came. Neither could, for the sake of argument, the Vegetarians, the Smokers, Gozitans, Qriema (people from Città Pinto) or the Federation of Openly Homosexual MPs. We could play a statistical game and see which YES votes were cast by veggies, tobacco addicts, Gozitans, Qriema or gays, but at no point in time would our eccentric (and purely illustrative) choice of venn diagram material justify the statement “it was the Non-Smoking Ayes that made the difference”. There was no common stand by smokers as there was no common position for Nationalist or Labourite MPs. The vote was personal. You may disagree with that but it is a fact.

The parties did not perform their representative function in Parliament throughout the divorce vote. Which is why J’accuse has for some time now accused them of abdicating their responsibility. When Joseph Muscat dismissed questions regarding Adrian Vassallo’s “NO” vote, he implied that Vassallo would have to face the consequences of his vote with the electorate. There was nowt else Joseph could do because, very importantly, Labour had no position on divorce and had actually aided and abetted Adrian Vassallo’s “conscientious” vote in much the same way as it had done with those who voted in favour. Incidentally, it is also all Labour “YES” voters who have to face the consequences of their vote. Implying that Labour has some collective responsibility for a positive or negative outcome is a gigantic non sequitur and should not be confused with the next point: the people’s voice.

*Vox Dei and Gonzi’s Nay*

Vox Populi, Vox Dei is the Latin maxim that underpins one of the essential elements of democracy in this day and age. “The voice of the people is the voice of God” is the kind of logical conundrum that would have titillated the likes of Pierre Abèlard and Bernard of Clairvaux. If Abèlard and Bernard’s problems were great (google them… it’s a fun read), Lawrence of the Nationalist’s dilemma was even greater. On the one hand he is at the helm of a party struggling to deal with its conservative vestiges and on the other hand he is the Prime Minster of a nation that had yelled its acquiescence to the introduction of a bit of 20th century legislation.

Then there was the matter of “conscience” − or as Gonzi’s predecessor in Castille had described it, “moral matters that require a vote of conscience”. In Gonzi’s mind, as in the mind of many others, Vox Dei spoke rather clearly through the precepts of his religious and moral formation. In the end, Gonzi’s interpretation of Vox Dei won over the Vox Populi and he cast the infamous “No” vote − condemning him to the same circle of hell as others before him who spat in the face of the will of the demos.

What made the matter all the worse was Gonzi’s “calculated” vote: one that made sure that the divorce bill would actually pass before casting the symbolic “No”. In that way Gonzi’s “No” rang out a doubly-defiant note: firstly it was the ugliest of nays from a Prime Minister refusing to serve the will of the people once they had spoken (and after being consulted upon his insistence), and secondly it was Gonzi’s “Eppur si muove” moment − flying in the face even of those in his party who had advocated a wider, liberal approach to society.

*The Birth of MuscatPL”*

Joseph Muscat rushed to swing the hammer and ring Gonzi’s death knell. I have no doubt that as other commentators have aptly put it, this was Gonzi’s hara kiri moment by any standard. He may survive for some time yet, but the emphasis is on “surviving” and there is no end to the damage wrought to the PN in the public polls. I do find Joseph’s choice of words to announce this death particularly interesting, though (I must remind you that my analysis comes without the blinkers of partisan subjugation.) Joseph chose to state that “Gonzi lost the moral leadership of the party”. Funny that, coming from someone who has still to prove that he has the moral leadership of his own party. Partisan voters can look away tut-tutting at this point but if you are “gentlemen” or “ladies” enough do consider this…

Labour’s moral position during the divorce debate was not one of leadership of any kind but one that can be summarised as “To each his own (conscience)”. What we had during the divorce campaign are Pro and Anti Divorce Movements. Labour did not take a position on divorce (no morals there) and very clearly left it to each and every MP to make a “conscientious” choice of his own. What Labour is now highlighting is Joseph’s statement of his “personal” view that divorce legislation is necessary. Now that view is commendable but it remains a “personal” view nonetheless. I did not, and still do not see Joseph “morally leading” his supposed progressive party.

In other words, we still have to see Labour snap out of its “wait-and-see” fence sitting mentality and become pro-active and committed (as a party please, no free votes) to civil rights legislation in order to become progressive. What we have right now is a clumsy forming of “MuscatPL”. If Joseph’s position is popular then PL will spin it as the party position − which it is not. The biggest loss will be that to the Civil Right Voters, who until now wrongly assume that Joseph’s PL can be their rightful representatives.

*Chaos Theory*

The Nationalist Party is in disarray. This particular conclusion was confirmed in the aftermath of the parliamentary vote. The schizophrenic attempt to combine opposing value-driven interpretations under one “umbrella” party was doomed to backfire in the long term. It seems that Lawrence Gonzi had neither the patience nor the power to slow down or change course of a party rushing towards impending doom so he stepped on the accelerator. Gonzi’s “No” had the “liberal” fringe up in arms and Cyrus Engerer’s defection was the culmination point. Here is Robert Arrigo writing in the Independent on Friday, making it clear which side of the Vox Populi fence he sits on: “If I voted no, I would have made fools out of the electorate and I would have made a mockery out of the oath that I had taken. (…) I do believe that the Nationalist Party will read the writing on the wall, and will start heeding the people. Arrogance has been thrown out, and the people’s will must be sovereign.”

*Luck of the Draw*

Beyond the oath and the vote there are a number of conclusions to be drawn. The Nationalist Party has for some time tried to experiment with “umbrella politics” and is now reaping the consequences of this short-sighted, unprincipled approach. In 2008 people voted for gonziPN, not bothering to look beyond the Gonzi smokescreen. When gonziPN’s glue no longer held together we began to see the fragile face of a fragmented party − most vulnerable on social issues when faced with “progressive” civil rights. The reason for this fragile face is the lowering of the barrier for candidates: an anything-goes, vote-catching criterion. Surely some part of the PN is rueing Joe Saliba’s (and all the spin-doctor’s) backing of JPO and his antics back then?

The Labour Party is only delaying its own cracked picture thanks to the temporary euphoria and high it is getting by interpreting the divorce vote as some sort of victory. What Labour does not realise is that it is taking the first baby steps towards a “muscatPL” − a clone of PN’s 2008 doomed formula that held together for two years on a flimsy relative majority. To be fair, it might even obtain a larger majority but what might not work is the promise of progressive politics. Divorce was an easy gamble once it was clear where the wind was blowing. Will it be the same for gay rights, for IVF legislation and for the (dare we say it?) eventual raring of the ugly head of abortion? Unless Labour is prepared to commit itself in black and white to a set of principles, it remains an opportunist vehicle that not only has no moral leadership but also no value grounding: an abdication from representative politics.

Alternattiva Demokratika turn out to be the greatest losers in pragmatic and practical terms. Deborah Schembri successfully headed a progressive civil rights movement. She then had to opt for a party in which to presumably pursue her objectives. That she chose Labour might mean that she knows something that we don’t about future Labour commitments on civil rights. That she did not chose a home that would be obvious given her recent political activism: Alternattiva Demokratika − only goes to show how unattractive is the option, long before the people go to the polls.

Then we had Cyrus Engerer. I suspect that the Sliema deputy mayor’s move was based firstly on anger and frustration when faced with the gargantuan battle of converting the conservative base in the PN fold. Whether out of spite or out of principle, Cyrus reportedly switched allegiance but never considered the AD option. It is ironic that two high-profile figures of our temporary civil rights movements did not consider joining Malta’s one political formation that has always been clear and outspoken on civil rights and would have fit the party political programme like a glove.

The voter − the source of the vox populi − is fast turning into a mixture of angry, frustrated or disillusioned people. The tendency to stick to old habits is as strong as ever. It is hard to explain to Labourites that their joy lies in a decision and vote that had little to do with their party position. They may know who to vote for come next election but do they know WHAT that vote will translate into? It is even harder to explain to Nationalist voters that they are reaping what they have long sown by relying on “lesser evil” propaganda and drowning the possibility of a more open and representative form of politics. Franco Debono is pushing a commendable project that would give Malta a “European constitution”. It would be sad if such a debate were to be kicked off while the smoke, dust and anger of the latest battle is still around.

www.akkuza.com was almost silent last week thanks to the end of the judicial year in Luxembourg sending us into overdrive. We’ll be back – no worries.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Teeth

Although a baby’s first teeth usually develop while still in the womb, they actually start to emerge through the gums when the baby is around six months old. We call this process teething. According to the NHS online guide, early teething should not cause a baby any problems – unless it affects feeding, in which case it sucks (or rather literally, it doesn’t).

We’ve heard the phrase “teething problems” used many a time this week of course thanks to Arriva’s bungled arrival into the world of Maltese gemgem, political intrigue and hot suns that would melt even the most defiant revolutionary spirit. I’ll put forward an early caveat (warning) here: yes, I still live in Luxembourg and I have not had the opportunity to try out the system myself so I am speaking purely from an outside point of view – probably by the time I savour the pleasure of an air-conditioned bus trip to Għadira in August it will be a different kettle of fish.

Incisors

The confusion of the first few days of service cannot really all be dismissed as ‘teething problems’. Once you remove the (by now) 70 renegade bus drivers from the equation you still end up with a number of extremely disappointing facts. They range from the obvious (shelters from the sun) to the technically avoidable (ticket machines going loco) to the downright silly (bus size problems on certain routes – Balluta Hill) and to the profanely inept (bad planning of certain routes: including prime suspect Bisazza Street, Mrabat Street and more).

I am aware of the fact that I subconsciously keep trying to give Arriva a break – maybe that stems from having experienced efficient bus systems across Europe that are similar to the plans on paper in Malta. There does however seem to be a gaping absence of ‘local input’ in the planning part. Either that, or the locals involved in the planning were as apt for the job as Hitler would be as a kindergarten assistant in Jerusalem. Is it another case of the ‘ċuċ Malti’? I doubt it. Arriva must know by now that Malta’s transport system is neither that of Athens nor of Berlin or Strasbourg. I am convinced that they are engaging in a lot of listening at this point: taking note of all the tweaks that are needed to mother this baby out of the teething trouble it has. My hopes are still pinned on an eventual success for the company.

Canines

One thing I cannot really accept is Austin Gatt’s position in the whole saga. We are at pains as a people to distinguish between the responsibilities of a ministry and those of a private company that has embarked on a huge project. Gatt’s ministry might be responsible for having chosen Arriva out of a number of tenderers but after that it should be Maltese Public Expectation vs The Boys from Arriva. Gatt does not help by speaking as though he was the CEO of Arriva (vide the driver sacking business) but neither does the mentality that we have been groomed to have: that any service is ultimately given to us by government. We find it hard to understand that a faulty ticket machine is a problem we should track down to some incompetence within Arriva and not in Austin Gatt’s ministry.

I do not say this to defend Austin Gatt or his ministerial minions who have suddenly vanished from sight unable to take the flak for the bad planning. I say this because what we have on balance is a national transport grid: something that would benefit everybody by being efficient – and not just Austin’s men. We all have a duty to scrutinise Arriva’s performance as much as we have a social duty to collaborate with the company and help it through its teething problems where justified. At the end of the day Gatt and his men may push the button on penalty clauses, (just as Arriva was eager to get compensation for the Bisazza Street gaffe), but an efficient transport system is not built on penalty clauses alone.

Molars

It is part of the inevitable course of 21st century Maltese politics that party positions are created by default. The divorce issue gave us a Labour position built by default. Labour never pronounced itself in favour or against divorce. It just defined what it was not: in this case Labour’s position was that it had no party position. The ploy worked for the man in the street who now sees Joseph’s team as the champions of progressive nothingness and is happier for it. We may soon see the same business with Arriva. Joseph’s team will nurture the discontent of the public on this issue. What we will not know is whether Labour’s team are proposing a return to the old Xarabanks or whether they too would be trying to solve Arriva’s teething problems if they take up Austin’s ministerial job.

As things stand Labour need not take a position but will still win sympathy from people who want something different from the status quo. How that will solve the problems of the shelters, the bendy buses, the ticketing machines and the unruly drivers is anyone’s guess. We’ve seen it all before in the VAT-CET saga haven’t we? Same; same but different. The crisis of representation is doomed to continue and trust you me: the teething problems in this case are gargantuan. Blessed are the oblivious for they will vote PLPN and be satisfied.

Got Milk?

Francis Zammit-Dimech penned an interesting article this week in the Times (Vision of a changing nation). In it he distanced himself from the ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’ approaches within the PN and made a case for a modern party based on a mosaic structure glued together by values such as the common good and human dignity. It might be a working solution that challenges the clumsily assembled ‘umbrella party’ visions and ‘new liberals’ a-la-Frank Psaila. There is a case to be made here especially if the likes of Zammit-Dimech can manage to convince the party that Christian-Democrats can and will feel comfortable legislating in favour of minority rights based on the common good and human dignity.

We will need to wait and see whether this line can be elaborated further. The parliamentary legislative track record seems to still be confused and is based more on interest-based legislation than clear guiding principles. Even in the seemingly frivolous – such as alcohol sales regulation and that of entertainment – there seems to be an intellectual and ideological dishonesty and hypocrisy at work. How else do you explain that village festas have been given a carte-blanche regarding alcohol sales while a concert organiser has to adhere to strict conditions and pay an exorbitant fee as a guarantee in order to organise his event? This is a simple but effective example of the inconsistencies that are the order of the day when umbrella-parties feeding off conflicting networks try to please the world.

Ironically, the more ‘avant-garde’ (wankellectual if you like) part of the nation seems to be the one sacrificed on a regular basis. Which is why we get censorship problems and why 21st century social habits are still out-lawed (as in not legalised) in our nation. When they do try to find some balls and legislate (see for example cohabitation) they get it all so damningly wrong (not making it available for persons who were previously married).

First Ladies

Ever since Lady Di’s tragic death in 1997 we have witnessed the concept of public grief develop into a hideously impersonal theatrical show pumped up by the media and fed by the big brother syndrome that afflicts the general public. We are not the first generation to suffer from this morbid concern with the remembrance of the deceased that so often smacks of lack of real respect. The Victorians were notoriously fixated with their complicated rules for mourning and dealing with death that culminated with the huge confusion on how exactly to go about the funeral arrangements when the great Queen herself joined her beloved Albert in the sky.

Public outpourings of sentiment tend to become cringe-worthy after a while when it is blatantly obvious that the act of condolence has become automatic rather than genuine. When people start to fall over themselves in a race for the dramatic we slip into the theatrical and the hyperbolic, quickly losing every sense of decorum. In my book this smacks of disrespect to the recently departed. We have not reached the stage of the ancient Romans who would hire mourners to wail and scratch themselves behind the funeral procession but we are risking losing any sense of social decorum by following this folly that is public mourning in the 21st century.

I never met and did not know Mrs Fenech-Adami. She passed away within a day of Betty Ford, the wife of former US President Gerald Ford. Obviously I did not know Mrs Ford either. On a human level I can only offer my sincere condolences to the families of the departed. They are the ones who will feel the biggest emptiness as a dear beloved leaves them for another world.

On a public level I can appreciate the two very different first ladies of two very different nations. Betty Ford was a political animal through and through. She is remembered as a woman who battled for civil rights – pressing for abortion rights and women’s rights during her husband’s presidential period. She never shied from the public view and used her position to push political objectives she believed in. She will be most remembered for her personal fight against drug and alcohol abuse. After having confronted the demons herself in her own private life she transformed the battle into a public one – opening the now famous Betty Ford Centre in California and pressing for further awareness on the issue of drug and alcohol abuse.

Mrs Fenech-Adami could not have been any more different. Her husband’s latest public intervention – when he controversially suggested that divorce was a matter of conscience – highlighted the distinction between ‘moral’ and ‘political’ decisions. Whether or not we agree with Eddie, the stamp of Fenech-Adami’s moral compass was clear to see and it helps us understand the public face of Mrs Fenech-Adami. It is clumsy of us to try to pigeon hole Mrs Fenech-Adami’s public life into a political box. Mrs Fenech-Adami was not political. She was a strong, principled woman with a solid catholic upbringing. From what I can see, that made her the pillar and reference point of her family. We can easily confuse principles and values with humility and ‘knowing her place’, but we would be doing her a great disservice.

I like to see Mrs Fenech-Adami as a moral rock built on the no-nonsense, principled approach that you might disagree with but cannot help but admire. It is with that memory that I offer my sincere condolences first and foremost to the Fenech-Adami family and secondly to the wider family that had gotten used to having someone like Mary as a reference point – in that latter case I can see no reason for anything other than pride.

www.akkuza.com would like to extend another note of sympathy and support in what has been a sad week for some of us. A huge hug goes out to Mark and his family after the loss of a young, vibrant sister, daughter and friend. “Oh heart, if one should say to you that the soul perishes like the body, answer that the flower withers, but the seed remains” (Khalil Gibran).

This is the J’acccuse column from the Malta Independent on Sunday of the 10th July 2011.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse : The Summer Plank

I find the latest Facebook fad in Malta to be quite a happy coincidence. I’m talking about ‘planking’ of course – the ‘sport’ that has taken the Maltese corners of Facebook by storm with adults and kids alike ‘doing the plank’. The phenomenon shows many of the symptoms of any Maltese trend: it is a year or so late by international standards (rather early, that) and it has immediately divided public opinion between the pro and con crowds. And of course there are still those among us who lag behind, completely oblivious to the very existence of ‘planking’ and what it is all about.

Allow J’accuse to come to the rescue. The International Planking rules may be summarised as follows: To perform a plank one must lie horizontally, face down in a rigid stance with no expression whatsoever on one’s face. Legs must remain straight with toes pointed. The idea is to get yourself photographed in that position and then to tag that photo on Facebook with a phrase that indicates your planking intention. The international rules also add that potential plankers must plank safely and not expose themselves to undue risk.

I am told that the planking craze kicked off by chance in Malta when a clumsy attempt to plank over public furniture ended in a disastrous ‘fail’ (another web craze term). Be that as it may, planking has given us a very creative page on Facebook that has quietly slipped to the top of the popularity rankings in the place of the divorce-related pages. The divorce pages are suffering from the fickle attention span of the average ‘internet enthusiast’ and the sudden drought on the web as the summer sun gets people away from the internet and closer to the beach.

Plankuza

The intriguing part of the planking phenomenon is the manner in which it has instigated what I generally think to be a passive-reactive public to become very, very creative. While J’accuse urges respect for public furniture and above all respect for safety we cannot but bow to the genius of the man who ‘planked’ atop a bank ATM canopy on Spinola Hill up to Paceville. It remains one of our favourites. I tried the ‘sport’ myself in the pristine waters of Gћadira Bay (note: I was not the planker but the support that was necessary to elevate the aforementioned planker out of the water). Within seconds of the snapshot there were people around us nodding in enthusiastic acknowledgement and one particular dad set about explaining to his offspring what this ‘sport’ was all about.

Gћadira, by the way, is fast becoming a gem of a beach – at least as long as school is still in session and the boats have not yet started to choke the shores. Cleanliness, organisation and safety are witness to the efforts that have been taken to return our beaches to their natural beauty. I was joined in Gћadira by a friend who travelled there by bus. Actually it was a bus and a hitched ride because the original bus could not make it all the way up the hill to Mellieћa and broke down. Passengers were dumped in the summer sun and my friend who is a veteran visitor to the islands knew better than to wait for a Transport Malta alternative.

It’s sad really that the charming old buses will be leaving the streets. I made it a point to catch at least two rides (and a ferry crossing to Valletta) this time around, and snapped enough photos and collected enough tickets for my little personal scrapbook. On the whole, though, I do not think that the smoke-belching, unreliable monsters will be missed on the streets. If anything, the decision to switch to a new operator with new buses can only be greeted with gladness. I dare the Nationalist government to trumpet this achievement and to expect to reap some rewards of gratitude on this one. It is 2011 after all, isn’t it Emmanuel Delia? The absolute cock-up that was the saga of pedestrian Bisazza Street vs Arriva rescheduling has shown us that even when ushering in the obvious (a working bus system) there seems to be more than an inability to plan ahead.

The Planked

Who will pay for the ‘compensation’ that is due to Arriva for the rescheduling around a major route? Minister Austin Gatt told the press he had no clue what this bill would amount to. The man who seems to be trying to milk all the credit for the occasion, the aforementioned Emmanuel Delia – an unelected civil servant who will be contesting the next election on a nationalist ticket – fluffed with a million excuses and tried to finger the blame onto another Ministry’s late planning. What Delia failed to underline is that whether the bumbling is due to his hopeless planning skills or that of others, the bill is still to be footed by the citizen and nobody else.

The rescheduling has some other citizens up in arms. On my visits to Sliema I noticed many photocopied signs urging Sliema citizens to unite in protest at what is being done to their town. Tigné residents, it seems, are at the heart of this latest NIMBY uprising. Worse still they seem to have been marginalised by the rest of Sliema who are not impressed by the Tigné residents suddenly growing a civil conscience the moment they finally got to be on the receiving end of controversial decisions. But that’s us, isn’t it? The ‘I’m all right and sod you Jack’ mentality pervades across the voting spectrum which is why civil right activists like the tiny, undermanned Alternattiva Demokratika will be allowed into the home throughout a particular NIMBY campaign but will be ditched the moment the big issue of which networker to put in government comes around.

Cultured Planks

I have long bored readers with my idea that our current political set-up is an opiate of the people. The relativist race to zero-value perfection coupled with the nepotist networking that puts planning decisions in the hands of party-favoured goofs serves to neutralise healthy competition, to kill new ideas and to turn us into a nation of unreactive planks. Every now and then you do get some sparks of hope – as I did when attending the conference on Valletta 18 that was a prelude to Valletta’s bid to become European Culture Capital in seven year’s time. There is more about this in the blog but I’d like to say that it would be great if the effort to bridge the gap between the ‘culturati’ and those who currently live the culture unconsciously is actually made. The danger of the liberal arts closing themselves up in an elite group remains dangerously alive.

Speaking of liberals it seems to be the fashion these days for everyone and his mother to display liberal traits. This week I asked Bertu to fashion a cartoon that shows our society’s key players and their attitude towards fashionable liberalism. Just look at the papers over the past week and you will see both major parties falling over themselves trying to expose the liberal side of their ‘umbrella’ (or in Gonzi’s case – ‘rainbow’) movements. Judging by the reactions I have been listening to in social circles, the Maltese voter must be daydreaming his days away or planking to his heart’s content. The ‘we are liberal’ line is being swallowed – hook, line and sinker.

The Unexplained Planks

This week I was ‘accused’ of being too nationalist (particularly in an article in l-orizzont) and of being too anti-nationalist. It made me wonder whether people tend to remember only the parts of the article that they dislike. It does make sense really. Our basic instinct is to have our little electoral Jiminy Cricket conscience always at the back of our mind. He is there to yell out warnings whenever what we are reading challenges our ‘traditional’ voting trend and inclination. So as a nationalist voter you may skim through an article that criticises Joseph Muscat’s opportunist fashioning of his policies (and maybe nod in agreement) but your attention will only peak if (for the sake of example) I call your beloved leader Lawrence Gonzi a plonker (sic).

So as our parties refashion what they represent into two huge blocks of nothing, the voting population will dig its heels in the ground and still think in terms of black or white, red or blue. Their voting conscience remains as immovable and rigid as a planker in pose position. Unfortunately the tsunami of change promised post-referendum has only served to consolidate the ill-advised “umbrella movements” and their knee-jerk reactions.

To the Duchy

My week-long, wedding-related, visit comes to an end. There are a couple of people who I’d like to congratulate. There’s Pierre Mejlak and Chris at Merlin for the wonderful book and launch at Mdina. Dak li l-lejl iћallik tgћid is available online at Sierra Distributors and I would strongly recommend that you get a copy. Then there is the chef at Adira Lido in Gћadira Bay. I really have to thank him for a mixed seafood platter that was an out-of-this-world explosion of Mediterranean taste that would have been enough to make this latest visit home worthwhile. Thanks a million and see you again in August.

 

www.akkuza.com has reviewed Pierre’s latest masterpiece, sat through Valletta 18 and is now gearing for the latest collection of stories for www.re-vu.org. Happy birthday, Kika!

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta