Category: Articles

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Pater nunquam

Paul Borg Olivier has told the Nationalist Party General Council that the Nationalist Party remains “the party that proposes values without imposing them”. Take some time to chew on that one. Meanwhile, top guest on Xarabank, Joseph Muscat, regaled us with another assertion of Labour’s non-policy on divorce. Labour too, it seems, is not into the “imposing business” and it plans to do this by: (a) still not having a party policy on divorce (b) respecting the people’s choice and (contemporaneously) (c) allowing its MPs to vote as they damn well like. Still chewing?

Sometime last weekend I gave up trying to understand the Maltese voter and his priorities. I may have a (not too modest idea) or two about “prescriptive politics” and how a party ought to be run − together with the obvious corollaries of how a voter ought to vote. I am comfortable and, I do not hesitate to add, suitably trained to understand the constitutional implications of the role of values in representative politics. But the gap between informed opinion and voter instinct is as wide as ever.

What I cannot by any standard fathom is how, after these two separate announcements on Friday evening, Facebook (that inaccurate gauge of popular feeling) is populated with fawning subjects of either kingdom in our political spectrum. Over the last week we saw the two main parties pull off a great con (successfully I would say) and monopolise their corner of “new liberalism”. In their own way the PLPN politicians are grooming the voter to believe that he can still feel comfortable under their umbrella (the Umbrella Party survived the divorce scare) and by gosh are we swallowing the bait… hook, line and sinker.

Value-less

You would have thought − for even a fleeting second − that a party does not simply “propose values” but actually is a guarantee for a set of values. Borg Olivier’s reasoning is, I am sorry to say, a coward’s way out. Or a populist’s. It allows a party like the PN to shed its value-based backbone in favour of a variety of propositions. It’s the “anything goes so long as the people who elect us will it” solution. Nice. What use the rhetoric of a party position? Why bother anyway if the MPs elected on your ticket will simply follow the flow at the end of the day?

Muscat’s reasoning is only ever so slightly different. His party fence-sat the pre-referendum stage. Once “the people” had spoken and once “the people” could shoulder the responsibility, he moves into phase two − “my MPs OUGHT to vote yes”. Even in this fence-sitting stage Muscat cannot bring his party to take a solid position. Not even with the “people have spoken” business can he oblige all his members to vote yes (or abstain). Why bother?

The first survey on voting trends after the referendum shows Alternattiva Demokratika down a few points. This was the most shocking result to my mind. Shocking because I cannot understand how someone answering a survey (no electoral commitment here − how about using it for a tbeżbiża?) does not use the opportunity to show the value-less parties just how he could switch to a different option that was clear about its position from the start.

I can afford to be shocked at the voter. I can even afford to blame him. I can do that because I do not contest the election as a party. Alternattiva Demokratika cannot. They have to read the writing on the wall. They are obliged to do their homework from now and ask themselves how come, notwithstanding all the newfound exposure in the new media and old during the referendum, so few people view them as a viable alternative. The answers they find may be even more shocking than they think.

Clue-less

The absorption of a budding liberal civil rights movement into the fold of the two Liquorice Allsorts parties probably means that we will have to make do with bipartisan foot-shuffling and pussy-footing for some time yet. That deal is now reinforced with the abdication from representative value politics by the parties, in exchange for this populist knee-jerk vision. It does not bode well. When Eddie Fenech Adami went on radio and spoke of the dangers of relativism to a political party you could not agree with him more.

Come next election the voter will be clueless as to who or what he is electing to represent him. Muscat will write his manifesto as he goes along and Borg Olivier will be busy “proposing values” without the intention of “imposing them”. Whether another JPO will be lurking in the back of one of our ballot sheets − happy with the idea that whatever party he is representing never really asked him if he had any “private” ideas for a bill − will be anybody’s guess. Chances are that barring a “tkaxkira” of four seat majority proportions, any group of private minded newly-elected MPs could decide to embark on a bit of Pullicino Orlando politics of their own. Who’s the Kingmaker now?

Father-less

The amazing tricks our politicians can pull mean that in a short period of time it will be business as usual. “Se vogliamo che tutto cambi bisogna che tutto rimanga lo stesso”. “Issues” that require a key code of values for solving will not suddenly vanish though. From IVF to the management of transport on the islands to marriage for same sex couples, there is much more on the agenda. Each of these issues would normally require a clear position. They will of course find politicians to “mother” them − and probably from both sides of the House. What remains to be seen is whether this modus operandi, where laws are mothered through Parliament by ad hoc coalitions while they are left fatherless by the parties who should have left their stamp one way or another, will actually work.

Elsewhere on the island it has been shocking to see that as Valletta gears up to becoming European cultural capital, vandals struck at the freshly unveiled monument in Bisazza Street. The biggest news on the continent, apart from the spread of the E.coli scares, remains the perilous state of affairs in Greece. Depending on what press you read, you could expect anything from a new “Lehmann Brothers for Europe” to the “possible death of the EU”. It’s a tough one to call − let’s hope our parliamentarians will not be caught bickering over their latest value shift if the economic repercussions head our way… if they’re anywhere near Parliament that is.

www.akkuza.com will be coming to you from an event filled week in Malta. Happy Father’s Day to all dads (this time I got the week right). Pierre Mejlak’s new book is out on Wednesday and I am glad that the launch will happily coincide with my latest escapade to Malta. After I finished typing this article PM Lawrence Gonzi described PN’s politics as a “rainbow of options” − so there you have it: Mater semper certa est, pater nunquam.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Wasted

It’s honoraria now. You cannot blame Labour for enthusiastically fanning the flames of disgruntlement with Gonzi’s government. Muscat has just gotten away with convincing a huge chunk of the population that the Yes to Divorce was a victory achieved by Labour. It was not, and I am not being petty. Labour’s foot shuffling and dilly-dallying was neither here nor there. While you read last Sunday’s J’accuse, Muscat was busy performing logical acrobatics claiming that the PN could do nothing else but vote YES after the referendum while contemporaneously repeating his spineless line that Labour’s position on divorce was a “free vote”.

Right now Muscat and Labour could very well tell most of the population that they were the inventors behind sliced bread, electricity and nuclear fission − and many would believe them. That is how our politics works. The wave of change is once again there for Labour to miss. The sad, sad thing is that the very modalities of the divorce debate that we are fast forgetting should have been proof enough that a change for Labour will only be the trademark “same, same but different”.

Empty vessels

They may be using the honoraria business as the latest excuse to expose the rifts between factions within the Nationalist government. If the reports I am reading are correct, Muscat has managed to make this sound as a vote of choice between “the Prime Minister and the Maltese people”.

Funny how he gets to dictate what this vote really means. True, the honoraria business is a PR catastrophe of gargantuan proportions and the government deserves a huge beating for it. On the other hand I am angry at the wonderful opportunity this has given both parties to bury the gaping lacunae that were exposed by the divorce debate. Luckily, we still have a whole Bill to go through so we might have a few reminders coming up.

The biggest lacuna is the most important of them all − one that each and every voter would do well to remember from here to the next election. It can come across as a boring point but there is a practical, pragmatic side to it that might even appeal to the most cynical among us. If only we let loose our presumed allegiances and grooming that is. It has all to do with a simple question: Why do you vote for a particular party in national elections?

The representative

Sure, we vote for MPs in order of preference. Why do we choose them? Presumably because they represent the best bet we have (a) for governing the country and (b) for endorsing particular policies. More importantly, we vote for MPs backed by political parties (specifically the two parties who have the odds stacked in their favour for being elected to Parliament). And why do we choose one party over another (forgetting for one minute the tesserati)?

We choose a party because of the principles it represents. Or so we thought. Recently we were presented with another reason to vote for one party and not the other. Put briefly, that reason was “the lesser evil”. Our parties could go on wearing their ideological and principle mask of preference while posing in multi-faceted dresses as Umbrella Liquorice Allsorts Parties. In truth, voting for PN or PL stopped meaning something different quite some time ago. I performed a little exercise on J’accuse yesterday. I called it “The Wasted Vote”. Here it is…

The Wasted Vote

So you voted PN last election? You got Lawrence Gonzi and Austin Gatt. You got David Agius and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. You got Edwin Vassallo and Tonio Fenech. You got Tonio Borg and Karl Gouder. You got the party that is anti-divorce on paper but can wake up one morning and spring a Private Members’ Bill surprise. You’ve also got Joe Saliba to thank for those sleepless nights conferring title after title on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando − from dentist to farmer to press card bearing journalist. Don’t worry though… if you’ve got a liberal streak in you there’s always Cyrus Engerer and Frank Psaila’s plan for a “social liberal” face to save the day.

So you voted PL last election? Well, actually you voted for Alfred Sant’s MLP but we know where that one went. After the tears subsided what did you get? You got Joseph Muscat and Adrian Vassallo. You got Owen Bonnici and Marie Louise Coleiro Preca. You got Marlene Pullicino and Gino Cauchi. You got a party that wants to be liberal and progressive but fails to take a simple stand on divorce. You got the inventor of the “free vote” that means that whatever the flying flip you wanted to elect to Parliament has no point anyway − because the individuals’ conscience is paramount. So was it pro-divorce Muscat that you were thinking of or was it anti-divorce Vassallo?

Have you really ever sat down and wondered what your vote translates to once the noise of the last carcade subsides, once the last billboard of empty propaganda is removed and once the last article of the spinners of hate is condemned to the bottom of your dustbin?

Funny. Last I heard, NOT voting PL or PN would turn out to be a “wasted vote”.

Vote for nobody

It’s funny how a vote that could be “wasted” on “unelectable” Alternattiva Demokratika last time round could have elected the only party in Parliament to have a clear, unequivocal position on divorce. It’s not just divorce. There will be other future issues in which the two behemoths will shuffle their feet. Already we are seeing the mediatic reinvention of PN − with calls for a “social liberal” heart (the token push) or calls for more “pragmatism” (another way of saying yes we disagree with divorce but hey votes are votes).

There is no guarantee about what you can get with the 34+ candidates elected to Parliament on the ticket of either of the PLPN parties. Will it be a renegade PLPN politician promoting abortion? Will it be another one proposing a Private Member’s Bill banning crucifixes from classes? Can we ever know? The parties are more intent on throwing their nets as wide as possible than on seeing that they represent a clear set of commitments.

Might as well elect NOBODY in an Odyssean twist. Because NOBODY will keep election promises, NOBODY will listen to your concerns, NOBODY will have a clear policy to enact (without fear of losing votes), NOBODY cares. Maybe, if NOBODY is elected then things could get better for everyone (after all Belgium has got by for a year without a government).

Or you could do better than NOBODY. You could do the intelligent thing and ignore the idiots who are still smarting from their slip the last time round. Vote for a party that is clear on its ideals and selects candidates because they share a common goal and ideas − not for the sake of catching the vote of the LBGT/singles/hunters/economists/labourers/faux-progressives… oh you know what I mean.

I’m off to Strasbourg for the Pentecost ponte in Luxembourg. We have another (Holy) holiday on Monday. Must enjoy them for as long as they last. The Luxembourg Greens have tabled a motion in Parliament asking for the institution of a national holiday that is secular and not religious. They expressly asked for “a holiday without the Te Deum”. I wonder what our MPs’ conscience would say on that one.

 

www.akkuza.com Find out more about the Church, State and Luxembourg on our site. Happy Father’s day to all dads, in particular the Chelski maniac at home and the tennis champ.

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Sophistry, Protagoras & San Ċipress

The return of summer has meant the return of the time-slot dedicated to listening to podcasts at a leisurely pace while lapping up the sun on a beach. This week I caught up on the “History of Philosophy without Gaps” series delivered by Peter Adamson of King’s College (available gratis on iTunes). As luck (and universal karma) would have it, I had stumbled on the episode called “Making the Weaker argument the Stronger: the Sophists” (ep. 14 if you care to look it up) and it couldn’t have been a better time to discover the sophists and their school of thought.

Thanks mainly to Plato (see “Protagoras”), the school of the Sophists has had quite a bit of philosophical bad mouthing through the ages and this is mainly because they were seen as a professional class of thinkers who dabbled in the art of “spurious learning that would lead to political success”. From the sophist school (or rather from their detractors) we get the word “sophistry”, which is invariably defined as “an argument that seems plausible but is fallacious or misleading, especially one that is deliberately devised to be so”, or as “the art of using deceptive speech and writing”.

The early sophists invested much in the concept of “virtue” but would soon inject it with a huge dose of relativism − as Protagoras himself would tell us: “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”. The problem with sophists however was that via this relativism they were more concerned with persuasion than with the value of truth. In teaching the early politicians the art of persuasion they also thought them that truth could only stand in the way of a successful politician. Truth was not a priority − they would boast that a good sophist could persuade someone that the worse was the better reason… they could make black appear to be white.

The Sophist school lives

The Divorce Debate Hot Potato has left the hands of the people who spoke decisively on the matter and is back in the hands of the bungling lot who are still at odds trying to understand why the rest of the world calls them “representatives”. This is the short-term after-shock when the rocked establishment does what it does best and pulls out the shots for its own survival. Let me put it bluntly: We have two anachronistic parties that had been stripped bare of any semblance of principle beyond the one and only grail of vote-grabbing. Both parties are at this point busily attempting to show the people that they represent their will (Hell Yeah) while contemporaneously attempting to have officially nothing to do with it in the process (Heavens No).

A few weeks back I wrote about Pontius Pilate. His ruse of “release Barabbas” never worked. The people threw the Messiah back into his hands and all he could do was wash them. Not with our modern day Sophists though − far be it from them to wash their hands publicly. Instead they do the impossible and find themselves ditching truth in order to sell the implausible and fallacious packaged as political dogma. To me, the prize of the day, nay the millennium, must go to Inhobbkom Joseph. Sophist to a tee, il-Mexxej has wriggled his way out of Labour’s non-position to the extent that a huge amount of his supporters actually believe that the Labour party is in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation.

Muscat’s post-result speech fell just short of letting people assume that it was thanks to Joseph and his party that Yes carried the day. Nothing new there… I still meet Nationalist Party card carriers who believe the spin that the Yes movement seven years ago was a purely in-house affair. Muscat then performed logical acrobatics of an impressive kind in which he managed to imply that the Nationalist Party is obliged to vote Yes (or resign) while conveniently ignoring the fact that this paladin of progressive politics has not got the balls to tell his own party to stuff the free vote where the sun does not shine. The fallacy (Labour is a pro-divorce party) had been sold − hook, line and sinker to the electorate − while Muscat abetted anti-divorce MPs in his own party. Epic representative fail but huge sophist success.

The powers of an MP

At the other end of our poor political spectrum, the only man with a pair of considerable male attributes remains unsurprisingly Austin Gatt. Much as I disagree with his position (completely and utterly) on divorce itself, there is no doubt that Austin Gatt was clear from day one and his position is an interesting standard in the sea of wavering compromises that are the official party positions. Austin said he could never fit in a party that would be in favour of divorce and that he would resign if his party would pronounce itself in favour. His position is that his conscience trumps the voice of the people in this matter and that he is willing to face the consequences with the electorate (luckily for him he will not be contesting the next election so not much facing to be done there).

I have consistently argued that a referendum was not the right way to introduce a civil right such as divorce. One reason was that in the real world we would have clear direction from parties who could legislate responsibly and professionally with the balance between common good and minority rights in mind. The mess this referendum has put us in is not a result of the YES/NO answer (it has been pointed out that the 53/47 per cent ratio was the same as when the “debate” was officially launched) but a result of our representatives abdicating their responsibility at the start of it all. We cannot have spineless parties without a position (two sets of free votes − 69 consciences − and a collective bandwagon of shameless sophistry) suddenly being trusted with the enacting of such a delicate piece of legislation − and all the signs show that they cannot seem to understand how to do it either.

Kollox suġġettiv (everything’s subjective)

It’s now all about fine-tuning for the parties and the electorate would do well to take note. Muscat’s PL and Gonzi’s PN are about to pull one of those wool-before-your eyes tricks in which they excel. Our tendency to be card-carrying voters before being free-thinking emancipated citizens risks nullifying all the awareness that has been gained over the last four weeks. Both PL and PN want to be seen as fulfilling the will of the people while also being non-committal as parties on such an important aspect as a minority right.

Through the divorce debate we saw the gradual rise of a kernel of a Civil Rights Movement. It was one that “Stood Up” and called a spade a spade beyond the useless rhetoric and empty sophistry of the parties. It was promising − and we recognised the momentum. What seems to have been heavily underestimated though was the pulling power of the parties in their attempt to hegemonise (and in the process mollify) the political decision making in our country. Sure, eventually the Ayes will have it − and Austin will do his little tantrum − but will we revert to the spineless politics and the slow pace of opiated Maltese dualism?

The answer to this question seems to be a resounding “of course”. Deborah Schembri has done us the honours. She was a more than promising leader for the kernel Civil Rights Movement and proved her ability to argue above the noise. She surprised everyone by announcing on the people’s forum − (very aptly) Xarabank − that she would choose a career in politics over a vocation as people’s representative (my choice of words). Another one bites the dust (forgive us for being sceptical about the chances of Debbie changing Labour rather than vice-versa).

San Ċipress

And if you were wondering whether Debbie’s absorption will be a one-off distraction factor then look at the new spin from the PN camp involving another budding star − Cyrus Engerer. No sooner had Deborah announced her “career path choice” did the spin begin to portray the liberal side of PN as the new stars. Much as you might like Cyrus and Deborah as politicians who showed their mettle in the divorce debate, you might be heading towards grave disappointment as they are transformed into the latest tools for survival by the PL-PN opiates.

The boredom threshold of a tired electorate is lower than that of a prime time “journalist”. Having taken great pains to cast his decision, the voter just cannot wait for his representatives to just get a move on beyond the fuss and enact the damn law. The voters’ impatience is the political party’s boon − they will reason their way out of this mess and both will try to sell the idea that they are the people’s party. Meanwhile, the short-lived Civil Rights Movement risks being the greatest loser: can you imagine the PLPN handling other important issues beyond divorce? Of course not. And yet Cyrus and Deborah chose to obstinately operate from within the rudderless ships and allow themselves to be paraded like the latest “vara” (statue) at some village festa.

In the words of one of Malta’s foremost philosophers of the 21st century… “jekk intom ghandkom vara, ahna ghandna vara isbah minnkom, jekk intom qieghdin hara, ahna qieghdin hara iktar minnkom,… u jekk intom ghandkom lil Debbie… ahna ghandna ‘l Cyrus (ahjar minnkom)”….

Will we ever learn? If you’re still not convinced by all this sophistry then you might want to try to take a peek on Alternattiva’s quest to remind our representatives why they should stop dilly-dallying. They’re meeting (aptly again) on 7 June at Hastings Garden at 9.30am. If you’re taking an iPod along then do buy the single “I’d rather dance with you”… by the Kings of Convenience − a pleasant tune to listen to before the latest round of philosophy – hopefully there will be less sophistry involved.

www.akkuza.com − thinking different because you don’t seem to want to.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : CTRL + ALT + DEL

The combination of letters in the title is a common occurrence in computing jargon – mostly favoured by the illiterati and semi-literati of the world of the microprocessor whenever their computing machine seems to have gone A.W.O.L and is failing to obey the most basic of orders. Pressing a combination of keys that are abbreviations for “Control”, “Alternating Function” and “Delete” allows one to accede to a wondrous screen that (hopefully) puts the user in control of the system once again. We have all experienced the tremendous joy of ordering the computer to RESTART or to STOP RUNNING programmes that seem to have gone off at a tangent and taken up most of the thinking space of our units.

The “rebooting” of the system allows all the programs and thingummies that are usually whirring silently in the background to resume operation in a preordained order – one that is receptive to the user as originally intended. At best, upon restarting his unit, the user might find the note that several “system upgrades” are available and “would he like to download them before rebooting the system once again?” (my paraphrasing of course). So you see – the main programs of the OS (operating system) get rusty every now and again – there is a little pause, a decision to take and before you can say “Why didn’t I buy a Macintosh?” your system has rebooted to a much better version at the click of a button. You’ve been upgraded.

Crisis
We get the word crisis from the Greeks (krisis) and normally associate it with moments of great uncertainty. Crisis is also used in a philosophical sense whenever there is a “process of transformation where the older system can no longer be maintained”. We are currently passing through what seems to be a moment of crisis for Maltese society. Borrowing from computer jargon, our current operating system has ground to a temporary halt and somebody, somewhere has pressed the three magic buttons “CTRL + ALT +DEL” – next on the agenda the maintenance or otherwise of the old system.

If you are reading this article after 10am you will probably already know the result of the consultative referendum. Whether there are carcades of liberals or novenas of thank yous spilling through the streets and halls of the nation the truth is that the answer to Bertoon’s question today is no. We are nowhere near a final point of this crisis that was officially brought out from under the carpet with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s presentation of the bill for the introduction of divorce. What we can do is begin to draw a list of the operating system essentials that might be in serious need of upgrade after this crisis moment.

bert4j_110529

It’s Constitutional
The underlying fabric of our society is a woven mix of historic tradition, social mores and the law. The interaction between influential centres of power and representation and the individuals that make up this demo is a multi-tiered, interest-driven approach that culminates in a collective set of rules, traditions and customs that make up our operating system set-up. We have come to recognise – thanks to this crisis – that what was on the surface a system that worked and was apparently accepted by (and acceptable to) all actually had developed more than a few glitches and was evidently slowing down the whole works.

JPO’s bill has been the national CTRL + ALT + DEL. Suddenly the programme that had thrived on “if we want everything to change then everything must remain the same” worked no more. Or at least many questions were being asked of its compatibility with the 21st century. Through this debate we discovered a number of uncomfortable truths. First of all there was the awareness that even when you took the main actors of our power struggle out of the equation the behaviour of the various parts within the system tended to settle around the same old bugs – because we did not know otherwise.

Witness the electoral system written and produced by the main actors themselves. Once PLPN no longer figured we still formed two distinctive masses who soon discovered that the rules could not be changed and that they were absurdly written for a black and white reality that was being challenged. Not only that by they tried to milk the rules to their advantage (just look at the fun and games with the broadcasting authority or the electoral commissioner).

When we say that this crisis is not about divorce but about much more we do not immediately realise that we are challenging the foundations of the DNA of our society. When alternative politicians suddenly discover that “it’s the constitution stupid” we try hard to not sigh with exasperation at the length of time it has taken to discover this and clap our hands in encouragement.

It’s Moral
The main actors had danced, tangoed and fandangoed for long on our constitutional plane. Every actor – the main parties, the church, the opiated media – had played his role to a tee until the latest crisis question proved too hot to handle. The nationalist party slipped into a conservative coma, the labour party went into opportunist overdrive and the catholic church discovered that it was in charge of a weak, weak flock (coupled with quite a few errant shepherds) who had completely misunderstood the importance of free will in the defining of a good christian.

So here we are – as I wrote last week – on the brink of a huge decision between emancipation and submission. There may be carcades today as one side or the other triumphs victoriously in the battle of collective opinions. A resounding NO or a resounding YES may be treasured as a hard-won victory in a battle of attrition that seemed destined towards Mutual Assured Destruction. It does little to close the crisis though. Each side will lick its wounds and carry its laurels but the most important part is still to come. The defining moment of a democracy like ours will be the reaction of our representatives in parliament.

The J’accuse indictment had been clear from the start. We have been diverted onto a roller-coaster emotional ride that had little to do with constitutional resetting and much, much more to do with a psychological heart-opening session – very useful for the diagnosis but very poor insofar as practical solutions are concerned. The referendum allowed for the abdication of our representatives but has created a new sense of awareness – little pockets of resistance to the current faulty program. As we put it poetically… in un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle.

The Final Answer
There is no final answer. Every set of rules for society is built on compromise based on the ultimate need of thousands of homo sapiens sapiens living together. We are at the very start of a crucial learning curve for our nation. I personally do not have faith in the 69 politicians in parliament who should be picking up the ball from here. Our goals should be set much higher than the mere introduction of a basic civil right in the 21st century. We should be looking at the gaping hole in civic education, the vacuum in the basic understanding of citizen rights and obligations, at the chaotic state of the fourth (and fifth) estates and more. We should be rebuilding what has been undone over the past 30 years Ad Maiorem Politici Comoditatem (for the greater comfort of polticians).

Above all we might have come to a point when we understand that Malta is in dire need of new leadership – one that is a complete and utter upgrade from the menu that is on offer until now. It is important that we do not lose many of the lessons learnt from this crisis starter – emancipation is not achieved easily… and there may still be many a reboot on the horizon.

www.re-vu.org
Before I thank every single taxpayer individually for having kept the PLPN in tow for so long and thus for having contributed to the latest flight of fancy to Malta I have a new little project to present. Mark Vella, an ex-blogger and publisher, and I are about to launch a new (open-source & non-profit) online review magazine. REVU – b’accent fuq kollox,(www.re-vu.org) will hopefully offer a different and calmer perspective to the many angles of the debates that will be an offshoot of this crisis. We launch quietly this week with a special edition in which a number of contributors analyse the impact of the divorce debate on Maltese society. A bien tôt.

www.akkuza.com “Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard-disk?” had a great pause in Malta. Yes we tanned. Yes we voted. Yes we enjoyed the chance of a quick break with the family. Crisis or no crisis there is no place like home.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Thoroughly Modern Malta

It’s official. It’s no longer about divorce. Saturday’s referendum is about rubber-stamping Malta’s new Identity Card. Think of it as a visit to the ID Office the next time the authorities decide to renew most expired cards. Think of Lady Malta in the queue waiting to get her photo taken and digitally added to the spanking new card. She’s moved on since the last photo and is eager to look her best when the guy behind the camera tells her to say “cheese” − and we get to decide what she’ll be wearing for the next few years: will it be Lady Malta in an għonnella or will we have a Thoroughly Modern Malta?

“Yes, because if marriage is what I have in mind, love has everything to do with it.” Those were the words of Millie in the movie Thoroughly Modern Millie back in 1967 when marriage and values were quite the talk at the dawn of the modern era of the western world. Hollywood could still carry the responsibility of present day pageant with a vocation to educate, and 10 years had passed since Cecil B. De Mille’s monumental The Ten Commandments. Since 1967, most countries have come to terms with the idea that divorce legislation is “normal” − almost a fundamental right. At least the right to divorce is recognised by almost all states on the face of the earth bar the Philippines and Vatican City. Yep, you read that right. Malta is not included in the list because foreign divorces are recognised in Malta, as you probably already know.

Say cheese

But if it’s not about divorce then what? The drumming up of support by the IVA (YES) movement is more than a passing clue. The emphasis is not on the divorce question itself (which is important) but on the emancipation of our society. It is about the recognition of the role of free will in our society. As I wrote (and as Bertu pictured the idea perfectly) last week, we are coming to terms with an important decision that is more about ourselves than about others but that at the very same time will have an impact on every other person.

Lady Malta in an għonnella represents Malta in the nanny state. She is the Malta of “because they told us so”. She implies an option where our life decisions are not based on our free will but on the diktat of “those who know better for us”. She is the Garden of Eden with the fenced off apple tree. For people like me it implies a moral failure of an abysmal kind. Every person voting for NO and the lady in an ghonnella is admitting that he or she is incapable of making a mature informed choice when faced with a dilemma − whatever code of values they subscribe to. I don’t mean to imply that his choice for NO is immature. I mean that his NO translates into a decision to renounce his free will and hand over his right to self-determination to others: the Church, the conservatives, the busybodies − whatever.

Thoroughly Modern Malta scares many people. They have called it a leap in the dark. It is not a matter of courage or machoism. It is a lifestyle choice. The leap in the dark for them means that they are worried that there is a Playboy magazine on the shelves because they cannot resist taking a peek. They are worried that if divorce is available they will succumb to some irresistible urge to destroy their marriage. They are the people who will not allow a play to be performed because they do not like the content (even if they would not watch it themselves). The fear of the leap in the dark is actually the fear of letting go of mummy’s hand and venturing out into the adult world. Thoroughly Modern Malta is about emancipation.

Evil v good

I’ve decided to vote because I cannot let this opportunity go by. This referendum has transcended our obsolete political party system insofar as content goes. It is a choice for the future of our country. Let’s deal with the parties after we’ve dealt with the referendum. Whichever way it goes will be a clear message to both parties − we’ll watch them handle the hot potato afterwards. What worries me is that the new trenches that have been formed (see post “When the dust has settled (I)” ) will lose their momentum once the decision is announced. I am worried that a major cause that is crying out for representation and leadership − the cause for change − will allow the PLPN thread to reabsorb them and mollify their needs.

There is much that needs fixing in our society. News from the courts this week stood out with items about abuse, rape and violence within the Maltese family − absence of divorce notwithstanding. From the animal world we saw the massacre of storks and a dog being buried alive after being shot in the head. The incident between Pastor Manché and the LBGT community highlighted issues of tolerance that we tend to ignore in this day and age. Pardon my sixties corniness but I have to ask: Where is the love?

The Others

Next week’s vote is crucial. A column is way too short to enter the fray of the pros and cons of the arguments − there’s the blog for that. We can comment on the style of the debate and its outcomes. There is no doubt that the forthcoming vote is about much more than divorce legislation. It is a moment of truth for the country.

It is a decision that goes beyond even the secular v religion. Basically, we are choosing between emancipation and submission. The YES vote means we want emancipation as freethinking individuals who are ready to take responsibility for their future choices. The NO vote means we accept that there are others who know better than us and, more importantly (and in my opinion more damaging), that we know better for others too.

If the NO vote wins the referendum next Saturday will the last person to leave the country please turn off the light.

I don’t subscribe to this point of view

It would be such an ignorant thing to do

If the Others love their children too… (Sting. The Russians)

www.akkuza.com will be travelling on the “cheap flights” sponsored by taxpayers (with special thanks to The Sunday Times of Malta editor) and will be voting YES on Saturday… because I love my neighbour as myself.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Far from the madding crowd

For my sins I tuned into One TV’s Affari Taghna on Friday night. Bundy’s programme is going through its own apotheosis and will soon be sitting at the Olympian table of Maltese television alongside the other opiates of Maltese thinking. On Friday, Deborah Schembri (likes divorce) and Joyce Cassar (doesn’t like divorce) crossed swords before a scientifically inexact but sufficiently random cross-section of Maltese society. I chose to persevere and ignore the initial twitches in my brain caused by Joyce’s ability to swing from one non sequitur to the next like a metaphorical Tarzan in a jungle of illogical misconceptions.

The Great Divorce Debate has served as the Great Eye Opener in many ways. It may seem offensive to speak in terms of “medieval thinking”, “moving time backwards” or “brains where time stood still”, but the absence of the clear PLPN divide this time round allows us to dissect our national way of thinking as we have not been able to for a very long time. I must confess to finding myself overwhelmed by the sudden overdose of “opinions” on the matter when only a while ago a blog post or article supposedly made as much sound (or was just as conveniently ignored) as the tree falling in the empty forest.

Genesis

Far from the baying hounds and loud noises, you catch glimpses of moments of lucidity in the debate. I have recently come to the conclusion that the reason for the prolonged discussions and misunderstandings on what should be after all the straightforward legislation of a basic right is our inability to distinguish between the secular and the spiritual. In the history of our young nation, two great events compounded the confusion among even the supposedly more intelligent and emotionally detached of our members.

The first event was the period of the Mintoff-Gonzi wars culminating in L-Interdett (Interdiction) and the second was the 1995 Church-State Agreement between Eddie’s and Guido’s PN government and the Roman Catholic Church. The first has left long lasting scars of rancour that inevitably pollute any discussion that involves anything remotely spiritual, and the second has proven to be detrimental to the (crucial) roles of both the Church and the State in our society. At the end of Affari Taghna I could only ask a rhetorical question to the “fathers of the nation”: “Can you see what mess you have left us in?”

For the love of God

There were a couple of reassuring voices on the night though. The first came, surprisingly enough, from Fr Charles Vella. Surprising because of all the controversy that has surrounded the notorious clip in which Fr Vella declaims his lack of fear of divorce. In the full clip, as aired on Bundy’s show, it is clear that Father Vella is stating what every rational human being who participates responsibly in society should be saying. Fr Vella has no problem reconciling his dislike of divorce (as discovered through the words of God and the teachings of the Church) with the civil issue of the availability of divorce. It is men like Charles Vella and the spokesperson for the Catholics − Yes because it is a right (I believe it was Carmel Hili) − who have managed to shed the blinkers inherited by our black and white society.

Father Vella does not favour divorce. No, the Cana movement director was quite clear about that when he appeared on Norman’s show. He is though, a strong enough Catholic not to fear it. He knows what is right and what is wrong according to the tenets and moral principles of his Church and − as he said − he is prepared to fight to the death to protect the principle of marriage. What Father Vella did add is that he cannot countenance the possibility of ramming his tenets down other people’s throats.

Free will is an element common to both the tenets of the faithful and those of the lay. Both have a set of guidelines intended to ensure that the exercise of free will brings about the best in mankind. It may be that my mixed Lasallian and Jesuit upbringing combined with my legal background allows me to appreciate the importance of both situations. A citizen expects to be able to exercise his sovereign free will insofar as he causes no harm to others. A believer is thankful to the Almighty for having created him a free thinker and granted him his time on this earth to choose between right and wrong. The accomplishment of the virtuous citizen − whether lay or faithful − comes with making the right choices: and not with having those choices being made for him.

Movements

Father Vella of the Cana Movement knows that. So do many of those participating in the discussion. Even those lawyers, like André Camilleri and Arthur Galea Salomone who are arraigned on the side of those adamant to oppose the introduction of divorce legislation, find it hard to explain their position when it comes to deciding for others. The NO side can perform verbal somersaults and claim not to be grounding their arguments in religious ethics (on what then? on misreading of scientific studies? on the hushing of the real questions?) but at the end of the day there is little to go on between Galea Salomone’s ultimate aim and that of the preacher on Bundy’s programme whose heart beats for Christ and whose only argument against divorce is that God hates it.

And there we are. As more movements spring up than in a kitsch Monty Python Jerusalem Liberation Front sketch, we are stretching an open and shut case to realms that go far beyond the Kafkesquely absurd. Our political backwater still soldiers on and can only take a breather until “the people have spoken” and then − in the case of a YES vote − the fun will begin. For I cannot wait to see how our “leaders” will squirm out of this one. They do after all represent this motley crew that is our nation.

Cheap flights, cheap votes

Finally, I have had it up to here with this stupid idea that people abroad get some kick out of taking days off and flying to Malta on a “cheap flight” just because the collective leaders of the nation and the people who vote for them every election have their heads stuck so far up where the sun does not shine that they cannot see the absurdity of this exercise.

Last time I was in Malta I got my voting document delivered by a postman. I don’t see why I cannot return that service. Barring any last minute change of heart that can only be provoked by further ridiculous arguments by the NO camp, I will not be taking the flight from Luxembourg to Malta to vote. Make that two of us. That’s two YES votes down the drain because work does not get done on the Friday we would be away and, quite frankly, I’ve had enough of abetting this ridiculous backward way of doing things. Votes in embassies should be the priority of the next movement to crop up in this country.

Free will

How hard can it be? Free will. A vote for divorce means allowing people to choose to start a new life − married − long after their previous marriage has broken down. Is divorce a solution? It was never meant to be one. Divorce is a grown-up and mature acknowledgement that “rien ne va plus”. It is much more mature than the arbitrary denial of the existence of a marriage via “annulment” if you ask me. Maturity, fairness, free will. That’s adult talk isn’t it? I’m hoping that the referendum will prove that there is hope for that yet.

Vote ‘Yes’. It’s a matter of choice.

Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife

Their sober wishes never learn’d to stray;

Along the cool sequester’d vale of life

They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.

www.akkuza.com freely exercising hard headed will since 2005.

 

This article appeared on yesterday’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta