Category: Campaign 2013

Categories
Campaign 2013

Voting like it’s 1992

What follows is a strange kind of guest post. It comes to J’accuse via a serendipitous trip through time and space. It’s the kind of post that has been just been waiting to surface and I cannot agree more with the argument being made by the guest writer whom I shall call DeLorean. It is an impassioned argument set out against the constitutional provisions that were framed in 1991 to keep the PLPN system working. It’s not pro-ad, it’s pro-democracy, representation and choice. Read it. It’s important – for you and for future generations.

The argument

Many people have been misguided into thinking that the fight over [the electoral laws] has something to do with Alternattiva Demokratika. It does not. It has everything to do with resisting the entrenchment of the two-party system.

During a discussion on broadcasting […], one prominent government minister (that was gratuitous… all ministers are prominent) remarked that he “firmly believed” in the two-party system “because this makes the country more governable”. It was all I could do to fight the urge to throw my handbag at him, and point out that, following his line of argument, the most governable countries of all should be those with one party. But that, as we all know, has failed.

Belief in a two-party state is belief in a form of totalitarianism masquerading as democracy. All we have now is a political see-saw, with a fat Nationalist boy sitting on one end, and a pudgy Socialist boy on the other. First one goes up, then the other. Is this a wonderful state of affairs, to be preserved at all costs? Should governability enter the argument at all? Who cares about governability, if in ensuring governability we strangle the democratic process? Governability is not the Holy Grail, and we should not allow the government to sell it to us as such.

Individual members of both the government and the opposition have expressed their delight in the two-party system. They have not dared express their real longing: for a one-party system. When a party believes that it fulfils all the needs of all the Maltese people – how dare anyone claim to do so, and still they do – the next step is to claim that it should govern ad aeternum. Why not, once it is so damn perfect?

Third parties cannot be created out of nothing. They must grow, and their growth must be spawned by a real need within the people. Even if this need exists – and there is no doubt at all, it does – all growth will be warped by Malta’s all-pervasive fear and ignorance, which has effects similar to that of radiation on a growing foetus. Through this fear and ignorance, the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party survive, thrive and continue to grow.

Meanwhile the Maltese population lives in an atmosphere of political instability. I define political instability as not knowing what life holds for one after each election, of the necessity of mapping one’s life in a series of five-year plans.

Austin Gatt is right: on paper, the [constitutional electoral provisions] favour the small parties. In practice, they mostly do not. It is practice that concerns us here, and not theory. Dr. Gatt is almost certainly unable to stand up and say, with his hand on his heart, that the [constitutional provisions] will not, in practice adversely affect any small party. They will be a death knell. They will also discourage the growth of political parties in the future, which is a cause for grave concern.

Alternattiva is not the crux of the problem. The hypothetical small party is. Many people might disapprove of Alternattiva, but they should not be so shortsighted as to assume that they will disapprove of any other political party that might grow out of unrest and discontent over the next two or three generations. We must be unselfish enough to think beyond the next two or three generations.

We must be honest enough to admit that we do not want our children to live their adult lives as we are now living ours. We must stop thinking in terms of our immediate future, because many of us will live for a great deal longer than that, certainly longer than most of the politicians [who are now readying themselves to vote, using a hammer and chisel, on amendments to our Constitution].

What if we find ourselves, in 20 years’ time with the choice of two absolutely disreputable political parties? What if the Nationalist Party disintegrates into the kind of sagging, soggy, useless mess of the Sixties… a heap that gave rise to the joke “Tgħajjatx għax tqajjem il-gvern!”? What is a traditionally Nationalist supporter supposed to do… vote for the Labour Party, vote for a mess, or not vote at all?

[… fragments lost]

This article originally appeared in The Sunday Times of Malta on the 3rd November 1991.

 

(To understand the future, we have to go back in time).

 

 

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

The Magritte Effect

I’ve already referred to this phenomenon earlier in the campaign. I’m calling it the Magritte Effect – the moment when you are told something but the picture and the clues before you are telling you a diametrically opposite story. This campaign more than any other has given us a steady dose of Magritte effects – your ears hear a statement, a story, a spin (or your eyes read it) but it is evident right from the start that it is a very very twisted distortion of what is reality. That’s it. This election has been one long hyperreal trip.

I cannot stand hearing any more protests about the “Wasted Vote” particularly when a vote for AD is practically the only vote that goes to a party that is not twisting truths or bending reality in order to seem to accomodate everything and everyone. A vote is a positive vote and that’s what you would be exercising should you chose to vote for Briguglio & Co. You’d be saying – “yes, there is one party that has given me a clear picture of what it wants and what it will do. I’m trusting them with my vote because they are not in bed with businessmen and other centres of interest, they have not sold their soul to any interest group that comes knocking. Yes, I hope they will get a seat in parliament – even in opposition – because I can trust them with representing my interests.”

As for the PLPN and their Magritte effect… where to start? How about funding? The ears hear Gonzi and Muscat waxing lyrical about party funding. We are told that both parties are fully accountable and don’t owe anyone any favours. Then our eyes see the PN getting a loan from businessman Nazzareno Vassallo and they insist (Look into my eyes, look into my eyes) that there are no obligations there. Labour speak as though they are the pauperissimi of the nation yet they are very evidently subsidised by big money – no obligations there either? Pull the other one. Let’s not forget Paul Borg Olivier’s infamous “we barter for our goods” statement and Labour’s never ending flow of cash with no real audited accounts. Then we are supposed to believe that these parties would self-discipline themselves should they be elected? Ha!

How about environment? The two main parties claim to be greener than an illicit hash deposit yet their wheelings and dealings with the hunting and squatting communities openly betray this deceit. Armier. Just one word should have you holding your noses and looking at the PLPN lists with disgust. It’s public land that will be given away there. Green public land in Armier, not that far away from JPO’s Mistra (remember that one). Then you see Labour all bla bla about being the best in Europe, better than Europe but when it comes to all the gas plans by Konrad Mizzi they seem to be more than prepared to ignore Environmental Assessments and safety directives. It’s their costings (coooostings) not mine you know. Magritte… we are green but we’ll be buggered if we’ll lose a few votes by staying green.

Then there’s the positive campaign business. A load of bollocks really. The last thing that Labour’s campaign has been is non-divisive. Rarely has Labour held back from slinging the mud even where it was evident that evidence was lacking. As for the PN. Ah, the masters of negative spin probably still hold some bombs in their arsenal. The apex of Magritt-ism was reached on the Runs the day the PN denied the persistent rumour that it had any dirt to bring out on Muscat’s personal life. Just look at this farce:

Ah good. I’m tired of being asked about this. Daphne Caruana Galizia

 

It couldn’t be more obviously comical and sad at the same time. The blogger is actually putting up the PN denial “No we don’t have any rumour on Muscat’s private life” then illustrates the blog with pictures that tell a different story – unattributed pics with unknown persons photographed with Muscat. There’s no better way to not kill a rumour than by adding more fuel to the rumour. A masterpiece from the blog that excels in tailoring, bespoke suits, funny hairlines and other such morass from the area of politics of taste.

The Magritte effect. It’s all over the place. PLPN are now busy trying to be what they are not. They need to be pleasant to anyone who could promise them a vote. Labour was busy rewriting history throughout the campaign – with a “we legalised homosexuality” lie here to a “we introduced stipends and opened university” lie there… the lie found fertile ground with the enthusiastic purveyors of non-change.

I’ve said it before and will say it again. Voting labour for change is like turning your underwear inside out and putting it on again. As for PN. Well PM Gonzi’s last displays of “trust us because there is nothing better than us” is the usual case of too little too late in many fields. It’s 2008 all over again. Vote for us to keep out the unelectable dinosaur that is labour. While there’s no denying at this point that the mascara riddled Labour party is a disaster in waiting, there’s also no denying that Gonzi’s PN failed on many counts to deal with the issues that were already pressing in 2008 – topmost among which is the issue of proportional representation in parliament.

Had these issues been dealt with we would not be speaking of wasted votes and insulting thousands of voters who could be about to vote positively (and not for the lesser evil default) with more confidence. 5 years ago they were busy backing up JPO to the hilt in order to scrape as many votes as possible (which they did). They told many to put their priorities of representation to the side and get the PN in – their priorities would be dealt with later.

Here we are again. 2013. This time voters have a clear and open opportunity to show that they see through the Magritte effect. They have a chance to use their vote positively and elect someone who can guarantee he will represent their interests even from the benches of the opposition.

In a campaign that is bereft with lies and faux promises the only party that has shown consistency and a consistency that yearns to be at your service is alternattiva demokratika.

A vote for alternattiva is a vote for real representation. It is a vote for change.

Don’t waste yours on fake effects. Don’t waste your vote. Vote AD.

Categories
Campaign 2013

The Coalition Lie

As I said, it was inevitable that the attacks on Alternattiva would take a turn for the worse as the election got closer. The inevitability is also the result of two particular traits of the main parties. The Nationalist party thrives on the belief of being the “obvious” choice and therefore that most voters voting AD (who are somehow intelligent but not intelligent enough) are lost votes. Labour on the other hand still believes that everyone is against it and that every vote has to be “won” from elsewhere. In short the Nationalist party wins elections if it does not lose votes, Labour wins them if it gains them – at least by their reasoning where votes are “owned” from the start.

The latest attacks on AD come in the form of the “governance vs coalition” and at least they spare us the insult of considering a vote for AD as a lost or wasted vote. What they do instead is remind the voter of the total and absolute flop of the last PN government insofar as infighting was concerned and what that did to the stability of government. Well here’s the hitch… or more than one…

It’s not a coalition, stupid.

We dealt with this and nipped it in the bud. The PN machine tried all that it could to call the PN-JPO settlement a coalition. It was anything but that. Neither was the uncomfortable entente moins que cordiale with Franco Debono. You’d have to be stupid, blinkered or partisan to call it a coalition. It was a cohabitation of sorts. The main reason is simple – JPO, Debono and the rest of the PN members ran on the same party ticket. When Lawrence Gonzi went to the President with the confident assertion that he could form a majority (relative majority) government in parliament he went with the knowledge that a majority of parliamentarians had run on the same ticket with the same promises and the same projects in mind. You cannot form a coalition with yourself. Simples. You can call it a coalition. You can illude yourself with the terminology but the truth is that Debono and JPO came through last elections with the full backing and support of the PN vote winning machine. Your party, your members, your problem. Do not dare compare them to a fledgling party with clear and precise policies and conditions for a coalition.

How real coalitions are built.

First of all it’s an interesting sign that neither Gonzi nor Muscat dared deny the possibility of a coalition – 11 days before the election. I don’t believe them one bit. Neither of them. But publicly they cannot afford to seem intransigent with a potential third party in parliament before the eggs are hatched. In practice though they will unleash the negative campaign because they cannot afford to share their precioussss with someone else. Which is ridiculous.

Coalitions are not a zero-sum game. They are built on compromise. An interesting question that has not been asked (but should be asked) of Michael Briguglio is what part of the Alternattiva Demokratika manifesto is not subject to discussion. As in which part of the AD manifesto would be a deal-breaker in the eventual discussions for the setting up of a coalition? Would AD insist on gay marriages or nothing for example? Are there parts of the PN/PL manifestos that AD would be intransigent on – as in they would not accept to be part of the government vote in those cases? There are multiple solutions. A coalition could agree to a free vote on the more controversial aspects of legislation – thus the coalition partners can vote in accordance to their manifesto.

Mike Briguglio will not need to stamp his feet, fake a sickie in bed or call press conferences from a field with a tea cup in hand. He will negotiate a reasonable coalition roadmap with whichever party is mature enough to listen. With luck they’ll last the full five years.

The thing is that this is a matter of negotiation based on votes and principles found in the respective manifestos – it is representative democracy in action. It is nothing like the whims and fancies of renegade PN elected members of parliament where we had power for power’s sake being at stake. Don’t swallow the lies of the Daphnes of this world who would love to atone for their sins of voting in irresponsible representatives by spreading the curse to the small party with a big heart.

And another thing. They say coalitions don’t work. I would not be surprised if a coalition with the PN or PL does not work but not for the reasons that they try to scare you with. It’s simpler. From day one the PL or PN would do their damnedest to see that the coalition does not work in the hope of forcing a new vote and winning the preciousss all for themselves. It’s in their nature. It’s in their instinct for survival.

The Anti-politics Instinct

Finally AD is not an antipolitical movement like Grillo’s M5S. It is a completely different reality. True, it can and will be used as a vehicle in Malta for those votes that are fed up with the old style politics that gives you “coalitions” with JPO but that is not the be all and end all of Malta’s green movement. AD has shown to have clear policies which are based on the citizen’s interest and not polluted with the interests of circles of power and businessmen. That alone should suffice as an incentive to vote for change and go for the AD coalition.

This election is not about choosing between the PL and PN. It’s about voting for a better, more representative parliament. This election you can be part of the vote for change.

It’s not a vote for PN or PL.

It’s a vote that’s a part of the change, stupid.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Vote AD, get AD.

So it begins. It was inevitable that the moment the PN would start to see a tiny sliver of hope it would turn on alternattiva voters like there’s no tomorrow. It has happened before and it will go on happening with the timing of a swiss clock (did I say both swiss and clock in one phrase?) so long as the current rules of the game apply. Potential AD voters are targeted and accused of being irresponsible or of not knowing how to work out the math because it is obvious that if AD did not exist they would be voting anything but the dangerous, dangerous labour. But that is not the point is it? Here is what you should be thinking.

PLPN don’t own your vote

It’s the whole point of a campaign. At the start of a campaign it is assumed that no party has a guaranteed vote. It is supposed to earn them  with its proposals and plans. It is supposed to convince you. So to begin with your vote is not owned by anyone. If you chose to vote AD then no other party “loses” votes since it did not have them in the first place. Only arrogant parties who believe that the world is divided between partisan hotheads and “switchers” (the new floaters) believe that votes are “lost”. Voting AD means sending out a number of messages. It means that you have seen what the party has to offer and that you believe that you are best represented in parliament by that party.

It’s not about governance stupid

Oh. They will tell you that one of the two main parties needs a clear majority to be able to govern with stability. You are irresponsible if you let AD get in the way of the stability. But what does stability mean currently? It means that the PLPN can “govern” for five years and steamroller over the minority. Remember we had a relative majority government – 49% of the people for the last five years. That government failed to change the laws relating to electoral representation notwithstanding the fact that it had used and abused the flaws of representation last time round. Yes, five years back we had the same issues – party flag waving opinion columnists accused ad voters of setting themselves up as objects of hate right before voting in the stable government of JPO (number one in Bidnija), Franco Debono and Jesmond Mugliett. We were told then (remember Dudu?) that we should give priority to keeping Sant out then the PN would magically reform the electoral nonsense and give the world a fairer system. Ha!

Five years on

Voting AD is a statement. A positive one. It has nothing to do with tribal politics and everything to do with it. Right now AD carries the sole responsibility of being the third alternative. Ideally you would be voting AD because you found their proposals convincing. Another reason would be your refusal to be an accomplice to the PLPN hegemony – and that is becoming an important reason too. This campaign has shown us more than ever the true colours of the PLPN. Both parties are deeply indebted to wider circles of power prominent among which are the business community. They are parties that can shrug off a quarter of a million load as though it was everyday business, they deal in bartering and they seem to be inexplicably able to fund multi-millionaire campaigns.

You might have an inbuilt sympathy for one of the two parties that might come from an upbringing within a partisan milieu – the kind that the Labour Courage video tried to tap – but that does not make you a nationalist or labourite. It might help you find it easier not to vote for one of the parties and a little less easier not to vote for another. It’s a bad habit though nothing more. Remember nobody owns your vote. Your vote needs to be deserved. It cannot be won over on the eve of an election with the usual fear-mongering.

You reflected. You saw the rot that the PLPN have given us and the rot they are promising to propagate. You chose to vote AD and are determined to vote AD come election day. Nobody is losing your vote. Your vote goes towards making history. Towards change.

Nivvota AD. Ghax ma nibzax minnek.

Categories
Campaign 2013

L’antipolitica

Italy’s election result was not a great surprise insofar as Grillo’s M5S movement was concerned. By the time the election came round it was clear that the Grillini (though not all would be happy to be called so) had managed to garner a significant portion of the vote and that they would have an important impact on the final result. The Movimento 5 Stelle represents the first huge European movement that posits itself in direct opposition to the old style of doing politics. It is not a political party but rather an anti-political party – a movement that is combatting the old style of doing politics.

So far so good. The M5S has catapulted itself to the position of largest party insofar as number of votes go. Its leader (or image man), who cannot himself run for office because of the movement’s self-imposed strict rules (Grillo was charged with involuntary homicide over a car accident in 1981) is taking a side-role which he has enigmatically compared to that of Lucius Quinctus Cincinnatus. The movement cannot and will not govern. Without any experience in managing a nation, the M5S probably sees this situation as a best case scenario – in a protagonist’s position that can observe, learn and where necessary filibuster or block. The M5S may have been vociferous about the ills of the nation but proposing solutions beyond the cleansing of the political methodology was never within its style.

The Italians or at least a good third of them voted once again for il Cavaliere. It says much of an electorate when a good part of it still views a convicted tax evader (among other things) as a proper option for representation and governance. On the other hand Italy’s left (the moderate centre-left variety) has proven once again that it finds it ever so hard to send out a convincing rallying call that wins a sufficiently large chunk of the vote.

The election result turns out to be a mix of anti-politics and investment in the two old post-92 blocks with Mario Monti’s group registering a disappointing figure. Was austerity on people’s minds when they voted? I’m not too sure it was the primary consideration. A vote for Berlusconi meant voting for a figure who has made no secrets of his disdain of European or German plans for facing the economic crisis. A vote for Bersani would have been a vote towards the Merkel way. The M5S is a popular movement that gathered around the immediacy of the net in a sort of post-modern proto-communist method of aggregation. Admirably it survived the dangers of infighting sufficiently to face the election as a unified force. It is not too strong on policy and is mostly a mani-pulite reprise that is more directly active in the political sphere. Monti’s group represented the measures taken until now and the electoral result clearly shows what the italians think of that.

Where does antipolitics take us? First of all this is the beginning of the concretisation of the fact that a sufficiently large number of voters recognise the need to do away with the old-style politicians who have taken us for a ride. Antipolitics and its representatives are not the final solution or the antidote to old style politics but rather they are a provocation – a catalyst for the need for change that comes from without and not from within. It would be mistaken to judge the success or failure of antipolitical movements such as M5S by whether or not a government is formed or whether or not stability is guaranteed.

Their mission is not governance or stability. Their mission is to force the hand of the nation to change. It is Lampedusa turned on its head:

Se vogliamo che tutto cambi, bisogna che tutto cambi.

Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus.

Categories
Campaign 2013

More J’accuse in Oz

Another interview with Marlene Cassandra Galea on SBS Radio in Australia. This time we discuss “tribalism” among other things.