Category: Politics

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

Article 42, ISIS and neutrality

article42_akkuza

There has been quite a flutter in Malta since Francois Hollande decided to invoke article 42(7)  of the Lisbon Treaty. Even without the eccentric shenanigans of former PM Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, questions were being raised as to how and to what extent Malta would be committed thanks to this invocation. I thought of providing a little Q&A, just like in parliament, but without the nigi hemm u nifqghek bits.

1. First of all, what does Article 42(7) state?

Article 42 (7) TEU states:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

2. So. This means war right?

No it does not. At least not in the sense that the army blessed and formed in the image of Manuel Mallia will be sent to the front to stand shoulder to shoulder with peshmergas. Nor does it mean that we will have AFM troops patrolling the Champs Elysees any time soon. The emphasis in article 42(7) is on aid and assistance and, more specifically, on the fact that the “security and defence policy” of certain Member States should not be prejudiced. This means two things:

a) Firstly, it means that any state invoking article 42(7) can negotiate individually with any other Member State (and crucially without the need to use any of the EU institutions) any temporary form of aid and assistance.  Each Member State is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary, which does not necessarily mean the deployment of military assets.

b) Secondly, and more importantly in the eyes of many in Malta, the fact that the security and defence policy of certain Member States is clearly invoked is a direct reference to the ‘neutral’ status of states such as Ireland, Austria and Finland – to give an example of some others. What that means is that notwithstanding any interpretation of military intervention that might be given by states dealing under this article, this obligation stops when the security and defence policy of certain States does not allow it. The second paragraph referring to NATO commitments is a further reinforcement of this distinction.

3. Oh so we are not at war then.

That’s a nice one. Modern politicians of the Hollande mould have a tendency to slip quickly into the language of war once a terrorist attack takes place. This “tradition” is new to this century ever since Commander in Chief Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda. Unlike the 70s and 80s when a terrorist bomb attack or shooting never really translated to a casus belli the political psyche of the post 9/11 words seems to require such heavy handed references and we are living in an age where France will now even try to provoke the UN to declare a war on a state whose existence nobody beyond the self-declared caliphate acknowledges.

Still. In the microcosm of Muscat’s land,  we will first engage in a debate of “neutrality” clauses in our constitution. The significance of such clauses dwindles into nothing when one considers that they were intended to deal with a specific battle between superpowers (a battle that no longer exists) and that in any case they would be invoked in case of a war between states – and not neutrality in the face of the war on terrorism. Another thing, Muscat’s government spent most of its legislature whingeing about the fact that immigration problems are a common problem that should be faced and borne equally by all EU states.

Calling oneself out of the fight on terrorism by relying on an outdated and practically inapplicable neutrality clause is hypocritical to say the least. By saying this I am not advocating participation by Malta on military activity but rather that Malta’s attitude towards security and its contribution to ensuring that the borders of the European Unoion are impervious to terrorists leaves much to be desired. From the Algeria VISA scandal, laughed off by our Chief Salesman to the thousands of Libyan Residencies to the continued insistence of this government to transform Malta into one big trojan horse for entry into the EU… these are ample examples as to how Malta’s contribution to the war on terror could be vastly improved.

4. Where does that leave us?

Well it leaves us with an EU that is gearing up to battle the amorphic monster that is “terrorism” with a series of knee-jerk reactions. It leaves us with a government in Malta that ironically needs to wake up and smell the coffee for the reasons outlined above.

Most of the time, it seems, it leaves us reverting to the centuries old adage: si vis pacem, para bellum.

Categories
Corruption

The truth about convenience

truth_akkuza

Saviour Balzan’s performance at yesterday’s Public Accounts Committee must have been a sight for sore eyes and Lord do we have sore eyes on the island. In many ways Balzan has become the champion of all the “hekk hu go fik” stalwarts who will never get enough of (as Ian Borg put it) getting an orgasm out of imagining worse places in their hell that would be reserved for what is left of GonziPN. Part of the reason may very well be that more often than not Balzan gives the impression that he operates on the very kind of substance that fuels (excuse the pun) this kind of voter.

Of course your average voter has every prerogative to elect to vote on the basis of partisan zeal, inbuilt prejudice and repressed anger. The urge to wave the flag in the face of opponents and yell about some tkaxkira is also a prerogative protected by the constitution and the right to universal suffrage. Yes, we are doomed to have the fate of our nation determined by the insufferable partisan who will go on weighing the aptitude of a party to govern not by its potential but by contrasting it to what is perceived as the virulent other.

Not Saviour though, he is a public person as in he is an editor of what for all intents and purposes is a newspaper. Yesterday Owen “the law” Bonnici kick started the waltz of connivance with this “editor” with what he called a “preambolu” (preamble). He informed all and sundry that as the editor of a paper Balzan would not be obliged to divulge his sources. True. Very true. Also redundant. It was just Bonnici’s way of tucking Balzan comfortably in his seat short of providing tea and biscuits and a nice warm cover. I switched off the radio at that point and have the various newspaper reports to go on for what happened after.

First a preamble of my own. What follows will surely provide the various sycophants of the Taghna Lkoll litter to call this blog a “nationalist blog” or a “poison pen” (though we may be older and wiser as a blog but not as important in the machinery and cogs of the system). Experience has shown that worrying about this form of accusation is like worrying that it is raining: best to put on a good waterproof jacket and not get mixed up in the mud that inevitably forms. Let the future be my judge.

Speaking of judges, that was the first impression that Balzan’s deposition seems to give: Judge Balzan was in court. Comfortably seated and welcomed by Bonnici he dispensed opinions as though they were edicts from a judicial platform. “George Farrugia should have been tried in court.” “Lawrence Gonzi lied.” “Tancred Tabone was a scapegoat.” “Tancred Tabone might have been Austin Gatt’s cousin”. In what he probably believes to have been his finest moment he spun and linked story after story, confident in the fact that “his sources are protected” to lead to the culminating “bombshell” (not my words, but one of the papers chose this term). The Shell out of court settlement with the PN government as compensation for having missed out on some tenders. The big news? Simon Busuttil was the lawyer for Shell.

Now, not having the benefit of Balzan’s disgruntled sources (I will assume you can see that for yourself – the disgruntled bit I mean) I can still try to piece together the “facts” provided by Balzan and ask a few honest questions.

  1. There seems to be sufficient evidence pointing to a network of information that led to a skewered oil procurement policy that took place under a nationalist government watch. So far so good. We did not even need Balzan to see that far.
  2. The conflicting evidence as to who was in it up to his teeth and who was not seems to arise from the fact that it all depends on who you accept as source. Would it be George Farrugia the whistleblower? Would it be the Farrugia brothers who according to Balzan’s song were approached as whistleblowers but later dropped in favour of their brother?
  3. Light bulb – as Gru would say. Could it be that those who are now claiming to be victims and unwanted whistleblowers have found a place to vent their side of the story in Balzan?
  4. Could it be that the convenience of these internecine wars and shady suspicions falls right in the lap of Bonnici’s Labour – happy enough to tag along with any mud that is thrown inter partes so long as some of it can be made to sound like it sticks to GonziPN?
  5. And in the light of 4 above, what better manna from heaven than a non-sequitur about a retainer held by the current leader of the nationalist party for an oil company with regards to an out of court settlement related to procurement of AVIATION FUEL that has nothing to do with the procurement of Farrugia’s oil? The important thing for Bonnici and his party is that Busuttil’s name was finally dropped in the context of the Oil Procurement scandal – no matter how vaguely. For the man in the street busily “orgasming” (Ian Borg again) on the GonziPN links this must be heaven. For Muscat a welcome distraction from GaffarenaGate, ChinaGate, ChrisCardonaGate, PremierGate, ODZGate, SandroChetcutiGatesandTowers… heavens where do I stop?
  6. Then there was that bit of magic about Gonzi lying that he did not know Farrugia’s wife – because he regularly received chain prayers from her. Which of course would make me best friends with most Nigerians who insist on trying to send me money at every opportunity they get. The Prime Minister passed on whatever information was received to the secret services but apparently, according to Judge Balzan, they went about their work maladroitly. Of course that should raise questions about the secret service, the police and more but we are not in the PAC for that are we? We need to find mud that sticks.
  7. Finally there’s Austin Gatt. Never a beloved minister. Neither he nor his minions and now MPs were ever going to be seen in a good light of even the most moderate of PN supporters let alone the “hekk hu go fik” brigade. It gets a bit confusing because at one point Tancred Tabone is highlighted as being both the “scapegoat” of the situation as well as the (possible) cousin of the minister. Claudio Grech is guilty of arrogance – I wonder if it is of the same type that we get whenever PM Muscat gets asked an uncomfortable question.

There are worrying implications that result from the Oil Procurement Scandal. In my opinion the most worrying of all the things that Balzan implied yesterday was in fact the weather-vane approach adopted by the police depending on who is in government. That something was definitely amiss in the oil  procurement methods is not hard to deduce. That it is all being lost in a desperate attempt by the government and people bearing grudges against Gonzi’s PN (and now the current PN) to change this into an anti-PN crusade is shameful to say the least.

Our class of politicians – all of it – is what we have as representatives. They are obliged to perform their representative duties in full respect of the mechanisms of democracy, particularly by ensuring that the guarantees of constitutional checks and balances are strong and fully functional. The PN’s efforts at changing and morphing into a party that has left behind the malaise of GonziPN must stick within these parameters. Labour has by now shown clearly that it has no intention to follow the rules of the accountability game.

Moments of “glory” such as these for Saviour Balzan will go down well with the Taghna Lkoll crowd. His convenient (though mostly irrelevant) name dropping will be applauded in most circles. Such moments will do close to nothing to further the cause of solving the problem of corruption that has been clawing at the heart of our system under bipartisan blessing. Worse still they will do nothing at all to open the eyes of the people to the rampant corruption that is taking place daily before their eyes.

So long as the Pied Piper can play the tune….and it seems that it’s an LP… a 10 year tune in fact.

 

 

Categories
Politics

A horse for Prime Minister

cleverhans_akkuza

Let me tell you about Clever Hans. A few years before the end of the 19th century, 1895 to be exact, a horse who would be named Hans was born. Hans was owned by an eccentric guy called Wilhelm von Osten who had taken it upon himself to prove that given the right education animals could be as intelligent as humans. His didactic experiments kicked off with a bear, a cat and, of course, Hans the horse. The bear and cat soon fell back in their studies but Hans was very promising.

In fact, as Wikipedia reports, “Hans was said to have been taught to add, subtract, multiply, divide, work with fractions, tell time, keep track of the calendar, differentiate musical tones, and read, spell, and understand German. Von Osten would ask Hans, “If the eighth day of the month comes on a Tuesday, what is the date of the following Friday?” Hans would answer by tapping his hoof. Questions could be asked both orally, and in written form. Von Osten exhibited Hans throughout Germany, and never charged admission. Hans’s abilities were reported in The New York Times in 1904.” (see here for more)

Hans’ prodigious efforts attracted much attention, especially among the scientific community eager to see whether it was true that a horse could be as intelligent as a human being. Based on the type of problems Hans solved it had been estimated that the horse had acquired the intelligence of a 14-year old human. Fascinating. Better still, a panel of scientists and experts tested Hans (twice) and reported that they could find no evidence for fraud. That is until a psychologist named Oscar Pfungst studied Hans a little more and found the “trick”. There was no fraudulent intent really and everyone involved had simply been duped by a very, very clever horse. In fact what Hans had been actually doing was not answering problems but watching the reactions of human observers.

Whether answering by tapping his hoof or nodding his head, Hans had learnt to “read” whoever was watching him. The psychologist observed that whoever was testing Hans gave off “indicators” whenever Hans was approaching the right answer. Hans’s interrogators actually prompted his actions by the movement of their heads for example. When the interrogator’s head bent forward, Hans kicked off his “answering”, when it went back to being straight Hans stopped. The more the interrogator inclined the head (probably out of curiosity to see the horse at work) the faster Hans’s answers were tapped. Hans was really clever – not intelligent though, simply able to read body language in an incredibly efficient manner. Pfungst noticed that the interrogators were not conscious of the fact that they were actually leading the horse to the right answer. Hans’s fame suffered the consequences of this discovery and the poor horse died during in World War I – enrolled as one of the many war horses.

The “clever hans” effect remains cited in psychology circles and led to the development of double blind tests where both the interrogator and the person replying would not know the answer to the questions being posed. I have a strong suspicion that our current Prime Minister’s first two years in charge have been greatly infused with a strong Clever Hans effect. In our case it is Clever Joseph. With a “promise the world” campaign combined with an efficient grumble machine, Muscat got elected to power with a landslide victory. His promises then needed delivering. The self-avowed salesman has been hailed as a sort of saviour of the economy and of Malta’s state of affairs notwithstanding the fact that the facts actually prove rather the contrary when examined with a long-term ruler in mind.

Yesterday’s budget reply by Simon Busuttil was yet another step in the direction of countering the Clever Hans effect that Muscat has been (and will try to continue) milking. Busuttil’s speech was criticised because apparently it did not say what alternatives a nationalist government would offer. Aside from the PN pre-budget document, which did just that, Busuttil’s speech served as the umpteenth “Emperor has no clothes” speech which is badly needed in a country of blinded interlocutors who are still strongly convinced that the horse pulling the front of the chariot is intelligent and knows what it is doing. All the while all that Clever Joseph is doing is reading their faces and telling them that what they want is what they see… and this couldn’t be further from the truth. From Magritte (ceci n’est pas une pipe) to Clever Hans (the not so intelligent horse)… a kingdom, a kingdom for a real prime minister!

Clever Joseph’s salesman antics will work for a time yet. So long as this government for a few can throw pepper in the eyes of the electorate with a few more circus acts he will go on riding the Clever Joseph wave. Simon’s litany of figures and facts will hopefully not only serve as a stern “I told you so” when it is already too late. The ominous idea of the end of EU funding in 2020 will be no laughing matter. By then Clever Joseph will have pulled out of his circus, probably having risked one trick too many.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics Rubriques

I.M. Jack : The one about the WYSINWYG

La Trahison des images (Ceci n'est pas une pipe). 1929. Oil on canvas, Overall: 25 3/8 x 37 in. (64.45 x 93.98 cm). Unframed canvas: 23 11/16 x 31 7/7 inches, 1 1/2 inches deep, 39 5/8 inches diagonal. Purchased with funds provided by the Mr. and Mrs. William Preston Harrison Collection (78.7).
La Trahison des images (Ceci n'est pas une pipe). 1929. Oil on canvas, Overall: 25 3/8 x 37 in. (64.45 x 93.98 cm). Unframed canvas: 23 11/16 x 31 7/7 inches, 1 1/2 inches deep, 39 5/8 inches diagonal. Purchased with funds provided by the Mr. and Mrs. William Preston Harrison Collection (78.7).
La Trahison des images (Ceci n’est pas une pipe). 1929. Oil on canvas,

It’s been a long time since we’ve had a quick I.M. Jack take on the major news items. The theme this week is about WYSINWYG or what seems to be the apotheosis of the governmental policy of What You See is NOT What You Get. This blog has for some time now described Muscat’s government’s actions in terms of Magritte’s “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” We are used to having this or that government representative exhort us to look for the facts beyond what our eyes can see – “what you see is not what really is” they seem to tell us. Thus the traffic clogging the sick arteries of our nation is just a question of perception, we only see lack of qualification in government appointees because we want to and the price of oil in Malta is actually cheap today if we consider that it could be cheaper in the future. Hence WYSINWYG – what you see is not what you get.

Will the real budget please stand up?

The speaker hath ruled. The real budget is not the one that was physically tabled in parliament or the one published on the government website. No the real budget is the one read by Minister Scicluna in fits and starts. The speaker’s ruling is actually an apotheosis of all that has been Taghna Lkoll until now. Do not believe the facts and figures. Only believe what we say. Anyway we have to make do with the new mantra of “genuine mistake” that seems to be as permissible with this lot as it was anathema with the previous lot.

We are genuinely mistaken

Such was the excuse when Minister Cardona once again committed a “genuine mistake” appointing a person from the bench to a government entity. The euphoria of appointments to this and that chair is such that sometimes the Ministers or their minions for whom they are directly responsible get carried away and end up signing up people who are not fit for the purpose. In this case such lack of fitness was not due to incompetence (that actually is allowed – just look at our ambassadorial appointments) but due to the fact that the person being re-nominated for a bit of the parastatal company gravy train had already been fit comfortably in the puzzle of judicial appointments – and judges and magistrates are not allowed to sit on government entities. Plus ça change.

Get him to the Greeks

Cuschieri junior is being nominated ambassador to Greece is he? And there was Tsipras thinking that he had faced his greatest challenge yet. This is the same Cuschieri whose position on the Greek debt crisis was largely influenced by very personal issues of whether or not he would be allowed to take up his seat in Strasbourg. “in the midst of the Greek bailout talks, Cuschieri called on Malta to deny the debt-afflicted state money under the EFSF lest they green-light the enlargement of the European Parliament.” (MaltaToday). Sweet isn’t it? What better man to send to Athens if not this genuine Floriana FC (and, alas, Juventus) fan?

What you did was very spiteful, but it was also very brave and very honest and I respect you for doing that. But the content of what you said has made me hate you. So there’s a layer of respect, admittedly, for your truthfulness, but it’s peppered with hate. Hateful respect. (Alduous Snow – Get Him to the Greek)

X Arab Bank

Peppi Azzopardi tried to act smart with the “patriots” of Malta. He must have reasoned that the chicken-brained reasoning that is normally spouted by intolerant bigots can be easily countered on his show. For my sins I watched the whole show on streaming. It was a disaster in many ways. It was once again a testimonial to the lack of civic education and by that I am not referring to the patriot’s lack of knowledge of the words of our national anthem. Take Peppi’s bold assertion that it is up to members of parliament to interpret the law – and that since a member of parliament has stated publicly that wearing the burqa is not illegal then so it is. Not it isn’t Peppi. Members of parliament form part of our legislative branch. They legislate. What they do not do is interpret. That is up to the courts to do. It’s part of this little game called separation of powers. You could be forgiven Peppi, with this government the whole concept of accountability and respect of the separation of powers is fast going up in smoke. We are left with a nation that is in search of its basic values and still trying hard to understand how the whole “liberal democracy” thingy works.

Labels

Labels tend to help us understand who we are and who our interlocutors are. It has become a common occurrence though to maliciously use labels for sweeping statements and assumptions. When an arab loses his mind in Paceville and goes on a stabbing rampage then it is a cue for “immigrants out” and for patriots to charge through Valletta or Birzebbugia like a bunch of oafs on a xalata. If an assembly of Croats and Serbs decide to re-enact part of the Balkan issues on St Rita Steps in Paceville the same reaction is not forthcoming. We have said it many a time: a crime is a crime is a crime – irrespective of who is committing it and irrespective of who the victim is. The confusion that results out of trying to define aggravations based on colour, race or gender (or lack thereof) of the aggressor or victim only serve to compound the melting-pot of intolerance that our country is fast changing into. We have now had news of a priest who was arrested on charges of pedophilia. Cue the hypocrite anti-frock crowd to once again come out en masse barking agains “the church”, “religion” or “priesthood”. What a load of bollocks. The crime would be a crime if the person accused were a plumber, a nurse, a footballer or whatever other profession you may think of. It is heinous, punishable and condemnable. What it is not is testimony that one particular profession is more prone towards it than others. Pointing fingers at “the church” is tantamount to accusing “arabs” after a Libyan goes on rampage in Paceville.

Traffic

It will never be solved. Not without a fascist unelected government of wise men and women. Only then could the Maltese “suffer” the imposition of a car-free island where most money is spent on an efficient common transport system. Reducing the car amount to a bare minimum can only be dreamt of so long as politicians pander to the perceived “needs” of a population that has been bred to be “hurt” (read: throw a tantrum) whenever it does not get what it wants.

Maybe that is why Taghna Lkoll fares so well among the Maltese. More often than not they are led to believe that they are getting what they always wanted – irrespectively of the fact that what they see is not actually what they had hoped for.

Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain. – Nicolo Macchiavelli

 

Categories
Politics

History Lessons

hungary1956_akkuza

Imre et lui déposèrent un dossier pour demander le statut de réfugiés politiques. L’hypocrite Rousseau qui dirigeait le service s’ingéniait a mettre des bâtons dans les roues des Hongrois qui affluaient. Comment prouver que vous êtes un fugitif, que votre vie est menacée quand vous avez quitte votre pays dans l’affolement?

– Il me faut des preuves, vous comprenez? C’est facile de dire que vous êtes pourchasses par la police politique. Si les Soviétiques sont intervenus, c’est a la demande du gouvernement hongrois que je sache et pour sauver ce pays de la contre-révolution des petits propriétaires. L’écrasante majorité de vos compatriotes approuve. Si ça se trouve, vous avez fui la Hongrie parce-que vous êtes délinquants ou que vous n’avez pas payez vos impôts. C’est a vous de me fournir les preuves, pas a moi. Pour l’instant, votre dossier est vide. Quand il passera en commission, vous avez intérêt a ce qu’il y ait du sérieux a l’intérieur. Sinon, ce sera refus. La France n’est pas une terre d’accueil pour les voyous étrangers! On a assez avec les nôtres.

(From Le Club des Incorrigibles Optimistes, Jean-Michel Guenassia) see translation below.

The lessons of history. We seem to have failed them. One of the biggest lessons that history teaches us is that man is constantly on the move. Whether conquering fellow man or discovering new worlds, homo sapiens sapiens has proven to be quite the globetrotter. Historic displacements have also been the misfortune of whole peoples from the biblical chosen people to the mass exodus of the sons of africa enslaved in their millions and taken to the new world. Few nations can claim to never have been part of a force or intended migration.

Orban’s Hungary is currently sticking out as a major opposer to any form of influx while building walls of discord and distaste. Only 49 years ago the people of Hungary had themselves tried to rebel against an oppressive communist inspired regime. By November 1956, the Soviet tanks had entered Budapest, purportedly upon invitation of the government of the time in order to quell the revolution. The sons of the soviets are now in Syria, supposedly on invitation of the benign Assad with the added excuse of fighting off the forces of the hated ISIS. The civil war and strife in Syria has displaced millions in a story now known to all.

It is part of those millions that are finding it hard to navigate the frontiers of Europe – particularly in places like Hungary where people with a very short memory seem to ask many questions about the real status of these migrants.

A short memory can be the downfall of us all. Much worse than a foreign invasion.

Read more about the Hungarian Revolution here.

“In the immediate aftermath, many thousands of Hungarians were arrested. Eventually, 26,000 of these were brought before the Hungarian courts, 22,000 were sentenced, 13,000 imprisoned, and several hundred executed. Hundreds were also deported to the Soviet Union, many without evidence. Approximately 200,000 fled Hungary as refugees.”

 

—

TRANSLATION OF TEXT:

Imre and him submitted a dossier requesting political refugee status. The hypocrite Rousseau who ran the service specialised in putting spokes in the wheels of the flood of Hungarians who were arriving.

– I need proof, you understand? It is easy to say that you are chased by the political police. As far as I know, the Soviets intervened because your government invited them to do so, and this to save the country from the counter-revolution of the small owners. The crushing majority of your compatriots approuve. It could very well be that you escaped Hungary because you are delinquents or you have not paid your taxes. It’s up to you to prove this, not up to me. For the moment your dossier is empty. When it ends up before the commission you should very well hope that there is something more substantial inside. If not, it will be a refusal. France is not a welcome land for foreign hooligans! We have had enough of our own.

Categories
Politics

Donations and Donations

donations_akkuza

Donations to political parties were already a hot topic during the last election campaign. We all remember the explanations given by Paul Borg Olivier regarding what amounted to the practice of “trading and barter” between the PN and commercial “supporters” of the party. Doubts were also raised about the Labour party’s mysterious meetings with persons of substantial economic weight that seemed to explain the expensive electoral campaign afforded by Muscat and the Taghna Lkoll gang. During an electoral campaign it all boils down to more fodder for one or the other party but ultimately little is ever done about the links between parties and their economic “sponsors”. As for the unprofessionally drafted party financing law, don’t hold your breath if you are expecting it to change anything. It has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese – and little wonder at that for it is drafted and “fine tuned” by the very parties that are supposed to be kept in check.

More recently we have the Gaffarena scandals with Marco (of said Gaffarena descent) making much fuss about the fact that he donated monies to both parties. We’ve been there before. Sandro Chetcuti, of Malta Developers’ Association fame, also went on record in the press as to how much of his money went to line either of the main party’s pockets because “it was important to be in their good books”. There is no doubt that the structure of our political fabric is such that depends equally on having a well-oiled party funding machine as part of the greater process of achieving the Holy Grail of a place in power. The not too finely spun network of quid pro quos that follows logically from such a system of interdependence is one that belies the recent statement that “it’s not whether you took a donation that counts but whether you do anything in return”.

Such a statement alas is equivalent to ignoring the bare truth that lies before all to see. The only reason that such donations are given (whether on or off record) is to curry favour with the recipient party. In the words of the man in the street… “they owe them one”. Sometimes they owe them much more than one. The structure of our political system cannot ignore this simple state of affairs. It is useless to assume a holier than thou attitude when the general trend is to enable the giving of donations anyway. Whether you allow the donor to cash back his cheque in the future is, frankly speaking, rather irrelevant.

I for one do not doubt (and am rather glad) that the PN did not cave in to Gaffarena’s requests with regards to his Qormi petrol station but the fact of the matter remains that Gaffarena was at some point a registered or unregistered donor of the PN to the tune of a thousand or so euros. Why were such donations accepted? Because the sub-literate Gaffarena was eager to support the party ideals inspired by Don Luigi Sturzo, Rafael Caldera and Serracino Inglott? Pull the other one. The smallest donation of 1€ to the largest donation lining a party HQ in marble and snazzy furniture is all there for a purpose. It is an IOU that lies heavily on a political party’s conscience.

Labour have proven to be masters in the IOU banking service. They have taken the informal word of donations exchanged for favours and have brazenly exercised it out in the open without any ounce of shame (when they are not profiting from the expropriation and use of public land such as Australia Hall). Far from the meritocratic and transparent government the Labour movement has signified the consolidation of the hitherto subtle network of exchanges between businessmen, lobbies and politicians. Cui bono? That is the question (sadly, the only question) that can be asked of practically every measure and move under the present government. Who benefits? Laws can be altered hastily and even framework legislation (such as that for planning and environent) radically reformed simply to be able to allow donors and supporters to cash cheques. This is no system of donations to support a roadmap… it is a direct consequence of cosi fan tutti reaching its final climax of corrupt obscenity. With practically no one batting an eyelid.

Creating spurious distinctions on whether the donation was “cashed” directly by some counter-move does not help in uncovering the deep-set malaise that both underpins and (ironically enough) undermines our political system. Accepting donations from the Gaffarenas and Chetcutis of this world is wrong in any case. It is wrong because such donations have ALWAYS created an expectation for what the donor seems to perceive as a legitimate return. The fact that our political parties need to millions of euros in order to exist is neither here nor there nor an excuse for this kind of enabling of a sick network.

A new style of politics is one that clearly creates a huge distance between profiteering businessmen and the political parties. It is one that reneges on developing money hungry political parties and concentrates on a system where the boundary lines between policy making and benficiaries of such policy are clear. We are very far from that ever happening. Frankly it might be too late.