J’accuse feels obliged to be its usual cynical self. The news from home is that everybody with a keyboard or a pen has been worked up into a frenzy about the Malta – Libya relationship now that the Mad Dog has exhibited evident signs of the late stages of rabies. The fog of war – or the blinding light of international attention – seems to have turned our collective media machine into an exhibitionist three year old eager to show the dinner guests its latest development in potty training.
Where do we start?
Chapter 1: The “I told you so” brigade
No you didn’t. Forget partisan divides, forget the finger pointing to Mintoff’s or Tonio Borg’s cuddling up to the Michael Jackson lookalike. We’ve been living in the shadow of Muammar for as long as he’s been there. He’s been a permanent fixture in the World Constellation so inevitably his proximity to our tiny nation could not have been ignored. Our leaders chose invariably the option of kowtowing to the Libyan threat via at first enthusiastic then reluctant cooperation. I do not recall anybody yelling “foul” at the different depths of government strategy of coping with Ghaddafi.
Not until the Egypt revolution was almost over did we hear the first yelps of anti-Ghaddafism – yelps that could be translated to let’s do something to stop encouraging the leader. Until then we had all remained mum about the flow of investment and collaboration between successive Maltese governments and Ghaddafi. After all, since the end of the US embargo it HAS been a free for all.
Of course there were a few tut-tuts and mellow barks along the way (last one was when Ghaddafi awarded Mintoff his eccentric prize) but on the whole one can confidently state that the Maltese people were quite content to settle down around a system of forgetful appeasement. Brothers in Libya my arabic back side.
Now we are divided between those in who one corner practically wear the revolutionary hat while plotting complex evacuation plans and calling for the government to save the businessmen and the brains in the other corner who stare a democratic uprising in the face and can only see the threat of immigrant invasion.
I gave up waiting for Ghaddafi’s “imminent TV speech” on SKY news after about an hour or so. I ended up watching his two-minute intervention this morning and what a sight that was. The dictator sat inside an old car holding up an umbrella and claimed that he was on his way to the Green Square to address the youths but had been held back by the rain. Meanwhile, reports from Tripoli – scant as they were – told us that the rain was really a shower of bombs and semi-automatic guns fired on the protesting crowd. The situation in Libya is turning into the greatest nightmare among the Jasmine revolutions but we should have expected this and more from Colonel Ghaddafi.
Here’s the J’accuse take on the goings-on:
One report had Ghaddafi’s men handing out meat, sugar, salt and other food as well as promising places in University or civil service positions in exchange for support. We are used to politicians buying the support of their electorate through the notion of favours – Malta in the eighties comes to mind as the most glaring example – but I was still shocked to see how far the control of the dictator could go to be able to convince people to renege liberty and freedom with the promise of food on the table or an education. Next time we wonder about the cost of education we should have this particular exchange in mind.
It has become evident that the Colonel has given orders for armed forces to bomb/shoot upon the people. This is the ultimate sign that any claim of popular sovereignty has whithered away. When a supposed leader of the people – whether a King, a President or a Prime Minister chooses to shoot upon his own people it is the ultimate sign that he is no longer their representative or guardian. This fact was reinforced by the defection of the two pilots to Malta and by the fact that it is clear now that Ghaddafi is relying on mercenary African forces flown in to shoot upon the people (the price quoted varies from $12k to $18k per mercenary). The Libyan envoy to the UN and a number of ambassadors as well as Ministers of Ghaddafi’s government were outraged by the use of force on their own people. Some resigned, others called on the UN to act and at least one General was under house arrest for refusing to obey orders.
The question arises whether an intervention by an international force is warranted at this point. Given the fact that Ghaddafi is no longer acting in the interests of his own people and that it is international (albeit mercenary) mercenary forces that are doing the damage is it still possible for the UN to tread on tip toes around the issue fearing that an intervention in “internal affairs” would spark a dangerous precedent? There is the fear of a split of the Libyan state along the Benghazi/Tripoli fault-lines but is that enough of a deterrent to intervention by a UN peace force? The democratic right to protest is at the foundation of the Jasmine revolutions. Until now governments have been swayed by the public demonstration of peaceful masses with limited loss of life. Libya opens a new chapter as the Colonel clings to power through brute force. How will the UN react? The Russian and Chinese seats at the Security Council must be very hot at the moment.
Ghaddafi’s regime has acted swiftly to cut most communication in and out of Libya. Surprisingly the shutdown has been quite effective leading to frustrating news items across the board from CNN to SKY to Al Jazeera. The internet still offers small windows over the goings on as J’accuse has shown via the Libya17feb stream on livestream.com. This has been another effect of the Jasmine Revolutions. The Idiot’s Guide for Despots in Trouble is being written as we speak. Chapter 1 is a huge chapter on effective counter-communication. Ghaddafi’s henchmen patrol the streets with loudspeakers and the phone and internet systems are down. The role of information is crucial to an effective revolution. That and roundabouts or squares.
Green Square joins Tahrir Square and Bahrain’s Pearl Circle in the panoply of revolutionary sites. Ghaddafi recognised this and used the Square as bait – apparently giving orders for the mercenaries to wait for people to assemble in the square before randomly opening fire. The butchery took place at night and then, as witnessed by fleeing tourists, the Ghaddafi team cleaned the square from all signs of violence in the morning: just in time for the first news of a calm and quiet Green Square. Until now the only call for assembly and unity in a Middle Eastern/Arab country that was not heeded was in Syria. Yemen, Jordan and Bahrain have all witnessed popular marches or protests – as has Iran. The latter is the other nation where a violent reaction by the rulers is to be expected.
On the periphery of the action we had David Cameron becoming the first foreign leader to visit Egypt after the revolution. Sadly Cameron was accompanied by eight leaders of the arms industry in what was evidently a sales pitch for the UKArms market. Cameron’s protest that the UK has very strict sales conditions will not have impressed many observers.
Business is business and J’accuse does feel the need to express solidarity with all the Maltese workers caught up in Libya and attempting to get out of the nightmare (that includes the Fenechs… good luck Chris). There is however a tinge of hypocricy in the way some blogs have highlighted Malta’s interests in the Libyan revolution. First of all J’accuse is not at all sympathetic of all those who have in the past gone to bed with Ghaddafi and his regime in order to set up shop with the blessing of a dictator. If you are comfortable making money with his blessing then don’t expect tears of compassion if your investments go up in smoke with the first sign of democratic change. Funny how some people can weep rivers of tears for sweat shops in India, Pakistan or China but then have no qualms about Maltese investments in Libya for example. Business no?
Finally there was the appeal from some quarters – notably the Runs – for everyone and his brother to drop everything and concentrate on Libya. Forget about the divorce debate and glue yourselves to television waiting for the latest news? What exactly are we meant to be stopping the nation for? A Ghaddafi announcement? Or maybe, just maybe, the divorce discussion is has meant the shit hitting the fan for too many people and the Libyan revolution is a welcome distraction. Sure we are concerned with Libya and what is going on. Sure it must given its due relevance but spare us the bullshit of wanting to stop everything else. You’ve got to love the Runs’ logic by the way… here’s the best screamer of the lot:
“…it makes more sense […] to have people vote for or against divorce in the general election in two years’ time. Those who are against divorce can vote for the Nationalist Party, which has taken a position against it. Those who are for divorce can vote for… nobody, because Labour has not taken a position in favour of it…”
She doesn’t get it does she? In case anyone with half a brain in their head is reading…. there is a party with a clear position in favour of divorce. It’s just that Daphne Caruana Galizia would rather pretend that it doesn’t exist. At least until she can come up with some other wild story like the Harry Vassallo VAT saga come next election…
Over the past few weeks the intelligent Maltese voter has had the opportunity to witness at first hand the abdication of its politicians from their duty as effective representatives. Two of the three branches of an effective democracy have been all but neutered and hijacked in the name of political opportunism. This opportunism is a direct result of the constitutional interpretation of our politic by the two main parties fettered as they are by the chains that they have wrought around our constitution through practice and custom.
Government and parliament have shed aside their duties towards the electorate and engaged in a battle of confutation motivated by their eternal short-term concern for the 50+1 Holy Grail and in absolute defiance of any representative logic. The first foul committed was the turning the debate over a civil right into the cliché ridden political football we have long gotten used to. The second, greater foul, was the treating of the electorate like a cheap strumpet – easily bought and easily shed away. In this there is no distinction to be made between the conservative nationalist heritage and that of the progressive labourite – both are contriving to scrape the bottom of the barrel of zero-sum partisanism where losing out only means surviving in opposition warming the benches of the smaller side of parliament.
J’accuse would like to denounce this sorry state of our nation and its inability to maturely discuss an issue such as the civil right to remarry. I have prepared my inquisitorial accusation on the following points:
I accuse the partisan parties of PLPN of willfully failing to treat a civil right with the dignity and relevance it deserves, of falsely imputing moral reasons to their machinations and shenanigans when it is blatantly evident that the paramount concern is the electoral vote come the next round of elections;
I accuse the conservative and supposedly progressive parties of failing to assert a basic set of principles which they believe in and in which a voter could identify himself come election time, of preferring the rainbow spineless option where ‘anything goes so long as it gets us votes’;
I accuse the nationalist party of lack of conviction, of declaring that it is against the introduction of divorce while toying with the representative element of parliament by allowing a free vote to members of parliament who have absolutely no popular mandate on the issue – whose vote would consequently transform into a personal usurpation of a seat obtained by public vote and support;
I accuse the labour party of crass opportunism and of manipulation of the misinformed, of willfully misleading voters to believe that support for a referendum is tantamount to a position on divorce, of hijacking the possibility of any debate by linking a civil right issue to the making or breaking of government, of being unable to put money where its mouth is when it comes to explaining what being progressive is all about, of abusing – in the same way as the pn – of the pretext of the free vote in parliament in order to abdicate from its responsibilities;
I accuse the academic and informed establishment for not speaking out sufficiently on the ridiculous notion of submitting a decision on a civil right for a minority to the vote of the general public, of not having taken a reasoned position on the issue – whether individually or collectively in groups purposely assembled for the purpose – of why a civil right is not an issue for referenda in 2011;
I accuse the fourth estate, made up of what is left of the independent media, for having actively collaborated with the cheap thrill of “controversy” stirred up by the media machines of the partisan establishment and thus for having contributed to shifting the debate from the real point of divorce to that of “who wants a referendum” (read who is a friend of the people);
I accuse the third parties and movements (AD, pro- and anti- divorce) for not having come out strongly against the idea of a referendum, for not holding the partisan parties up to their principles, for not boycotting any referendum solution that allows the pontius pilates of this nation to thrive on confusion, for not insisting on a parliamentary solution – preferably after an election by popular mandate;
I accuse the Maltese public and voter, for whom I should have the utmost respect, for once again allowing the circus that is our representative political system to take him for yet another ride and allowing himself to be convinced that the “yes, no, maybe, depends on the majority and on how they vote” way of politics is actually a serious way of running a representative system – and for measuring the PLPN by that meter;
I accuse the Roman Catholic Church in Malta for not sufficiently believing in its power to convince believers to do the right thing in an open and liberal society where the door of divorce is open to whoever wants to take it but is not forced on anyone, of being unable to instill among its political flock the idea of an open and tolerant society in which they are free not to divorce but in which others, who might not share the same beliefs (or for whom those beliefs no longer hold true) are granted the civil right to do so, of not sufficiently believing in itself and in its capability to transmit the messages upon which the idea of indissoluble marriage is built;
I accuse myself of not having sufficiently contributed to the debate and of having allowed myself to be disheartened by the huge wave of ignorant rhetoric and opportunistic politicking that has invested the Maltese political landscape for the umpteenth time. And yes, that is a proud and pompous statement from this blogging wankellectual.
I hereby summon those who are still willing and able to take on the gargantuan movement to join J’accuse in this struggle. It is not a revolutionary struggle that will be fought in the squares with bombs and molotov cocktails. You will need a pen, the instruments of modern democratic expression – such as this blog and social networks, and plenty (but plenty) of patience.
Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter
(your knowledge is nothing when no one else knows that you know it)
We should resign ourselves to the fact that this boxing bout regarding divorce is a lost battle. A lost battle in the sense that for those of us who think that divorce is a matter to be legislated in parliament away from the “will of the majority” discourse in the name of a sane society this current round has nothing left to offer. We can wait, as many have begun to augur, for the next election – hoping that one or more parties puts divorce on its manifesto and bears the responsibility of doing what is expected of a party in politics.
Meanwhile a big red warning light has just lit up to the west of Malta. The calmer seas coupled with Tunisia’s governmental turmoil have now meant that getting onto one of the immigrant boats direction Europe has become as easy as catching a bus – if you have the right amount of dinars. The problem is that given the laxity of controls and the sudden higher availability of the service suppliers (no need to go underground, no need to hide, just own a boat and point it to Sicily) the price of a trip will perforce go down – and that means more desperate immigrants. Worse still if pre-revolution conditions were catastrophic what about now? What about those who have no time to wait to see if the change will really work?
It’s time for Malta to wake up and smell the coffee. Italy is already drowning under the impact of the new waves. Only last night 977 immigrants disembarked in Lampedusa. The numbers are expected to explode. Prevention and foresight is better than cure. Tonio Borg and the rest of the team must get onto the Italian business pronto and double the efforts of coordinating an EU plan and reaction to the problem. Above all someone should sit the young opportunistic upstart at Dar it-Trasparenza and brief him on the seriousness of the problem before he decides to either find a way to blame the government for this new wave or worse still, to offer to create some new Dejma or Dirghaajn il-Maltin using the immigrant travellers as unsuspecting slave labour. With the kind of advisors he has now I wouldn’t be surprised.
What came first? The chicken or the egg? We might never know the answer to that one but what we do know is that the PN conclave has taken a position about taking a position on divorce. It’s not really a full position on divorce unless you engage in philosophical somersaults tantamount to the Catholic Credo of the Holy Trinity or, if you want a less blasphemic comparison to the separation of powers in the EU set up.
The Nationalist Party’s Executive Committee will be voting on a motion (reproduced below) that is a logical, step-by-step build up to creating and justifying an agenda for the institutions of representation and government insofar as the divorce “issue” is concerned. The path that has been chosen is threefold:
1) discuss divorce in parliament
2) vote on a bill in parliament
3) get the people to approve/disapprove the bill via referendum
That is the agenda. How will the PN perform within this set-up? Well the PN is basically (and rightly in my opinion) reminding the world that its valued opinion on divorce is that it is a no-no. The executive committee reminds anyone who cares to listen that divorce conflicts with the idea of a permanent marriage and since the party strongly believes in the idea of permanent marriage then it cannot give its nihil obstat to divorce.
Fine. The party then goes on to acknowledge two realities: firstly, that there are differences within the party as to the idea of divorce – no secrets there. Secondly, the party hangs harps on about electoral mandate. The lien is clear: this electoral mandate business is the Pontius Pilate bowl of the political class. It does not irk the nationalist party one bit that cohabitation is also not on the electoral mandate table but it develops sudden qualms of conscience about this particular issue called divorce.
Worse still, by abdicating from a clear and direct position that includes a “not on my body unless you elect me to specifically do that” statement, the PN is playing chicken with its values. This is after all a government of a numerical minority when it comes to the voting population. Are we to assume that it should have submitted every issue it has governed upon to the same referendal form of scrutiny? After all if the PN is such a firm believer in the power of public consultation you’d hate to be living in its shoes… legislating at every step with a parliamentary majority that is the result of constitutional machinations and which does not reflect a real majority.
The final straw is the sequence set for the agenda. A very difficult YES vote for divorce won in parliament would have to submit to a second scrutiny in a referendum. “Bleak” doesn’t even begin to describe the chances of a double whammy victory for the YES to divorce legislation camp.
The flaw in this last bit is simple for all to see: If the political parties are unable to take a position and both seem to be oriented towards a free vote for their MPs then there is absolutely no logical justification under the sun for the referendum to be held AFTER the bill is voted upon in parliament and not before.
Any failure to alter the sequence of events planned by the nationalist executive will only serve to unmask the truth behind the fickle words of the motion. And in case you need it in words here it is:
“The nationalist party executive does not give a flying f**k about what the people think in a referendum. The whole kowtowing to the idea of “public consultation” because of the absence of an “electoral mandate” is a load of circum tauri. If they did value your opinion they’d be voting for the referendum to be held BEFORE the bill is discussed.
P.S. Circum tauri is bullshit in Latin.
That’s Classic bullshit…. does it remind you of anyone? (with apologies to Bulgaria’s disgraced opposition leader)”
THE MOTION
THE NATIONALIST PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
“1. Notes that there is unanimous agreement that the family unit is the cornerstone of society and therefore it deserves total, firm and consistent support so that it can continue to be strengthened.
2. The committee reaffirms the consistent political position of the Nationalist Party that the family in Malta should be built on permanent marriage between a woman and a man, which marriage is the best structure for a stable family environment for the children. The PN therefore reiterates its commitment to take whatever measures are necessary to strengthen marriage preparation and to facilitate family life.
3. The committee recognises that there are circumstances which lead to the break-up of marriages, with detrimental consequences to the family, the children and society.
4. In such circumstances, the committee declared that the solutions which the State should seek should give top priority to the interests of the children. All measures should therefore be constant with this purpose.
5. The committee notes that according to the most recent census published by the National Statistics Office, in 2005 the vast majority of the Maltese had a stable marriage. The census showed that 60% of residents of Malta were married, 6% were widowed and 4% were separated or divorced.
6. For these reasons, the committee declares that the political position of the Nationalist Party should remain in favour of the unity of the family and against the introduction of divorce because it feels that the introduction of divorce is not the best way to promote the value of the family since divorce changes the definition of marriage as being a permanent bond.
7. The committee recognises that within the Nationalist Party there are contrasting views on the introduction of divorce but it believes that the debate now needs to be concluded while respecting the different opinions.
8. The committee also notes that no political party in Malta has the electoral mandate to propose legislation for the introduction of divorce and, therefore, the parliamentary approval of a Bill for the introduction of divorce should not be enough for the law to come into force and this should be confirmed through a referendum.
The committee therefore recommends to the government that:
a) Parliament should, as soon as possible, discuss the Bill for the introduction of divorce.
b) Should the Bill be approved by a majority of the House, the coming into force of the law would be conditional to approval by referendum, held within two months of approval of the law by Parliament.
c) The committee also recommends that the Prime Minister and leader of the party should allow a free vote to the Nationalist MPs so that they may vote according to their conscience in all stages of the passage of the bill.”
What makes or breaks a modern political party? Can we still talk of the terms “christian-democrat” and “socialist” (or the masacara “progressive”) when it comes to the nitty-gritty of politics in Malta? Is it just Malta that has entered a Bermuda Triangle of party values?
The nationalist party might hold the “Fehmiet Bazici” (Basic Beliefs) document to its heart but how is it to reconcile that with the calculated vote grabbing net that is elaborated every five years? Joseph Muscat may have declared a new era of progressive liberals but his party is having a hard time trying to appease the weird animal that is the “conservative proletariat”.
The “socialists” were never socialist to begin with. Even at the worst of the church-Labour battles their worry over the fact of being buried in non-consecrated ground or their sacristy marriages betrayed their Peppone like interior. Beneath the wannabe socialist revolutionaries were Catholics who were really stung by the fundamentalist church moves. Had they really been convinced of their socialist, lay battles they wouldn’t have given two hoots about being interdicted from a church that was supposedly not theirs.
The nationalist party lost its moral compass right after 1987. It was on a life-saving machine all through the EU campaign having placed its bets on the right horse but once the fog of the EU War subsided (thank you very much Waste-Our-Bloody-Time-Sant) it fell apart like Humpty Dumpty – unable to string together a coherent plan of action and a victim of the Young Battlers of the EU Campaign clamouring for a piece of the victorious pie of government. The worldwide economic crisis did the rest of the trick.
So when an issue like divorce hits the parties when they least expect it, they are unable to react as political parties. Or at least it seems so. James Debono has done a(nother) wonderful job of assessing the different scenarios with regards to divorce and the two main parties: “Divorce: When principles and convenience collide“. Even if we were to set aside the issue itself (divorce) and focus on the party reactions to what is basically a “principle” or “value” changer in society the results are rather bleak.
The stand taken by Austin Gatt might be old hat but it is after all what you’d expect from a party MP. Austin’s stand is about the PN stand not about what Malta thinks. He is spot on when he says that if he (Austin) disagrees with divorce legislation then he cannot fit in within a party that actively promotes divorce legislation. J’accuse would go one further. Resign from the PN in case it decides to back divorce legislation but do not resign from parliament.
Paul Borg Olivier’s recent interview on Dissett points to a possible development for the PN. It is the possibility of acknowledging that the party itself is in favour/against divorce but leaving its members free to vote. The question J’accuse would like to ask is: Does this count as a party position on values? Is the acknowledgement that a discussion such as divorce is one that has both pro- and con- partisans within the same party sufficient to say that party values are safe?
Even Labour, with what is supposed to be a less confessional set of values (actually it claims to be progressive) has difficulties taking a stand on divorce. Granted that there is no denying that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has a proven track record of opportunistic bandwagon politics this particular nut will be a tough one to crack. Muscat has his own Gatt on his side of parliament (Adrian Vassallo) and surely other conservative proletarians will follow suit.
Which leaves us with Alternattiva Demokratika. What started off as a party with a strong green agenda at the time of its affiliation with the Verdi/Greens can now boast of a wealth of political positions in the social sphere – from property rights to gender issues to divorce. The party position is unequivocal and clear: they want divorce legislation.
The D’Hondt relative majority has done much to whittle away the party backbone for the party in government. It lives each day nervously wondering which backbencher (or government member) might step out of line and threaten the fragile structure that is at wits end. It has gone from “Par Idejn Sodi” (a pair of strong hands) to “Kuljum bir-Roghda” (everyday shaking). The PL is at sea trying to desperately loop in any possible voter and trying not to tread on anyone’s toes in case their vote is needed come d-day. Which leaves us with a gaggle of spineless politicians unable to take a clear stand on matters that count. Or does it?
J’accuse believes that for the first time Alternattiva Demokratika has a chance to assert itself as something more than a party aspiring for the third place. The l vacuum opened up by the PLPN (ironically as a direct result of their tweaking of the D’Hondt Relative Majority) opens up the same possibilities as those seen by the UK Liberal Democrats before the last elections. AD should no longer aspire to be a third party. On paper, it has every right and chance to aspire to be a major role player in the next elections and technically it should be the most spineless of the PLPN duo that suffers.
That of course does not take into account the partisan vote base. Which will stick to its PLPN guns come hell or highwater… or come divorce.
