Category: Politics

Categories
Politics

Coming Soon (later today): Why Party?

Update on Thursday : apologies for delay.

Yesterday’s rentrée prevented us from extending the interesting debate sparked off by the last post. Meanwhile interesting developments in DimechGate might allow more factual light to be thrown into the miasma of different interests and allow us to comment more clearly on the rot in Local Councils and the parallel worries associated with party politics. Later today we will be posting a full post on this issue and the main theme will b “Why Party?” or what is the purpose of party participation in Local Councils. What guarantees are political parties giving voters? What is their constitutional role in the system? How much control can a party legally and effectively exert on its list of candidates? Can we rightly assume that a party is “vetting” its candidates for suitability to run for election? Can we equally assume that a party provides a support structure for its councillors that makes them more efficient purely through the economies of scale and continuity? Do our parties have anything that could be described as local policies (applied in multiple councils where possible)? Are parties using different measures and standards for their mini-politicians? Once again, what is the measure that tells us when the balance of loyalty to party vs loyalty to constituents has been broken? The constitution makes little or no mention of political parties – they have “infiltrated” the system by custom and usage – is it really that wrong for an elected person from a constituency to trump his party loyalties with those towards his constituency – especially when the so-called “party principles” are not so clear in certain cases? All that and more… later on J’accuse.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Our Lady of Good Council(s)

Coat of Arms of Sliema Local Council (Malta)
Image via Wikipedia

The rot seems to have spread – or could spread. MT reports that the police will probably arraign more councillors as they widen the probe into the running of local councils. The irony is not lost on anyone that while Local Council small fry are thrown into the burning oil for their (punishable) misdeeds and misappropriations the equivalent on a national level still goes by unnoticed, unpunished and sanctioned by almost half a century of bipartisan tradition. Which is why Lino Spiteri’s take on the issue in today’s Times opinion piece (Away from the eye of the local storms) is somewhat perplexing.

In his analysis Spiteri rightly points out to the strong grip that the two parties have developed on local council politics (Labour did so after a hesitant start) then goes on to prescribe a confusing formula (unless I have misunderstood his prescription). While on the one hand hinting at a necessary relaxation of the political parties‘ hold on council politics, Spiteri seems to accept a “reasonable degree of bi-partisanship”:

True devolution from central government and party could help a culture of involvement, a measure of direct democracy to spring up whereby the citizenry does see itself being put first because its voice is listened to and, on occasion, heeded. The system could encourage young candidates towards it so that, if elected, and if their council follows a reasonable degree of bi-partisanship, they can gain some experience of bureaucratic administration, before they venture into the broader field of national politics.

We beg to differ. First of all the problem is not party involvement itself but rather the manner in which party involvement is perpetrated (yes, criminally so). The party involvement in Local Councils is simply to keep tabs and control on the extended networking created by the supposed devolution. There is no “local” conscience emanating from the PL and PN (ironically so when you consider how “local” our “national” politics are) and they have proven unable to impart any school of thought to budding politicians. This could also be a direct result of the inability of both dinosaurs to absorb ideas from the groundroots and champion them as their own.

Bottom-up politics has never been the forte of the PLPN fold. Candidates are enrolled in order to add to he number and provide punch to the “good vs evil”/bipartisan mentality on which the PLPN thrives. There is little time for a localisation of policy, let alone government and the good success stories in various localties (San Lawrenz and Nadur in Gozo comes to mind) are in spite of and not thanks to PLPN bumbling dictats. Just look at the Siggiewi farce with wannabe star politicans trying to impress  (that’s you Carol Aquilina)…

Mater Boni Consilii

Mike Briguglio wrote an interesting piece in the MT about the Sliema council (Unsurprising Sliema) . We tend to forget that the new Sliema council embroiled in all its troubles is the first post-AD representative council. I am in no way saying that AD could possibly have provided better council support than its behemoth counterparts but just look at the difference between what a multi-party council and the balbugliata that a PLPN bi-partisan council has to offer.

It is very surprising therefore that someone like Lino Spiteri would advocate a better honing of bipartisan skills at Local Council level as some sort of panacea for the current ills. I rather prefer the first part of the formula where parties relax (or revise) their relations with local councils. As a first suggestion I would suggest proper screening of candidates based on what proposals they have for the running of the council and what they would offer as guarantees of good management.

Local councils need just what national politics need. Injection of new political blood thinking outside the bipartisan box that has gotten us used to the idea that networking and bungs and funds is all that politics is good for.

Maybe we should ask our Lady of Good Council(s).

See also: Claire Bonello (Some parties do have them)

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics

Return of the JS List

The logo of KPMG.
Image via Wikipedia

Seven months after its original mention in Parliament, Evarist Bartolo has once again brought to the fore the enigmatic “JS List”. Unlike seven months ago we no longer need to speculate as to the meaning of “JS” in the list (our speculations were wrong anyway) since Varist has referred us all to Joe Stellini, the PN’s former treasury. The sleuths at Malta Today (god bless their hard working souls so close to the ferragosto weekend) have followed up on a series of name dropping statements by the former education minister.

I may be tired and packing for a ten day trip along the Rhine that kicks off tomorrow does not augur well for deciphering Evarist Bartolo’s version of the Lost Symbol but if I am not mistaken he is insinuating that huge companies in Tokyo and Copenhagen had more than a hand in the assignation of the BWSC contract (remember that hot potatoe). The name dropping is not on the scale of ENRON style scandal but by Maltese standards it is big. There is an alleged web of intertwined interests that lead to linking the tenderor and the tenderee on the energy contract. There’s more. Bartolo does not shy back from implying that KPMG auditor to many of the parties involved served as a bridge between all the parties and government. And all this to lead to where? it’s not clear Who, What, When, Why or How but the conclusion is that:

“The PN has a system of fundraising where companies win government contracts and donate money to the PN. They are all part of the PN’s JS list,” Bartolo said, referring to the so called list named after former PN treasurer Joe Stellini.

Which is one hell of a whopper. From DimechGate to JS-Gate. Only, as I have been lamenting all the while, we need more tangible proof. We need cases before the Public Services Commission. It’s not a problem that the allegations surface on a newspaper – the newspaper is only attempting to perform its duty as part of the fourth estate – but there must be a follow up using the full strength of our democratic institutions. In a way there was never a shadow of doubt that contractors in various markets benefited from their contacts with the PN and that they performed services or investments in return. We just needed someone to get talking about them as a first step to something more direct being done about it. We do not have a magistratura in Malta as they do in Italy so do not expect a flurry of avvisi di garanzia very soon.

The “mani pulite” that began with Dimech Gate might (and I stress the might) be about to widen up to something big. The biggest problem remains the prevailing culture that will probably read to a shrug of the shoulders and a “no shit sherlock” approach. In the land of the blind the parties supported by major contractors are Kings.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

The Horse's Mouth

One of the basic tenets of journalism that probably everybody and his brother has heard about is the principle of the 5 “W”s. It’s a concept that underpins the writing of a complete investigative answer by asking the questions “Who? What? Where? Why? and When?” and trying to provide an answer to all of them or an at least an indication as to why those answers were not immediately available. The additional question “How?” has occasionally been pinned onto the back of the original 5 Ws. In my last but one post “Don Paolo and the Recalcitrant Consiglieri” I started to track the “Nikki Dimech Gate” story and the reporting being made by MaltaToday on the subject. I tried to point out that the information being made available by the eager sleuths at MT is flimsy and lends itself more to unqualified speculation rather than presentation of hard and fast facts.

Now I am sure that MT’s sleuths have launched into the investigation with the best intentions of remaining the much needed breath of fresh air in investigative journalism that goes beyond the pure partisan aspects which we have gotten used to over the ages. I do not need convincing over this as much as I do not need convincing that MT has a mixed agenda of its own (known in polite circles as “editorial policy”) that merges market necessity (the need to quench public thirst for conspiracy theory style news/scandal – defined as any bit of news that provokes the reaction “X’gharukaza”) and a hazy political position that cannot be as easily and wittily summarised.

There is however something that Professors DeGaetano and De Marco would call a continuous crime of ommission occuring within this particular spate of reporting on DimechGate. While we should thank our lucky stars that there is a team of journalists who are interested in asking questions beyond the party spin and press release this does not mean that we – especially the newcomers to the Fourth Estate  such as bloggers – should not question certain vacuums in the line of thought. In the previous post we wondered why so much was being made on the supposed threat uttered by bungling PN SecGen PBO involving Dimech and a 72 year old councillors’ mother. Rationally reasoning out that threat brings out not two but three possible meanings:

1) We will eliminate your nonogenarian mother should you not comply with party policy (the mafia interpretation)

2) get off the bloody phone and talk with your mum later – we’re talking Dimechgate now (the impatient PBO interpretation)

3) we helped you rmum in so many ways and forget about that help if you persist in ignoring our position (the sleazy retraction of favours interpretation)

You will immediately notice that barring interpretation number 2 which is the milder of the three, the other two interpretations (Mafia and Retraction of Favours) qualify as forcible coercion to sign an impeachment motion. Now that is not something to be taken lightly. For PBO it could mean heaps of trouble – and I do not mean the contradiction in policy that was highlighted by the swift ostracisation of Nikki Dimech while still harbouring a 40 year old man being tried for sex crimes. Coercing a local councillor into signing a motion against his or her will is not just not kosher in today’s day and age but it could also have criminal consequences. Contrary to what public opinion may be on the subject, PLPN whips and Secretary generals are not the equivalent of their communist counterparts. They may give the impression that they can control everything under the sun (and some hidden hands like to think that they do just that) but the reality of the matter is that if we expect to be living in a liberal democracy in the 21st century then its local councillors should be free thinking human beings who can – if they so believe – go against the party line on a matter of principle.

So hurrah to MT for uncovering this particular phase. What happened next though continued to force me to question MT’s policies.  When councillor Camilleri was summoned to the police station for questioning, the knee jerk reaction on MT was to slap a title to the article that went on the lines of “PBO’s threat comes true as 72 year old councillor summoned for questioning by police”. I cannot link or quote verbatim because thankfully, it seems, there has been a rethink and the original title has changed. And there is an obvious reason for this. The reason is that no matter how much you may wish to toe the line that PBO has a hidden hand in police circles and that this DimechGate has been orchestrated from the start as some sort of elaborate frame up to rid Sliema of Dimech there is one fatal flaw in standing by this argument this time: PBO has absolutely no interest in having the police go  over his discussion with the Sliema councillor.

Somebody at the MT team must have noticed that because what I think is the new title to the article that appeared online yesteday is ”
Paul Borg Olivier worried as Sandra Camilleri gets called in by Police, after his threatening meeting with PN councilor”. (Yes, MT stick to their US English dictionary). Now that’s more like it. Which really means that the police have been acting very kosher all along. I have no particular interest in defending or attacking the police corps but hey you cannot blame them for investigating DimechGate from the start if there was a report of corruption by government officials and PN administration. You cannot blame the police either, for launching a possible investigation into the coercion of a public person involved in the administration of a local council. That fettering of discretion is an administrative crime and cannot be allowed to happen.MT has corrected its earlier eagerness to run along with the whole La Piovra & Don Paolo theory involving god knows what hidden hands in the process.

We are back to more rational lines where a number of questions are being asked rightly of our political system. This “mani pulite” phase in the short history of local council politics might involve the relative lightweights of PLPN politicking but it could turn out to be a valuable eye-opener as to the many no-nos committed in the name of partisan hegemony. Let us not forget that Nikki Dimech is being crucified for an alleged request for commission that would amount to a maximum of €240 (10 to 20% of €1200) and that Elizabeth Vella had to resign after receiving €80 that were not registered in the council’s accounts. By no means should such actions go unnoticed and unpunished (if you want to use that word) but this is still the same country where there is no rule on party financing and transparency and where the interests of contractors, investors and developers are curiously intertwined with the creme de la creme of our political high society (the heavyweights) right?

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Don Paolo and the Recalcitrant Consiglieri

The heat of the summer and the explosive events have not detracted the team at MaltaToday (MT) from their persistence in turning the Nikki Dimech saga into another interwoven epic of a conspiracy theory. The state funeral of one of Malta’s most respected politicians and the Mosta fireworks bang spoilt the plans for the MT team who were probably counting on the boring period of Santa Maria to sell the conspiracy spin to the utmost. Lest you think we are about to make a full mockery of the MT news item regarding the goings on around the latest local councillor to be declared incompetent we beg you to hold your equines for a little longer.

The story as recounted by the eager wolves of MT is definitely more intriguing (and almost twice as credible) as the news coming from the sheep at Strickland House’s HMV (His Master’s Voice – known in some circles as the Times of Malta). First we had the allegations of illicit behaviour and financial misdemeanours at the Sliema local council. So far, so good. As local councils go these days financial embezzlement and general mishandling by those catapulted to the forefront of the local scene by the PLPN headhunters are becoming more and more commonplace. In this case it was young turk Nikki Dimech who was being investigated for a period of time. Things started to hot up when Nikki Dimech tried to organise an emergency council meeting to clear the air and demonstrated the unqualified naivety of an untutored renegade left up shit creek with no paddle and no organisational back up to speak of. Arrigo, his mentor in Sliema, was nowhere to be seen at this point and the spinmeisters at Dar Centrali kept their distance.

Dimech’s failed meeting did take place some time later only to turn out to be a doctored meeting that had nothing of the “emergency” air that had been trumpeted earlier. The heavy hand of party interference (or guidance?) could be felt at that point though to say that the Sliema councillors were comfortable with the situation at that point would be tantamount to saying that Sliema Wanderers will one day have good odds to win the Champions’ League. So Dimech’s robotic address at the meeting was registered on camera a few days before he was summoned to the police station to answer a few questions.

Which is where Dimech’s (and the PN’s) Midsummer’s Nightmare starts – and where MT begins its party. First it was announced ad urbi et orbi that Dimech was admitting his guilt and that he had solicited commissions from a contractor (an Arrigo supporter to boot) for some council works. Information is thrown at the reader like an unfinished novel. What importance, for example, is the fact that the contractor in question is a supporter of Arrigo (presumably this also means that he foots some bills in election time thanks to our lovely laws on party and candidate funding – whatever happened to the crime of lying on oath?)? The equation should have been – and is – Dimech is backed by Arrigo and hence should therefore be nice to Arrigo’s supporters. Iddardarx l-ilma etc etc…

Then there was the ploy of a frame-up with the collaboration of the men supposed to keep the law and order. Dimech’s friends (note: NOT DIMECH) were alleging that he was coerced to sign the confession and that such coercion included the denial of an all important inhaler. The police were the villains aiding an invisible hidden hand that had everything but the interests of Dimech to heart. Funny. Apart from the immediate police denials one would expect MT to ask Dimech himself whether his friends are being solidal out of disbelief or whether there was some truth in that story. Not really. Well so long as his friends say it.

Dimech in the meantime was holding on to his seat in the council. He refused to resign and stayed on as an independent councillor. Not many brownie points for someone who has just admitted his guilt to the men in uniform but since the law does not provide for his immediate impeachment then that got the PN in a twist. Our electoral laws do tend to get the PLPN in a twist in such situations since we do not really elect party people to councils or parliament but we directly choose our representatives. All the PN could do was Dimech from the party and take their distance which you can bet your bottom euro they did at the earliest opportunity. What was left was for the PN to get Dimech to let go of his mayoral post.

Which meant that Paul Borg Olivier had to reluctantly acknowledge that there is  more to local councils than preparing long lists of catch all candidates. He would have to leave the airconditioned office in Dar Centrali, postpone all trips on superyachts and meet the consiglieri. The point of all this meeting being of course the dismissal by vote of no confidence of Nikki Dimech from his mayoral post. MT’s investigative sleuths got wind of these meetings and were present at the Lady Di pub in Sliema when PBO met 72-year old Consigliera Sandra Camilleri.

As we learn in the article (Your mother or Nikki Dimech, Borg Olivier tells 72 year old councillor) , Madam Camilleri still enjoys the company of her own mother at the ripe age of 72. Don Paolo does not seem to manage to get Madam Camilleri away from the idea proposed by the “friends of Nikki Dimech” that there has been some sort of frame up. According to the journalist overhearing the conversation Camilleri sticks to the frame up idea rather obstinately and is reluctant to sign up to PBO’s plan to depose the tainted mayor. It is then that, according to MT, Don Paolo chooses to up the ante and comes up with a rather enigmatic phrase: “Your mother or Dimech”.

There is it is. A phrase reminescent of those Mafia style movies where the victim is told without any measure of equivocation that the life of another person depends on their making the right decision. It’s the classical offer they can’t refuse. But is it? The article in question is full of dropping of innuendos and includes a whole episode of PBO making a mockery of the councillor’s dedication to her agèd mama but surely the shady dealings of the PN inner sanctum do not include contract killings of aged women in old people’s homes (we presumed the latter fact). Premature termination of life cannot ever feature on the PN agenda – at least because it would be rather contradictory to the party line on abortion. So what did PBO mean with his offer? Even if we take the MT story with a pinch of salt (as you generally do since the MT does take to see the Sun or Daily Mail side of things) you are still left with a sort of hanging threat.

The only excuse we could think of was that PBO got miffed by Camilleri’s constant calls with her mother on mobile and that the phrase was an exhortation to concentrate on matters at hand: “Your mother or Dimech” sounds much less dangerous now. I sure as hell hope that  Paul can say that this is the case. Otherwise we really have gone to the dogs. I eagerly await the full version on the Sunday paper but in the meantime I really cannot shake the image of PBO and JP Debono as a PN version of Samuel Jackson and John Travolta sent on some business by Marcellus Wallace.

Pleasures yet to come eh?

The MT Video: As illustrative as a braille encyclopaedia

The Real Duo at Work: Big Kahuna Burger Coercion

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics

Anosognosia

Hoi Polloi (1935 film)
Image via Wikipedia

It means “you don’t know what you don’t know” and it is a perfect starting point to elaborate on the discussion provoked by my last article on the Indy (Nolens Volens). It turns out that I dared criticise the uncriticiseable and that barring a few more moderate reactions the gist of most comments would be “non sparare sulla croce rossa”. Let us see what sparked off the anger at my criticism and why – as Matt put it – both sides could be saying the same things in different ways.

1. J’accuse never condoned censorship

Let’s get this out of the way. It should by now be very clear that the line taken by this blogger on the current state of affairs regarding freedom of expression and, more particularly, the laws on censorship is one that stands firmly on the side of those who believe that our country is going through one hell of an anachronistic phase. The Stitching judgement and the inability of politicians to legislate clearly in areas where the law seems to leave a lacuna have been criticised extensively in the our writings. I canot understand why I even have to explain that part of the equation. In case it is not clear my personal position on censorship is that if it has to exist it should be in the form of classification and never in the form of outright banning.

Incidentally I also have gone on record confirming the right of extremists to express their sick (sic) ideas in public. The content of the rhetoric must be countered, if needs be, with more rhetoric and not with gagging. Criminal law would do the rest of the job: e.g. you can express your hatred of other races as much as you like (stupid, ignorant and neanderthal as you may sound) but once you incite people to violence then don’t hide behind the “freedom of expression” the moment the prison door shuts behind you. Ugly racist bigots exist. We need to be shocked with the truth not to be protected from it.

2. The hoi polloi, the spoudaios and the average man in the street

DF repeated in so many words what I have touched upon already. Xarabank is successful, village feasts and their petards still top popularity lists and Lou Bondi is considered to be an excellent investigative journalist. It should come as no surprise then that when a law court such as the First Hall Civil Court examines how the man in the street could be affected by watching a performance of Stitching it “gets it all wrong”. Let me stick my neck out again and risk being called an intellectual snob – is the law unjustified in protecting the current standard of education (for want of a better word)? If the judge sitting on a bench is to examine how the average man in the street would interpret Stitching is he to be blamed if he sees the average man as taking a dramatic metaphor literally? Is the board of censors?

Chris  hit the nail on the head from a more practical perspective:

If I may (as usual) see it from the book publishing perspective: what do you expect of a country where arguably the best piece of Maltese literature written in recent years sells a maximum of 1,000 copies, in so doing practically reaching market saturation? I mean, surely the easiest, most hassle-free, Pontius Pilate way of ’supporting creativity’ in Malta would be to spend Eur10- and buy a copy of an amazing book. If less than 1,000 ppl bothered to do even that (and that’s including the assorted freebies, competition prizes, and purchases ‘tal-obbligu’ by extended families and ex-girlfriends), do you expect a 1,000 ppl to bother to turn up for a march? Or, in your desideratum, participate in some massive display of subversiveness?

Are we intellectual snobs, or as I like to call ourselves “wankellectuals” (constantly amused by mental masturbation – incidentally I have a PC term for the ladies among you – “cliterati”), when we decide that +/- 1,000 people is the maximum threshold of intelligentsia? Where does all this take us?

3. Artists of the Country Disaggregate!

The assaults on the freedom of expression have exposed, once again, a serious lacuna in this country. We are in the process of discovering Maltese “anosognosia”. We are learning about how much we do not know and how far we are from knowing. Raphael may rant all he likes about his pet pickle with students “who only protest when their pocket is hurt” (was not that a big indicator of pleasures yet to come 15 years ago?) and about how unfair of me it is to shoot on the Red Cross (not in so many words) because a bunch of University students got their chance to traipse up Republic Street with a megaphone and a coffin. Sure there is nothing wrong in this graffiti-ist reaction. I thought the same way when I convinced fellow SDM members to join Graffitti on a protest against the visit of Li Peng in Malta (I wish I could find a photo of the 20+ students who turned up to be kicked away by the police). Would I be too patronising if I said “now, now of course it makes an impact – if anything it gives MaltaToday an excuse of something to record on video” ?

That was not my point though was it? I could easily be drawn into a list of comparisons as to what makes an impact and what does not. Apparently very little does make an impact outside the formations of the PLPN power circle and unfortunately making a splash within those circles requires the big “V” word : Votes. So was I too harsh when I said that the protesters are molly-cuddled (sic) into a way of protesting/complaining that is in full conformity with the state of how things are run? Of course I was. Purposely so.

On the other hand, I’m sorry if I missed the graffito about the pope (darn) but if that is our answer to Banksy then something must be missing somewhere. We need a counterculture that gives the upcoming youth (who are still more worried about their stipend than whether they use it to buy tickets to Shakespeare at the Argotti) an alternative way of expressing their preference. Before we take the coffin to Valletta and blame the judge for showing us (mistakenly, in our way of thinking) that our society still believes that it needs to be “protected” from new ideas (sad really to describe them as new) why don’t we explore what is keeping the droves firmly stuck to Xarabank and believing in the Gospel of Bondiplus and away from the ideas behind Realtà and Stitching.

This is a country where people would presumably be shocked by a moral play bringing into question issues such as the holocaust but where 87% of respondents on an online poll would send immigrants back to Human Right Haven Libya on a boat.

4. Apologia

To conclude, I see your points – Raphael, Chris, DF, Danny, Matt and the silent ones (sono veggente) – but I stand by the points I made. Questions are being asked of our society and I believe that all parts – including the artists and wankellectuals – need to be preparing a strong case for their future role in society. Carrying coffins into Valletta may be alright for the PR (and for the footage) but it does nothing to challenge the equation.

P.S. Spare me the bullshit of “komdu int il-Lussemburgu”. I don’t know why I bother answering it but in any case before you even think it, just think – for one second – that if that statement were really true why the hell would I be bothering AT ALL?

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta