Tag: AD

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Wasted

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

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

Empty vessels

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

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

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

The representative

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

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

The Wasted Vote

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

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

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

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

Vote for nobody

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Sophistry, Protagoras & San Ċipress

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

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

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

The Sophist school lives

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

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

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

The powers of an MP

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

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

Kollox suġġettiv (everything’s subjective)

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

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

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

San Ċipress

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Tunnel vision indeed

Much as I respect Chris Said and his work, I cannot help thinking that the whole “let’s build a tunnel from Malta to Gozo” is the latest in a series of red herrings commissioned specifically by Gonzi’s PN. Ever since the hullabaloo about the Coupé Convertible Opera House subsided, there has been a desperate scramble for another controversy of the pointlessly popular kind. I was worried for a second that the Nationalists would resort to streaking MPs in Parliament just for the sake of not having to get down to the nitty-gritty of resolving the Gordian knot of divorce (Gordian from a conservative point of view). Instead we get “an immediate, in-depth technical and financial assessment of the tunnel idea”.

It sounds so Yes, Minister, doesn’t it? Actually “in-depth” studies are step five of the 12-step delaying tactics as described by Sir Humphrey (the full list being: informal discussions, draft proposal, preliminary study, discussion document, in-depth study, revised proposal, policy statement, strategy proposal, discussion of strategy, implementation plan circulated, revised implementation plans, and cabinet agreement). Needless to say, most ideas drown somewhere along the way, never to resurface – the mere supporting of the idea having won the relevant minister the necessary brownie points in his constituency.

I may have mixed feelings about the tunnel myself, but I will not be drawn into discussing the usefulness of a €150 million project right now. This is not to say that the project might merit discussion at some point in time in future and wealthier days (‘future’ being the key word here). The feeling I get is that, notwithstanding His Master’s Voice’s efforts to prod its readers into discussing this project, it has been given as much serious consideration as the fact that Malawi’s government is about to outlaw farting in public.

In the dark

I don’t know why they bothered with this tunnel business, really. I mean, the rules of the game perforce mean that we are constantly given the choice of bulk buying plus one (that makes it two products and only two) when it comes to election options. Right now, all Gonzi’s PN have to worry about, come election time, is that they are seen to be a better solution for government than the PL. Easy-peasy really, since Joseph Muscat has been all over the place trying to dispel any leftover worries that he could actually be the chosen one.

We have already assessed his sensibility on the international scene, thanks to his brainwave regarding tourism theft from the ailing Maghreb and Mashrek. This week we also learnt that the brand new Labour’s election manifesto will be drawn up by an old hat of the tried and tested variety. It’s not a question of character assassination, as the victims of criticism are so ready to point out these days, it’s a question of a running curriculum vitae and, frankly, Karmenu Vella’s doesn’t quite fit the bill, does it?

For all their talk of grass root openness and discussion, both parties are really milking the constitutional advantage of a virtual numerus clausus on parliamentary representation. The Nationalist Party discusses basic issues and projects behind closed doors, leaving the Academy for the Development of a Democratic Environment (AZAD) floundering as a token think tank, while Labour commissions the one-man authorship of an election manifesto, completely ignoring the fact that it is supposed to have a fledgling think tank of its own that should supposedly be the prime contributor at this stage (Fondazzjoni IDEAT).

Double insularity?

The tunnel project would end Gozo’s supposed affliction (personally, I think of it as benediction) of double-insularity but, unfortunately for the Gozitans, they will only be linked to Malta and I doubt whether there is any truth in the idea that this would limit the “sister island’s” insularity. Certain mentalities are hard to ditch and a tunnel to the land of partisan crassness loses much of its charm, doesn’t it? That hundreds of Labour’s partisans stood by Joseph Muscat’s rant about Egypt and Tunisia says much about how far the core voter base will stick to their party, come hell or high water. They were not being asked to vote against him, mind you, just disagree. Yet the only answer I came across was “even the Nationalists took advantage of Greece by making a profit on the loans”.

Really? Which part of “all of Europe lent money to the Greeks” did these Labourites miss? Did they not notice that Joseph’s position sticks out as madly as a Mintoff position in his heyday and makes us look like complete jerks? Or they probably did, and the similarity brought out misty-eyed feelings of nostalgia that further compounded the sad truth that we are really two realities living on one island and that there is no way out – no, not even with a tunnel to Pozzallo.

Underwater

The divorce position has forced hitherto unseen cracks in the modus operandi of both parties. For the first time we are seeing the possibility of parties “taking a position” on an issue without, however, binding their members to vote one way or another in Parliament. Cake and eating it comes to mind. Although Malta’s myriad experts and thinkers have rushed to the Pavlovian reflex of drawing up the pro and anti tribes in a jiffy, the divorce question has, more than any other issue, exposed the limits of ‘umbrella politics’ within both parties. It was the ‘anything goes’ policy of the Nationalist Party candidate selection before the election (not to mention the Mistra Crusade and JPO’s crocodile tears with the whole party behind him) that led them into this unprincipled corner.

Needless to say, progressive Joseph is as progressive as Karl Marx in his coffin for the very same reason. Too many contradictory strands of politics (if they may be called politics) are harboured within his party. The magic number of 50 per cent plus one haunts the PLPN in every step of their operation. They are constantly too fixated with garnering votes to be able to concentrate on the politics. Sure, the Daphnes of this world can croon that better a haphazard government of the relative majority than a throwback to Mintoff’s Club once again, but the truth remains that both parties are spineless when it comes to being principled representatives (bar anything short of miraculous happening next Thursday in the PN camp).

Yes, Austin is right. A party should take a position based on its principles and that should be a condition for membership of the party and for contesting elections within the ranks of the party. If JPO leaves the PN ranks and keeps his seat in Parliament, the PN cannot cry foul: they backed him ferociously (and unfairly) to get into Parliament and, lest they misread the Constitution, it is his seat, not theirs.

bert4j_110205
Building bridges?

For reasons completely unrelated to J’accuse’s bias towards a multi-party environment, I strongly believe that AD’s strength this time around is its consistency on yet another social issue. AD has been pro-divorce and has no qualms about declaring it. Notwithstanding the dearth of manpower and the unfortunate lack of plucky charisma that constantly plagues the party, AD has proven to be the only party in Malta that is able never to compromise its principles for votes. I argued this week on the blog that, given the dearth of principled parties in our politics, this might be the time for AD to aspire higher than simply being a third party. It is the time for AD to aspire to become a main party in its own right – to the detriment of one of the other two, of course. Unfortunately, the voting public has proved to be as discerning a public as a gathering of Inter supporters, which means that we are heading straight down the tunnel of unprincipled representation, come 2013.

Outside, in the real world, Jordan seems to be next in line in the wave of revolutions in the Arab world. The Egyptian movement has given us a new twist. For the first time, social networking on the Internet reacted to the revolutions and not vice versa. With the Internet down, Google collaborated with Twitter in order to allow Egyptians to tweet via phone lines. An interesting development – it is these times of revolution that could provoke a speedier change than we are already witnessing.

That’s all this week from gloomy Luxembourg.

www.akkuza.com – daily blogging for free public consumption.

ADDENDUM:

And his Master’s Voice is fast at work, eager to dispel the idea that this is just an exercise in mental entertainment. The Times carried an article yesterday entitled “Gozitans welcome tunnel idea”. Well J’accuse welcomes the idea too but does not believe the timing. On the other hand you really have to ask what made the Times dish out the superlatives such as:

“Massive support for the proposal was shown this morning but it was pointed out that Gozitans should have a very big say in the decision. They proposed a referendum in Gozo to see where Gozitans stood on the issue.”

Really? So what exactly is the “massive support” if a referendum is needed? then the GRTU came out strongly in favour of the tunnel. If you consider Vince Farrugia a strong unbiased voice that is. On the other hand, if you remember that Vince was part of the umbrella coalition for MEP votes then you might think again. The Times’ eagerness to shower plaudits was unbridled:

Some of the organisations in Gozo had already appointed sub-committees to work on the proposal, while a survey held by the GTA found had 90 per cent support of members of the Gozo Tourism Authority.

I bet the Xewkija Tigers social committee got an early head start on that one. And you’ve got to love the survey by the GTA (Gozo Tourism Authority) that obtained 90% support of the … wait for it… Gozo Tourism Authority.

As for copying Nordic countries, the last time we experimented with their ideas in the Fliegu we ended up with flat bottomed boats that were ideal for fjords but that rocked like crazy whenever the Libeccio was here to stay.

Could do better.

Categories
Zolabytes

Party financing agreement a must

Two days ago we had a Zolabyte by PN MP Franco Debono who continues his quest for the regulation of party financing. Today we bring you a voice from the other side of the house. Labour MP Leo Brincat has been involved in the issue since the Galdes Report on party financing. Here he exposes the pitfalls of the process of regulation and points out what must be solved in order to move on. Is Labour’s Leo right in lamenting that “we are already too late”? (article reproduced with the kind permission of the author).

The article by Nationalist MP Franco Debono on party financing (September 8th) made interesting reading.

The core issue and problem is that, although he seems to believe that this is an urgent matter that needs to be dealt with without any further undue delay, I was never ever convinced of his own party’s commitment to plugging the gap of this democratic deficit.

I write through experience, having had the honour to serve as the Labour Party’s nominee on the ad hoc committee chaired by the late Anthony Galdes, a former civil servant and private sector senior executive of impeccable qualities and standards, that eventually led to the so-called Galdes Report.

There are various aspects that have continued to worry me and haunt me since.

Fifteen years have passed and the Nationalist government that has been at the helm of the country for more than 13 of these years never ever made any serious effort to conclude matters on this issue or legislate on the matter. Hardly ever did it, as a party, make any formal commitment to spell out its intentions on the subject and show it is prepared to go the whole hog to ensure that agreement will be finally reached on this important issue.

On the contrary, the perception the Nationalist Party would prefer to perpetrate the status quo continues to gain ground not only in political but also in commercial and entrepreneurial circles.

There is hardly any point in my colleague Dr Debono lamenting that no significant developments have taken place since 1995 and that no concrete measures have been implemented when there was never any real agreement on the document’s findings itself… something that left the implementation process as dead as a dodo from the word go.

In the run-up to the last election, the PL had committed itself publicly to implement the recommendations of the Galdes Commission on party financing while the general feeling now seems to be that one should take that report as the basis for moving ahead, given the decade and a half that have passed since then.

If one wants proof of the PN’s lack of real commitment on party financing one should scrutinise the fine details and the differences that actually derailed the Galdes Commission.

That the three established parties agree with the principle of transparency in party financing is not enough. As the adage goes, the devil is in the detail and, if my memory serves me well, the proposals put forward by the PN during the formulation of the Galdes report had made it clear they were only after piecemeal solutions that almost defeated the whole purpose of the exercise by ensuring that the parties in question will not optimise the potential benefit of such an accord.

It is interesting to note that, at the time, the commission had been made up of the PL (through yours truly), the PN, Alternattiva Demokratika and Dolores Cristina, who was an independent member and who, to be fair, gave many positive inputs throughout the various discussions we had.

Ironically, both the AD and the only independent member (Ms Cristina) had agreed at the time with the benchmarks proposed by the PL. It was the PN that had stalled the process.

The time is already overdue for such agreement to be reached on such an issue – regardless of whether there is a functioning parliamentary select committee or not – since, by next April, this government will have been in power for three years in this legislature. With elections then fast approaching it is more likely there will be more foot dragging by the government side to reach any form of agreement.

On the other hand, I feel one should also legislate concurrently on the expenditure limits and funding of political candidates too. This, not only to ensure a proper level playing field during election campaigns but also to ensure that certain candidates who might easily find their way to the House (again or for the first time) will not have any strings attached through contributions they received.

The capping of expenditure by political candidates must also be updated and revised upwards to a more realistic level to ensure that the existing laws will not continue to be flagrantly abused of as happens regularly in every election campaign.

In an interview published in another section of the media, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando had been reported to have dropped the biggest hint to date that the government may be reconsidering its earlier opposition to the Galdes conclusions (September 26, 2007). Alas, since then, we have not seen any concrete proof of this, no matter how strongly Dr Pullicino Orlando might genuinely feel on the matter.

Now is the time for the three political parties to get real on the whole issue of political party financing.

The PL has already come forward with a 15-point plan on transparency, which many conveniently chose to either ignore, ridicule or downplay.

On the issue of party financing, people expect that, rather than having these parties disagreeing to agree, if they all believe strongly in transparency they should knock into place an agreement on party financing without further delay.

We are in my opinion already far too late.

Website: www.leobrincat.com

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Zolabytes

Sliema: Reaping what was sown

AD Chairman and Michael Briguglio has given J’accuse permission to reproduce this article in the Zolabytes section. We consider it a further contribution on the current debate on Local Councils and an insiders insight on the mechanisms operating behind LC politics. Mike blogs regularly at Mike’s Beat (see j’accuse blogroll – we’re kicking that off again slowly slowly).

Sliema is really getting what it deserves. I am sorry to say this but the last local council elections were a clear example of how, at times, factors that have little to do with political vision influence electoral results. In a few words, Sliema is now reaping what was sown. I might be biased in saying this, given that I was not elected in 2009, having been elected in 2003 and 2006. But I invite others to contradict my statements below.

Beyond the battle between the official Nationalist Party position, the Nikki Dimech faction and the strange alliances of certain Labour councillors, one has to view the whole “Sliema” issue holistically.

Given the lack of proper legislation on financing of electoral campaigns, it is no surprise that political clientelism and business interests play a key role in Maltese politics even at a local level. Indeed, if one looks at the last local election in Sliema it would be very difficult to believe that all candidates’ electoral expenses were within the allowed limits. Many residents to this day tell me it is more than obvious that local elections are not based on a democratic and just level playing field.

In the last council election, one could witness social events such as receptions, the systematic provision of transport for elderly voters, electoral promises to various constituents that have nothing to do with political vision, telephone campaigns of the “Big Brother is watching you” type and so forth. There surely was no level playing field among all candidates.

This was even evident in the character-assassination-whispering-campaigns, at times between candidates belonging to the same party.

Given that Malta has practically no legislation regarding the financing of political parties, this necessarily leads to pressure from business interests for political favours. Hence, it is imperative that contracts awarded by local councils are properly scrutinised.

It is precisely for this reason that when I was councillor I consistently proposed having a contracts manager. I was supported by PN councillor Julian Galea on this… yet a decision by the council was consistently postponed.

Having professional administrative staff is imperative for efficient local councils. Yet, the present council apparently thought otherwise as one of its first decisions was to oust executive secretary Josef Grech.

The work of Mr Grech, his staff and of certain councillors, who, in previous years, did their best to ensure that Sliema’s voice was heard and who worked as a team, was basically discarded.

As for myself, in my six years as councillor I worked as hard as possible to help improve the quality of life in Sliema. I gave priority to issues such as public consultation, sustainable development, the impact of construction on the community, waste management, pollution, public transport, swimming and animal welfare. I worked well with coun­cillors irrespective of their political affiliation and I often managed to convince both Nationalist and Labour council members on various issues.

Well, actually, in my eyes, there were “four” political parties in the council, namely, Green, Labour, the PN “Pullicino faction” and the PN “Arrigo faction”. Perhaps the most surreal experience of all was when certain PN councillors objected that the council should praise the government for the reclaiming and embellishment of St Anne Square!

I thought I would get my best result ever in 2009 but the opposite happened. I was obviously disappointed and I was about to quit politics, feeling a sense of freedom in the process… But, as philosopher Louis Althusser tells us, “the future lasts a long time” … Indeed, I changed my mind after a few weeks and ended being elected AD chairman.

Whenever I am stopped by Sliema residents who complain about all sorts of issues, I remind them of a powerful tool they still possess – the vote.

If you want change, vote for it…

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
****

Categories
Local Councils Politics

Impeachment Day (Part I)

The vote of no confidence in Sliema Mayor Nikki Dimech will be taken today. The Times reports that all six remaining Sliema Councillors need to show up in order to ensure that Joanna Gonzi replaces Nikki Dimech as Mayor of the council. The four Labour councillors are expected to abstain on the vote as directed from HQ while Dimech and Camilleri – the two ex PN councillors who resigned from the party are expected to vote against.

Article 29 of Chapter 363 (Local Councils Act)
29. (1) The Mayor or Deputy Mayor shall cease to hold their
office upon a vote of no confidence delivered by a majority of the
Councillors in office.

(2) The motion proposing a vote of no confidence in the Mayor
or Deputy Mayor shall be signed by at least one third of the
Councillors in office and shall specify the reason for such motion
and propose another Councillor to be elected as Mayor or Deputy
Mayor as the case may be.

J’accuse chooses “impeachment day” to ask a few questions of the current system. DimechGate (and the ancillary cases involving PL and PN councillors in different localities) have brought to light a few shortcomings of the dealings of political parties at local council level. J’accuse does not intend to advocate against the participation of parties in local politics but rather would like to question what the added value actually is and whether the parties are really providing a service to the various communities by bringing their partisan terms to the local table.

Condizionamento Arbitrale

In dealing with the issue we take a step away from the allegations regarding the police questioning of the current Sliema Mayor in the hope that any doubts raised and alarm bells rung are replied and seen to in the appropriate judicial forum. This is not about an extended conspiracy theory involving some hidden arm of the law directed from some party HQ. We do feel the need to say, however, that police intervention in certain matters might suffer from what in football (at least when it was trendy to bandy conspiracy theories) is referred to as “condizionamento psicologico arbitrale” – and that this does not only apply to PN intervention (vide PBO) but also to sudden trysts of fancy by the PL (vide Anglu Farrugia’s crusade on purchased votes).  This condizionamento arbitrale is a symptom but not a cause of the current ails.

Partiti Politici

The role of political parties in local councils was hotly debated from the start. The PN had no qualms in spreading its political participation at local council level. Labour on the other hand took a step back from the first elections and only entered the fray at alater stage. The very notion of a “political party” in the law applicable to Local Councils is interesting. Under Cap 363 – the Local Councils Act – a “political party ” is defined as follows:

“political party” means, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, any person or group of persons contesting the elections of a Local Council as one group bearing the same name (Article 2 – Interpretation)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unless you take into account the Kafkesque detail of the Third Schedule to the Act (entitled Local Councils (Elections) Regulations, 1993) in which the electoral fetish of us Maltese is reflected in full blasts with such minutiae as the behaviour of Directors of Retirement Homes during election time being regulated and above all – access to every step of the process – from printing to counting – for party agents being guranteedd… unless you register that, parties have little or no mention in the actual political running of councils under the letter of the law.

The most important provision in which parties make a fleeting (but very relevant) appearance is Article 25 dealing with the election of the Mayor:

25 (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of article 29, the office of Mayor in any Local Council shall be occupied by such elected Councillor who at the last local election shall have obtained the highest number of votes in the first count amongst the candidates of the political party which at such elections obtained the absolute majority of Councillors in such Council. Such Councillor shall assume the office of Mayor at the first sitting of the Council after such local election. If for any reason such Councillor refuses to occupy the office of Mayor, the Councillor with the second highest number of votes from the aforesaid political party shall assume office, and so on, until the office of Mayor is filled:

Provided that if the Mayor vacates office during the Council’s term, the office of Mayor shall be occupied by such person belonging to the same political party who had obtained the highest number of votes in the first count after the Mayor who is vacating office:

Provided further that where the law does not provide otherwise, the Mayor shall be chosen from amongst the Councillors.

Peachy innit? Bear in mind that party refers to not just PN, PL or AD but also to any other group of individuals contesting under one name: e.g. Società Filarmonika Hal-Bomba. In a hypothetical vote even if a member of a newly council of five got over half of the first count votes to get elected but the rest of the votes were share equally between another four candidates of one “party” then the new Mayor would not be the independent person who garnered most votes but rather the candidate who has most votes among those elected on the party list.

Strangely, this system does away with the simple vote among councillors to see who among them enjoys the support of the majority of councillors (whatever the colour or creed) as is done (hypothetically) for the selection of Prime Minister in parliament. So essentially a party will vie for an absolute majority of councillors in an election after which it is guaranteed that there will be no “freak vote” whereby its councillors “defect” and vote for a popular “independent” – and boo to self-determination.

The role of parties in the 80 articles of the Local Councils Act starts and stops with the determination of the Mayor. The rest of the Act (particularly the aforementioned Schedule 3) is more concerned with the hobby of thousands that is the electoral process, electoral agents, perspexes and ballot papers. So the law is not exactly illuminating with regards to the interaction between a political party and its elected members within the council.

A che prò?

So why does a councillor like Robert Musumeci “take exception” to calls for parties to get their hands out of Local Councils? What’s the big deal? How is a relative party heavyweight like Secretary General Paul Borg Olivier drawn to risking his and his party’s reputation by attempting to oblige at least one councillor to use her vote against her will in order to obtain the necessary number of votes to get an impeachment of a Mayor going?

The answers are not so easy and we need to step back in order to get a clearer picture. As I said earlier my concern is to discover how parties could be beneficial to a local council and whether they are actually inputting such benefits. The impression right now is simply that while the PLPN are eager to have a finger in every council pie they are only really heard of when distancing themselves from those who fail to perform well. Furthermore there is a distinct impression that there is no nation-wide policy that applies to local councils in similar circumstances.

Faustian reasoning may play the fool with regard to Karol Aquilina and requisitioned houses elsewhere in Malta but Karol’s position on the Siggiewi house sounds very much like a policy that could, and should, be applied elsewhere by members of the same party in the interests of the community. That this does not happen cannot be taken as proof that Aquilina’s move was opportunistic (true) but it definitely paints a picture of a haphazard one-off application that cannot in any way be attributed or equated to the home party unless similar actions are really triggered off elsewhere.

That there is no evidence of a coordinating body within the parties that is used to trigger off local-friendly programmes across different councils is a clear sign of the misuse of the party ticket. For what worth is it to aim to garner as many majorities as possible in the councils of Camillo and Peppone when there is no programme to follow through? The dangers of such wide nets simply for the number are being evidenced now as both PN and PL find themselves burdened with scandals they never bargained for. That such scandals can and will happen is normal – when a sequence of scandals related to mismanagement and mishandling of public resources occurs then we begin to question the preparation of such candidates. Worse still we question whether the culture of curried favours and political obligations is now too well dug in into our council system.

So the first question we pose in this first part is this:

1) If we accept the role of political parties (and not just PLPNAD) in Local Councils how should or could this role be defined? Is this a question for legislators to address (aihmè the PLPN legislators) or is it something that should come from within the parties?

We’ll be back with more.