Malta’s Minister for Transport, Infrastructure & Capital Projects has gone on record saying something to the effect that “majority rule is higher than the rule of law”. One cannot stop underlining the dangers that lie behind this kind of statement. To begin with, this is a blatant show of ignorance of the laws that bind us. It flies in the face of hundreds of years of philosophical treatises on social contract, on constitutions, and on the basic principles that underlie our law-based societies.
Rousseau (The Social Contract), Locke (Second Treatise on Government), Hume (Of the Original Contract) and Madison (The Federalist Papers No. 10) – that is a tiny roll call of the kind of people who tried to get their heads around the problem of just representation in society. At the second rally organised by CSN after Daphne’s assassination I had spoken of the people as sovereign – the ultimate depositaries of the powers of the land. That was not a concept I pulled out of thin air. Our legal systems are all intended to crystallise the way that ultimate power (of the people) is lent (and we emphasise lent) to different branches of the state in order that they may govern. To govern in the name of the people, for the people, by the people. Again, not another catchphrase.
Later developments to the philosophers’ ideas came in the form of modern liberal constitutions such as those begotten by the American and French revolutions. A representative government, a separation of powers and a basic set of rights that was above the power of the legislature. From the Magna Carta onwards in fact, there was the gradual realisation that a sovereign people would still subject itself voluntarily to regulation by a set of fundamental truths that would be inalienable (could not be taken away) even by those who have been entrusted with creating laws for the day to day functioning of society.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” is how the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence begins. The colonies were protesting the abuse of the representative power by their King and in that document they justified their right to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”. Among the first of the self-evident truths was The First Amendment which precluded the lawmakers from enacting laws which abridged freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the freedom of religious belief.
The basic rules would be guaranteed by other branches of the state. Alexander Hamilton outlined this in The Federalist Papers No. 78, when he spoke of the Court being the ultimate interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution. In his words, the Court would stand “between the people and the legislature, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority … A constitution is in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law.. the Constitution ought to be preferred to the [legislature’s] statute, and the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”.
Modern constitutions are replete with checks and balances of this sort. The point of the checks and balances is that tyranny is avoided. The point is that the abuse of power by a part over the whole is prevented.
The role of a ‘majority’ in our constitution starts and stops with the election of our representatives in parliament that lead to the selection of a government entrusted with executive power for a short mandate. The next day of an election the concept of ‘majority vote’ is technically redundant except when applied within the rules and regulations of parliamentary votes for the enactment of laws.
Above all, the government of the day as an executive – and every other branch of the state – have no business with using the concept of “majority rule” to trump all other concepts of legal accountability. To do so would be to usurp the very concept of control of power and representation. Ian Borg’s concept of majority rule trumping the rule of law is an abomination to the concept of democratic representation. The same can be said of Alfred Sant’s declarations in the European Parliament where the idea that “the people have voted” seems to have been bandied about as some sort of general absolution for any irregularities committed by the agents of government that was confirmed at the polls.
Whether willfully or through ignorance of the law, these statements become a declaration of war on liberal democracy. They represent a dangerous step in the current situation where the rule of law is withering before our very own eyes.
Xtaqt nibda billi inkellimkom dwar Tariq Ramadan. Huwa doċenti universitarju ġewwa l-universita ta’ Oxford fejn huwa professur ta’ l-istudji iżlamiċi kontemporanji (Kulleġġ ta’ St Antony ġewwa l-istitut ta’ l-istudji orjentali). Ramadan ma hux biss professur universitarju għax hu ukoll persunalita medjatika bi preżenza qawwijja fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir dinjija (mis-CNN sa Al-Jazeera sa TV Iranjani) fejn sikwit ikun preżenti jiddiskuti l-islam fis-soċjeta kontemporanja – b’mod partikolari fis-soċjeta ewropea. Ħafna misilmin Ewropej iħossu li Ramadan huwa rappreżentant den tal-kawżi u drittijiet tagħhom.
Jekk tfittex ismu fuq youtube issib ħafna interventi tiegħu f’dibattiti u programmi televiżivi u personalment insib li huwa tajjeb li wieħed josserva dawn l-interventi tiegħu biex ikollok perspettiva differenti ta’ kif persuna ta’ twemmin li ma hix nisranija (s’issa t-twemmin dominanti Ewropew) tħabbat wiċċa ma sitwazzjonijiet fejn il-prinċipji, valuri u morali tagħha ikollhom jinsiltu minn ġo soċjeta li trid jew ma tridx kull ma jmur qed issir iktar u iktar eteroġeneja. Ara per eżempju dan il-vidjo qasir:
F’sens liberal-demokratiku ma tistax ma taqbilx mal-konklużjoni kemmxejn relativista ta’ Ramadan. “Live and let live” tinstema soluzzjoni tajba ħafna għall-għawġ kollu imma ikun hawn min jgħidlek (bir-raġun) illi s-sinsla tradizzjonali tal-Ewropa qed jitherrew b’dak il-mod. Tħarsux biss lejn kwistjoni ta’ omosesswalita. Rajt lil Ramadan jiddiskuti l-obbligu tal-velu u d-dritt li nisa misilmin jilbsu il-velu anki fil-pixxini pubbliċi. Ħin minnhom waqt li kien qed jiġi interpellat b’mod pjuttost vivaċi minn ġurnalista qalilha ħaġa li għalijja kienet familjari ħafna. Qal: “Allura biex inkunu liberali u tolleranti b’bħalek irridu nobbligaw lil kullħadd jgħum mingħajr velu?” Hemm hi. Arma komuni dan l-aħħar, nasba li taqbad lill-liberali dgħajjef fl-argumenti imma ferventi fil-proselitizzazzjoni… bl-iskuża tat-tolleranza jispiċċa isir iktar intolleranti.
Imbagħad jgħidlek Tariq li l-Lhud kienu ilhom għexieren ta’ snin bil-ħinijiet differenti għan-nisa filgħodu fil-pixxini pubbliċi imma “ħadd ma qajjem għagħa fuqha”. U jidħlu elementi oħra ta’ tipi oħra ta’ diskriminazzjoni u ta’ tolleranza u l-kobba tibqa titħabbel.
Fil-verita il-kwistjoni qiegħdha f’għażla ta’ soċjeta. Il-kuntratt soċjali impliċitu jimplika qbil fuq tip ta’ soċjeta li trid titfassal. Diskussjonijiet dwar normi u valuri li huma neċessarji għas-soċjeta għandhom jitqiegħdu f’dan il-qafas iktar wiesgħa. X’irridu mis-soċjeta tagħna? Fejn hi sejra bħalissa? B’liema valuri irridu inrawmu lit-tfal? Jekk trid eżempji estremi issib kemm trid bħall-iSpartani antiki li kellhom sistema tagħhom ta’ l-ewġenika. Trid soċjeta li tindokra lil membri tagħha jew waħda li toħloq biss il-“level playing field” utopiku biex imbagħad titlaq lil kullħadd f’tellieqa?
Din id-diskussjoni (u għażla) ma ssirx biss meta tinħoloq soċjeta ġdida b’għanijiet ġodda iżda hija waħda kontinwa. L-irwol ta partiti politiċi u membri tagħhom huwa li jkunu katalisti f’din id-diskussjoni. Li qed jiġri hu li l-valuri u prinċipji tilfu l-importanza tagħhom u saru sekondarji għat-tellieqa għall-poter. Wisq drabi ikollhom isiru kompromessi tal-kuxjenza (jekk ikun għad baqa kuxjenza) u kull ma jmur d-diskussjoni formattiva – dik li ssawwar is-sisien li fihom titrawwem is-soċjeta ma hix qiegħdha issir. Issir biss metadiskussjoni b’dak li jissejħu “catchwords” illi huma tifkira imbiegħda (souvenir) ta’ żmien ieħor meta l-valur kien sovran u l-bniedem kien verament uman – verament umanista.
Diskussjoni ma hix ġlieda biex timponi jew tolleranza relativista li iddgħajjef imma proċess soċjali meditattiv u ta’ żvilupp li jwassal għat-tisħiħ tal-membri kollha a prescindere mit-twemmin u ħsieb individwali tagħhom. Allura iva, meta Tonio Borg iqum fil-parlament u jħeġġeġ lill-membri kollha sabiex “iħaddnu t-twemmin tagħhom” huwa mhux biss xieraq imma neċessarju. Imma dak huwa l-ewwel pass biss. Li tagħraf li twemminek ma hux universali u li tkun lest tiddiskuti, tinvestiga u tistħarreġ l-aħjar mezz kif bi twemminek u forsi ukoll bl-input ta’ twemmin ħaddieħor ittejjeb il-qagħda soċjali huwa t-tieni pass.
Dak il-pass kif se naraw ma hux ħafif. Huwa pass mimli riflessjonijiet, ftuħ għal ideat u iva… fejn hemm bżonn… kompromessi.
The Labour party has finally found a way to get at Richard Cachia Caruana on something based on fact rather than on the irritation at an unelected person having a purported strong influence on cabinet decisions (pace Franco Debono). The accusation is based on Wikileaks that portray an active RCC (oh the heavy acronym) lobbying with the US for the reactivation of Malta’s Partnership for Peace membership. The buzzphrase on social networks this morning is : “Allura RCC ikbar mill-parlament?”
I’ve always found this fixation with RCC quite a curious one. The man obviously has much clout and his opinions seem (or seemed) to be highly valued within the inner decision making circles of government. That he might not be directly accountable for many a blunder might raise important questions about the structure of our elected elite. On the other hand there is a bit of an emptiness in the grudges that are held against the man. The business of government is one that does not only require elected politicians in their roles of PMs and ministers but also gets done with a caravan of policy advisors (at least we hope so) who come election day risk their position as much as the rest of the ministerial entourage. Feeble as it may be – it does give you an idea of a form of accountability.
Secondly, RCC might be counted among a list of a few intelligent persons upon whom the Gonzi cabinet depended for a long time as a sounding board as well as to prepare future policy objectives. Again the main caveat here is that I do not know the man from Adam except for the rumours within the halls of civil servicery that are not too kind on him insofar as temper and perfectionist tantrums are concerned. Be that as it may I still find the accusations of “unelected mandarin” rather feeble and populistic. After all what do you expect? Governments will lend an ear to whoever they believe are competent advisors – my only grudge here is that all too often it seems that this government depends on one channel of information without really viewing alternatives – but that is another story.
Back to the PfP issue. When the participation in the PfP program was finally reactivated in 2008 it was a cabinet decision. Not parliament mind you – cabinet. Whether the groundwork for this reactivation had been prepared by extra-cabinet members such as RCC is something one would hope for rather than condemn. Switch back to 1996 and consider Sant’s de-activation of PfP membership in the name of “neutrality”. Irrespectively of whether you agree or disagree with Sant’s interpretation of neutrality there is one point that sticks out on that day.
The seat at Castille had barely gotten used to the shape of Sant’s behind yet Sant via his cabinet took a decision to withdraw from the PfP. One could also safely assume (or, again, hope) that Sant was acting on the basis of advice from specialist persons within the field – unelected technocrats who participate in the work of government in order to facilitate its operation.
Is Sant greater than parliament? No. Neither is RCC. Nor is the cabinet. The fact remains that Malta’s original decision to take part in the PfP formed part of a wider EU participation program in an early nineties nationalist government. The withdrawal by Dr Sant was accepted as a legitimate cabinet decision by his government (based on an electoral programme promise) and the re-activation by the subsequent nationalist government was the result of another cabinet decision that itself was based on the fact that the nationalist party had never changed its policy on PfP membership (which is why I believe that it is correct in claiming that it did not need to include the re-activation in subsequent electoral programmes).
Whether RCC as part of the hidden machinery of government lobbied with governments and institutions or not is a probability that is now confirmed by the Wikileaks. We see no wrong in the fact that this occurred since the decision to activate, withdraw or re-activate lies purely within the power of cabinet and in this case RCC would be acting as the humble servant of the latter.
It’s either that or else we can safely say that both the Labour government 1998 and the Nationalist government 2008 acted as though they were above parliament. Which would not be such a great surprise but we’d rather stick to facts than speculation or misinformation.
Labour (Inhobbkom’s Labour not Ed’s New New One) is busy conferencing this weekend. They’re huddled cosily in the university’s Aula Magna for a full day of talks in a conference entitled “Revisting Labour’s History” and I still cannot get over the fact that I was unable to make it there. Yes, you read that right, I would have loved to witness at first hand this conference of sorts that is part of the wider Labour strategy of “Re-”s. They’re re-visiting their history, re-inventing their logo, re-gurgitating old economic principles, re-moving their facial hair and (once again) re-cycling an image that has been a work in progress since is-Salvatur ta’ Malta went into re-tirement (never a minute too late).
There’s something manifestly wrong in the way Labour went about this whole “re-” business though, and this weekend’s conference contains some clear pointers to what that could be. Someone, somewhere is guilty of a gross miscalculation when choosing the title first of all: “Revisiting Labour’s History”. It’s the political equivalent of a Freudian slip combined with all the evident trappings of a modern day “Pimp my Party” in the making. The term “revisit” is a few letters away from becoming “revise” and I have a hunch that this is not a small coincidence.
In legal terms, when a court revisits an earlier decision it normally does so because of the necessity of reinterpreting the earlier position – there would be not other reason to revisit and reopen the case. In historical terms there is another “re-” word that is of relevance here. It’s the idea of revisionism. Revisionism need not always be extreme as in holocaust denial. Reading through the agenda of this weekend’s conference, I couldn’t help but think that Labour is sorely tempted to rewrite some chapters of history of its own. They’ve been at it for a while now and we have all become used to the polyphonic history of our islands – whether it is sung by Mary Spiteri to the tunes of Gensna or whether it is yelled from the pedestals of il-Fosos by the latest crowd-stirring nationalist orator – the messages are always excitingly dissonant and cacophonous: the result of two virtual realities and perceptions colliding.
Rapid eye movement
The political audience is already, as it is, doomed to the regular resurrection of revisited myths and legends in our political discourse. The narratives woven by opposing parties are now firmly ingrained in our collective minds and it is hard to reasonably detach from them completely. It is extremely significant that, bang in the middle of the process of change and reinvention, Labour chose to “revisit” its history and discuss, among other things: “The Worker Student Scheme: 1978-1987”. As I type (11.30am, Saturday, 2 October), Peter Mayo is about to launch into an explanation of how Great Leader Mintoff (May God Give Him Long Life and Order a Hail of Stones on All His Evil Wishers) sowed the seeds of the stipend system and how we must be eternally grateful for his insights that allowed us to progress to a university accepting 3,000+ freshers this year.
The irony will be lost on the listeners sitting in that cosy hall of the Aula Magna on the 2nd of October 2010 that 33 years and one day before this the atmosphere in that very same place would best have been described as tensely electric. I wonder whether Peter Mayo will stop for a moment to explain to the young listeners (I’d imagine a Nikita Alamango fawning in the audience – one who according to her latest Times “blog” post cannot stand the PN reminders of the past) that on the 3rd October 1977 the opening ceremony at university featured heavy protests by the medical students who had just been shut out of the course (and always risked brutal cancellation if the thugs decided that it was open day at Tal-Qroqq).
Sure, it was not yet 1978 so it might (just) be beyond Peter Mayo’s remit. He will be forgiven therefore for not reminding those present that only two days later, on 5 October 1977, the man dubbed as is-Salvatur tal-Maltin would walk past a group of students chained to the railings in Castille oblivious to the fact that his government’s decisions in the educational sector (the much lauded Worker Student Scheme) were about to deny thousands of young people the path to tertiary education and send them abroad in droves.
Remember, remember the 5th of October
To be fair to Peter Mayo he probably couldn’t dare criticise the workings of the Great Leader. Not after a wonderful morning discussing his battles with the church in the sixties and his “electrifying” speeches to the proletariat. The electric effect Mintoff and his handymen had on some parts of the population would best be described as “shocking” actually. Whatever you may think of Labour’s dim-witted purposive ignorance of the past and bulldozering of historic relevance, don’t you for one moment run away with the idea that it is only the party of Joseph, Evarist (Bartolo – of removed stipends fame) and Alfred (Sant – of interview boards at university) who is in the business of revising historical facts.
You see, I sympathise with such Young Turks as Nikita Alamango who are frustrated at having to carry the burden of Labour’s past every time they squeak a new idea or criticise the current regime (sorry – did I say regime? – it’s the “Re” word fixation). Hell, this week even the German Republic paid the final instalment in World War I Reparations (started paying in 1919 and was suspended as long as Germany was split). Ninety-two years on and the German conscience is slightly freer – so why not Labour? Most times they are right. PN lackeys all too often emerge from the primordial slew of infertile political ground and rely on historical mudslinging for want of a better argument.
The problem I have with Labour is twofold – disputing the relevance of past actions is one thing. Revising (sorry, revisiting) them is another. Revisiting them on the anniversary of events that marked the watershed of Old Labour’s hopeless politics of the late 70s is insulting – insulting not just to the PN hardliners but also to neutral observers like myself who can see through the charade. Labour cannot expect this to go unnoticed. It is strategically stupid and politically insensitive. It does not stop at conferences: Recently, someone from Labour’s “think-tank” (IDEAT) was busy on Facebook quoting a party press release which stated that the current government’s agreements with China are a confirmation of the Labour vision of the seventies. Sit down and weep.
Virtually real
Mine is not simply an angry case of indignation though. Labour’s Revisionist Conference is part of a wider mentality that is the inner workings and thinking of the two major parties in this country. In this day and age of multimedia and mass communication, the modes of communication might be evolving at such a rapid pace that we will soon be tweeting in our sleep, but there is one basic constant whether it’s TV, radio, newspaper or Internet and that constant is the word. In principio stat verbum (in the beginning was the word) and it’s going to be with us for a long time yet.
Words and their meaning are at the basis of whatever construction of reality we choose to live in. Einstein once stated that reality is an illusion but a very good illusion at that. The PLPN (un)wittingly engage in a constant battleground of establishing the reality in which we live (and that is why they NEED the media influence). Whether we are considering the “cost of living”, the “minimum wage” or the “living wage”, we sometimes fail to notice that a large number of constants that we take for granted in these arguments are the fruit of elaborate definitions of perception suited to whatever party is making its claim. We are not that dopey really – there is a general acceptance that “parties colour the world as best they see it”, and although as a nation we struggle to come to terms with irony and sarcasm we still manage to joke about the PL-PN chiaroscuro worlds.
I am not sure however about how much the electorate is in control of the button that switches us between perception and reality. How capable are we of switching off the virtual reality and putting our foot down when we believe that things have been taken too far? Can we decide when we want to open our eyes? Are we, like the character in Almodovar’s Abre Los Ojos (open your eyes – spoiler warning) still able to opt out of the programme that creates a “lucid and lifelike virtual reality of dreams” and yell that enough is enough? Worse still – have the very parties that are responsible for the manufactured realities that we inhabit become so embroiled and enmeshed in them that they are unable to find the switch themselves?
Denial
Take the Nationalist Party. They are an incredible subject for this sort of test. This week they engaged in a mind-boggling collective exercise of denial of truths. We had Minister Tonio Fenech and his cataclysmic Tax-Free Maid slip. Watching The Times interview that gave Tonio a chance to right his previous wrongs was like watching an exercise in verbal prestidigitation featuring a ministerial equivalent of the Mad Hatter. Quizzed on VAT he replied on Stamp Duty and vice-versa, and then went on a trip about not having to answer about private affairs that he himself had brought up as a public example. You could only squirm in your seat as you watched Tonio attempt to make his statements vanish into thin air. Apologists tried other tactics – the cream of the crop coming from the Runs claiming that since the law is inadequate then Tonio and his maid are right in not following it to the letter. Perception? Forget the doors… they’ve swallowed the key.
Meanwhile El Supremo del Govermento was busy wearing the party hat, having been asked to pass summary judgement on the PBO-VAT saga. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi found absolutely nothing incongruous with the fact that his very exacting sec-gen failed to apply his own standards of political propriety when faced with a legal crisis of his own. Same same but different – just like in the alleyways in Thailand when they sell fake brands. Fake – it’s just an illusion of reality but not exactly so.
As if PBO and Tonio were not enough, we also had the DimechGate spin-off in the form of the uncomfortable presence of Robert Arrigo – the last of the disgruntled backbenchers. PN councillor Yves Cali was the latest to slip in a frank interview with The Times in which he more than just alleged that Arrigo was in the business of throwing his weight around the council to get what he wants. Yves (or Bobby) tried to retract his statement so an irritated Times published a transcript of the interview in which the allegations were made. A transcript – that’s a word for word proof that the statements were made. Quizzed about this, Paul Borg Olivier (fresh from his own reality check) came up with the quote of the week by insisting that the transcript published by The Times was “not faithful to the statement of clarification made by Yves Cali”.
Open your eyes
Take your time and read that short, Orwellian PBO phrase. If ever there was an example of the convoluted logic somersaults performed by parties to twist your perception of reality, here it was.
The transcript (a text bearing witness to reality at its crudest) was not faithful to the statement of clarification (an attempt at revising/reinterpreting that reality). And which reality does PBO want you to believe? No prizes for guessing.
We need to open your eyes. This is a political generation that one week expresses its love for the environment on car free day while parading in front of journalists using alternative modes of transportation and then, in the following week, the collective parliamentary group (PLPN) self-allocates a huge chunk of (previously pedestrian) Merchants Street for reserved MP parking in connivance with the Valletta Local Council (remember Cali? “We serve our MPs and Labour serve theirs”). The excuse? It will free up more parking for residents and visitors. Park and Ride anyone?
It’s time we opened our eyes – and remember, sometimes actions speak louder than words.
