Tag: alternattiva demokratika

Categories
Campaign 2013

Briguglio’s Faux Pas?

This is only the second national election being covered by this blog (which incidentally turns 8 on the day of the results). For the first time we have been ever more outright in our support for getting a third party elected into parliament particularly since alternattiva demokratika has not only proven to be a particularly apt vehicle for that process but also (and more importantly) it has proved its worth as a party with full credentials for representation. In other words it is much more than simply electing a third party for a third party’s sake.

Having said that the recent revelation regarding Michael Briguglio’s 2008 vote have caught many of the party’s supporters on the wrong foot – myself included. How can you trust a party that is led by a Chairman who openly declares not having voted for it last time round? A legitimate question if ever there was one.  Should AD have their version of Malcolm Tucker he would be down Michael Briguglio’s throat in no time. It would have much to do with the idea that there is a place and time for downright honesty and an electoral campaign is not one of them. There doesn’t seem to be a Tucker though and Briguglio seems to be happy enough with his version of “I have always been a floating voater and see no inconsistency”. Isn’t there?

Well I am not one to be satisfied by this and I have asked for a better explanation. Why did Michael Briguglio – an AD councillor in Sliema at the time – not vote for AD at the General Elections? The answer is not only comforting but also encouraging. It turns out that “AD mark 2008” run by Harry Vassallo was not turning out to be as incisive and effective as Mike Briguglio hoped. Compare that AD to today’s AD for an answer – today’s AD is confident, with a clear vision and is not into the business of begging for your number twos. Briguglio’s AD is definite about its position on everything – no half truths, no lies, no corners – just a clear “with us you know where you stand”. It also turns out that Mike had some concerns about the administrative running of the party. Mike had concerns on matters of principle.

I can understand Mike’s worry in that respect. Last time round the campaign from this corner of the blogosphere focussed on the third party for the third party’s sake and that might be a mistake. A party cannot simply be elected out of the need for a third party. It has to have clarity of vision. This might have been lacking to a point in 2008 and Mike’s contribution since his election to the chairmanship has contributed to making sure this lacuna is filled. Which brings me to the next point. Mike chose to sit back during the last election (he did NOT contest for AD – and retained his seat in the Sliema council out of respect for his voters). He did vote for Sant’s Labour given the choice. His disillusion with what was being wrought in AD at the time might have had a part in that decision.

One point that springs to mind is that Mike acted out of principle. Not agreeing with what was going on in the party at the time he stepped back. Did not campaign actively, did not contest (of course). Compare that to what was going on in the PN camp in 2008 with ghost writers and secretary general’s turning somersaults in order to sell the lie that was Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Would you barter Mike’s honest stand with that load of crap?

After that election Michael was approached by Labour to join the new movement. He turned this down. Surely if Mike wanted to be part of a Labour wave as some bad tongues are wagging right now he would have jumped on Muscat’s Train of Misfits? Surely it would have been easier for Michael to sell his progressive ideas in a Labour government than from the hypothetical partnership in a coalition? Surely. You’d have to be stupid to believe that Michael Briguglio has the Labour Party’s interests at heart.

We know what happened next. Cassola asked Mike to return to the AD fold. Vassallo was out of the picture working for the Nationalist Commissioner in the EU John Dalli (after having been hounded by the same nationalists on the eve of the election for having forgotten to file some VAT documents relating to defunct companies). Mike rejoined the new project with enthusiasm and charisma, bringing the experience garnered from years of political militancy. Sure, Mike brings a leftist touch to the Green politics of AD but anyone wanting to look at the credentials of Mike and his party need only look at the uncompromising principles in their manifesto. This is not a party that would sell its soul to the FKNK.

In the Maltese atmosphere of exploiters of ignorance and purveyors of fear it is easy to pounce on Mike’s honest answer to the question “who have you voted for in 2008?”. The gullible and the easily exploited will fall for the ruse that Mike is Labour disguised as green. Mike is none of that. Mike is one of the few honest candidates running for the election on the ticket that could make history.

For that reason and because I have full faith in Michael and his team I will be putting a number 1 next to Michael Briguglio’s name next election. (And yes, this Gozitan votes on the 10th District).

Categories
Divorce Politics

Humpty Dumpty Politics

What makes or breaks a modern political party? Can we still talk of the terms “christian-democrat” and “socialist” (or the masacara “progressive”) when it comes to the nitty-gritty of politics in Malta? Is it just Malta that has entered a Bermuda Triangle of party values?

The nationalist party might hold the “Fehmiet Bazici” (Basic Beliefs) document to its heart but how is it to reconcile that with the calculated vote grabbing net that is elaborated every five years? Joseph Muscat may have declared a new era of progressive liberals but his party is having a hard time trying to appease the weird animal that is the “conservative proletariat”.

The “socialists” were never socialist to begin with. Even at the worst of the church-Labour battles their worry over the fact of being buried in non-consecrated ground or their sacristy marriages betrayed their Peppone like interior. Beneath the wannabe socialist revolutionaries were Catholics who were really stung by the fundamentalist church moves. Had they really been convinced of their socialist, lay battles they wouldn’t have given two hoots about being interdicted from a church that was supposedly not theirs.

The nationalist party lost its moral compass right after 1987. It was on a life-saving machine all through the EU campaign having placed its bets on the right horse but once the fog of the EU War subsided (thank you very much Waste-Our-Bloody-Time-Sant) it fell apart like Humpty Dumpty – unable to string together a coherent plan of action and a victim of the Young Battlers of the EU Campaign clamouring for a piece of the victorious pie of government. The worldwide economic crisis did the rest of the trick.

So when an issue like divorce hits the parties when they least expect it, they are unable to react as political parties. Or at least it seems so. James Debono has done a(nother) wonderful job of assessing the different scenarios with regards to divorce and the two main parties: “Divorce: When principles and convenience collide“. Even if we were to set aside the issue itself (divorce) and focus on the party reactions to what is basically a “principle” or “value” changer in society the results are rather bleak.

The stand taken by Austin Gatt might be old hat but it is after all what you’d expect from a party MP. Austin’s stand is about the PN stand not about what Malta thinks. He is spot on when he says that if he (Austin) disagrees with divorce legislation then he cannot fit in within a party that actively promotes divorce legislation. J’accuse would go one further. Resign from the PN in case it decides to back divorce legislation but do not resign from parliament.

Paul Borg Olivier’s recent interview on Dissett points to a possible development for the PN. It is the possibility of acknowledging that the party itself is in favour/against divorce but leaving its members free to vote. The question J’accuse would like to ask is: Does this count as a party position on values? Is the acknowledgement that a discussion such as divorce is one that has both pro- and con- partisans within the same party sufficient to say that party values are safe?

Even Labour, with what is supposed to be a less confessional set of values (actually it claims to be progressive) has difficulties taking a stand on divorce. Granted that there is no denying that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has a proven track record of opportunistic bandwagon politics this particular nut will be a tough one to crack. Muscat has his own Gatt on his side of parliament (Adrian Vassallo) and surely other conservative proletarians will follow suit.

Which leaves us with Alternattiva Demokratika. What started off as a party with a strong green agenda at the time of its affiliation with the Verdi/Greens can now boast of a wealth of political positions in the social sphere – from property rights to gender issues to divorce. The party position is unequivocal and clear: they want divorce legislation.

The D’Hondt relative majority has done much to whittle away the party backbone for the party in government. It lives each day nervously wondering which backbencher (or government member) might step out of line and threaten the fragile structure that is at wits end. It has gone from “Par Idejn Sodi” (a pair of strong hands) to “Kuljum bir-Roghda” (everyday shaking). The PL is at sea trying to desperately loop in any possible voter and trying not to tread on anyone’s toes in case their vote is needed come d-day. Which leaves us with a gaggle of spineless politicians unable to take a clear stand on matters that count. Or does it?

J’accuse believes that for the first time Alternattiva Demokratika has a chance to assert itself as something more than a party aspiring for the third place. The l vacuum opened up by the PLPN (ironically as a direct result of their tweaking of the D’Hondt Relative Majority) opens up the same possibilities as those seen by the UK Liberal Democrats before the last elections. AD should no longer aspire to be a third party. On paper, it has every right and chance to aspire to be a major role player in the next elections and technically it should be the most spineless of the PLPN duo that suffers.

That of course does not take into account the partisan vote base. Which will stick to its PLPN guns come hell or highwater… or come divorce.