Tag: democracy

Categories
Panamagate Politics

No flowers in Panama (I – the seeds)

filpanama_akkuza

It’s Sunday morning and the nationalist party is gearing up for what it dubs a national protest against corruption. The Sunday papers are full to the brim with opinion articles, spin and (if you look really hard) factual reports about the issue that has a name: Panamagate. Over the week the men in Castille shifted through deny, downplay, riposte and finally deflect and distract motions. Nothing seems to work, and rightly so, because the issue is national, important and immediate. Mark Anthony Falzon’s column in the Sunday Times best explains why in the small picture Konrad Mizzi’s position is untenable. Falzon’s column can be added on to an earlier post in this blog explaining why even before delving deeply into Mizzi’s doings we could conclude that he was unfit for purpose. Mizzi, not Falzon.

I did say small picture though and I was careful when I said that. Don’t get me wrong, Panamagate is a scandal of gargantuan proportions. We are still coming to terms with the ramifications of what it all really means in terms of this government’s general program. Indian frauds and Azeri business deals have only just been brought into the fray while the feeble counter-ripostes from the government side have included reminders of how ex-Nationalist ministers (Ninu Zammit in particular) held millions in accounts abroad before being granted an amnesty by Joseph Muscat’s government. So yes, of itself and within its confines Panamagate is huge and insofar as the story of this bumbling government is concerned it should be a huge blow to its overall credentials for governance.

There is a bigger picture that we should objectively be looking at. It’s a wider look at the nature and workings of our body politic as a whole – beyond Panamagate, beyond the other PL government scandals, beyond the cases of corruption of ex-PN ministers that have come to surface and might yet surface. The bigger picture should be what the whole business of running our democracy is all about and understanding how it could be improved – not for the sakes and interests of the duopoly and a bit (I’ll get to that “bit” later) but for the sakes of a young Republic that needs renewal and revival.

Sunday’s protest is supposed to be a national one against corruption in politics. J’accuse is taking this cue in this time when trust in politics and politicians to take a wider angle look at what is happening, at how we got to Panamagate and the options of where we can go from here.

Getting to Panamagate

sowing the seeds of bad governance

Corruption. It did not start with Konrad Mizzi. It will not stop with Konrad Mizzi. At the heart of corruption is the misuse of the powers that have been entrusted in the hands of those chosen to administer the state on behalf of the people. This is, in essence, why and how corruption exists. Do not only see it in monetary terms – the pilfering of funds isn’t half the full story. Corruption is the abuse of trust pure and simple. It is the use of powers that have been lent to you in order to give, grant or allow things to people who do not deserve or would not have deserved such things had they gone through the right channel. Corruption is nepotism. Corruption is legislating as a favour for an interest group. Corruption is closing one eye. Corruption is abusing of the rules in order to get your way. Corruption is the conscious fettering of one’s discretion. Corruption is the creaton of networks that favour closed groups without transparency or merit.

The structures of a democratic state are intended to counter, as far as possible, the possibilities of corruption. Furthermore, when such preventive methods fail, the same structures should be able to counter with a remedy – investigation, prosecution and more. The Maltese Constitution, sovereign in 1964 and republican in 1974, was built around the concept of a sovereign parliament as inherited from our colonial rulers. It is clear from a reading of the constitution that with all the mechanisms of checks and balances in place, with all the power afforded to the head of state, the main engine of the system is the parliament. It may be fettered by a few absolute majority clauses but there is no doubt that parliament reigns supreme. The power of the people lies in parliament. It’s not exactly “if parliament wills pigs can fly” but it’s pretty damn close.

Over the sixty odd years of sovereign existence our parliament evolved into a two-party structure with more and more importance given to the main parties concerned. Laws were written, amended and “abused” in favour of this dual perversion – comfortable with the notion that if the world’s oldest liberal democracy can live with dualism then so can we. While China and Soviet Russia could work with the one party system (factoid: China actually has thousands of parties but only one counts) we developed a perverse system in which the constitution and all laws enacted would be subservient to the needs of the duopoly’s concept of power. Even notions of Equity and Justice had to be based on the notion of par condicio. The PLPN behemoth was born. Electoral laws would be drafted to ensure that as far as is humanly possible only two types of interests would be represented in parliament and the rest of the laws requiring political distribution would follow suit – government and opposition making up the numbers.

Many moons ago this blog was not alone among a movement of people warning that not all is right under the PN government. Our main argument at the time was that the PN government had lost its sense of purpose – from the 1987 calls of Work, Justice, Liberty to the 90s reconstruction and growth , to the push to join the European Union in 2004, the nationalist’s had a clear direction in their mind. They were driven with that purpose and their role in governing the country was underpinned by that purpose. Once Malta had joined the EU that sense of purpose and rive was lost. The PN was doomed to falter from then on. It’s unwillingness to engage on social issues would not be the first petard with which it would be hoist. The PN would fail to admit that the system that fed the two-party alternation was eroding the nation’s backbone from within. The next decade from 2004 would be spent with the Gonzi government suffering the rot that would ensue. Left to their own devices politicians without a cause beyond their district duties and obligations end up doing what they know best – peddling in influence and toying with power.

It is not surprising that the John Dalli’s and the Pullicino Orlando’s of this world were born under a nationalist administration. In a panicked attempt to hold on to the reigns of power the PN turned a twisted form of populist – hoisting upon the electors a pick and mix of politicians that were anything but while failing to see where the real remedy lay: tackling the source of our ills – the magnet of corruption that was our political structure of networks, friends of friends and die-hard flag wavers.

Which is when Joseph Muscat stepped in. On paper it was all promise of transparency, meritocracy and a battle on corruption. The sovereign power of the people was supposed to revert to the Maltese- Taghna Lkoll. On paper. Yet Muscat operated within the same parameters as had the previous government. Worse still the new Labour team has shown that it has no capacity for self-restraint. The trough was thrown out in the middle of the brand new Castlile square and the nation could only stand back gobsmacked watching the pigs feast on it day after day. Meritocracy? Spare me. Transparency? Say what? Corruption? Ouch. Muscat’s finely honed electoral campaign was meant to work under the current parameters of electoral mediocrity. Those same parameters encourage the development of corrupt networks of dependency and trading in power. In a twisted chicken and egg conundrum it became evident that in order to take a big slice of the power cake, the networks of dependencies and IOUs had to be in place BEFORE even getting elected. The government promising transparency, meritocracy and an end to corruption had set the mold for a corrupt system before it was elected.

Meanwhile, calls by (admittedly small) sectors of society to elect the third party into parliament and break the power mold fell on deaf ears. Most times it was derided as madness and as a failure to understand that the rules only allow one winner and one runner-up. Critics missed the point. They still miss the point today when they speak of the “need of redemption” for what was done by third-way enthusiasts at the time. It is only ignorance of the system and a blind affiliation to the idea of alternation that can foment such ideas.

In 2016 this blog will be among the first to say that the third way is not the way to break the system and change it. It cannot be any longer. Change must perforce come from elsewhere. more about this in the next posts. Keep reading. And you might still be in time to get to Valletta for the protest.

 

 

 

Categories
Politics

Unmeritocracy, Undemocracy

undemocracy_akkuza2

So it turns out that Mario Philip Azzopardi is not the most congenial person to work with. And that, it seems, is putting it mildly. It is ironic that of all the “meritocratic” appointments under the present government it is Azzopardi who joins the magisterial nominees in the eye of the storm(s) currently being whipped up. Azzopardi proudly boasts of being the man behind the infamous “I’m not sorry pa, I’m voting Labour” campaign that epitomises the drivel that was sold by Muscat’s campaign team before the election.  Muscat’s Labour was sold as an all-encompassing movement that would radicalise politics in Malta and take the heavy burden of nationalist arrogance and mismanagement off the Maltese people. The (man who thinks he is) Obama from Bahrija managed to pull off the biggest trick with a sufficient amount of people having swallowed his well packaged drivel hook, line and sinker.

Almost three years of Taghna Lkoll government later the masks have completely washed off (might have been the ice bucket challenge) and any pretence that this government harbours any values that relate to anything remotely resembling meritocracy (one of the trumpet calls of the campaign) have been dispelled. The crisis of this government is in fact first and foremost based around its abject failure to hold up the one principle that shone above all during the campaign : meritocracy.

The arts community is now up in arms because the man appointed as V18 artistic director has reached the limit of yellow cards. In an article in the Times today we find the very dangerous allegation that Azzopardi flaunted his political links in order to pressure artists into collaborating with him. Does it stop with Azzopardi? Of course not. He cannot be made the scapegoat of a virus that has been injected into the whole fabric of our institutional make-up. Take the issue of “persons of trust” for example. Only a couple of days ago our PM was happy-tweeting the fact that the employment rate in Malta was such that 18 persons a day have found employment under this government – of which 80% are in the private sector. Which might sound good but it also carries the interesting fact that under Muscat 4 people a day have been appointed to the public service.

Every week. While Michelle Muscat burns an inordinately ridiculous amount of diesel, and while Joseph Muscat cashes in 144 euros for renting his valueless Alfa to himself, 28 new employees join our government’s wage bill. Most of those, it goes without saying, are employed as “persons of trust” – a twisted interpretation of constitutional principles that is only there to justify one simple point: You Have to Be Labour to Be Trusted. I’m sorry pa.

Does it stop there? Hell not it doesn’t. This week the leader of the Opposition tweeted that the ball is now in the President’s court with regards to the nomination of Farrugia Frendo as a magistrate. New doubts have been raised (and echoed) from different quarters – retired judges, the dean of the law faculty and the Chamber of Advocates as to the eligibility of Farrugia Frendo for the post. Since Justice Minister Owen Bonnici insists on going ahead with the nomination anyway without consulting the Commission for Administration of Justice Busuttil has reasoned that the only guarantor of the consitution that is left is the President. All this is happening when we were supposed to be facing a monumental and uplifting reform in the justice sector – pivotal among which was an improved method of judicial appointment.

Instead of the promised reform we risk a patchwork re-evaluation based on knee-jerk reactions that are in their turn fruit of the current set of circumstances. The judicial reform cannot be the result of such a knee-jerk reaction. Especially not the reform of judicial appointments. A well-thought out reform has to fit in to the general fabric of constitutional discourse – that very discourse that has long been tainted by partisan rivalry and hijacked by hapless interventions that deprive it of all form of objectivity.

The lack of meritocracy is in fact the virus that has terminally poisoned this government and with it the it has gone on and poisoned the very institutional and constitutional fabric of the state. Democracy is in danger. I say these words not with the lightness of the kind that is normally around when campaign slogans are coined. Democracy is really in danger when what is unfolding before us is a general legal and political remake of the institutional fabric but one that is in the hand of power-serving, power-loving and power-hungry incompetents. This kind of reform that has gone by monikers such as Second Republic or Constitutional Change and that was supposedly heralded with the arrival of the Taghna Lkoll Politics is one that is only dedicated to as much self-preservation as possible for as long as possible by a select  circle of individuals who found themselves at the centre of society through a series of coincidental events.

It is dangerous. It is the triumph of ignorance and greed. It is happening right here, right now.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Bang! Bang! Democracy!

bang_akkuzaTwo shots. It could take two reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, illegal shots to finally get the people to “wake up and smell the coffee”. It might. There’s no telling really how willing an electorate can be to allow the fundamental tenets of a democracy to shatter before its eyes. That the nation was in the hands of a class that would only pay lip service to a system of rule of law was already evident to anybody who bothered to listen. We needed the caricature – the modern day parable ‘- to maybe pull the myriad ostrich heads out of the sand.

It’s more than a caricature. It’s a list of bilious arrogance spat in the face of any semblance of respect for the rule of law and the system.

  1. A minister’s driver used an official car for a private visit.
  2. That minister’s driver is also a policeman. Chauffeurs, waiters. Ipsos custodies gone wrong.
  3. That minister’s driver drives around armed. That’s a loaded gun.
  4. That minister’s driver feels entitled to take the law into his own hands. He could have reported an alleged “hit and run” offender, instead he took his gun…
  5. That minister’s driver was not happy with firing not one but two “warning shots” in a public place. He jumped into his car and began “hot pursuit”. Because of course he is also a policeman and there was the crime against public peace of scraping a side-view mirror to deal with. Citizens of Malta will drive more carefully now.
  6. That minister’s driver’s version was very soon the “official” version being backed by nothing less than a ministerial PR office. This notwithstanding a large number of eyewitness accounts failing to corroborate any pieces of the story that seem to have been concocted between the events and the media exercise. It’s not just a travesty, it’s a travesty backed by big brother.

We do say that certain trends do come late in Malta. Thirty years is a long time but hey we’re getting out very own 1984 right now. Put yourselves in the shoes of the British citizen who is guilty of having hit the side mirror of a ministerial vehicle. Hell, put yourselves in the shoes of any citizen involved in a traffic accident with a ministerial vehicle or a minister driving his vehicle. You’re screwed either way. If it’s the minister who was driving at the time then you know whose version of events will count. If it’s the ministers driver then your lotto for life will begin the moment he reaches for the gun. You know…

“Mr. Minister’s PR Guy in Press Conference Rag

Notice how his mouth never moves, almost”

Pathetic really. Even before any gun was shot the minister’s driver has already stepped out of the line (see list above). What do we get? We get a ministry of the government of the republic defending “his version of events” – essentially on the face of it (and on the basis of the alleged facts available hitherto) defending what can only be described as criminal activity. Why?

The Labour government track record defending persons with a poor record with the law is already a huge burden on Joseph Muscat’s dwindling credibility. Criminals turn heros rather enthusiastically in Labour’s constellation. Compared to this kind of nefarious behaviour, the sins of failing to deliver on any of its major electoral promises and the (non) meritocratic mess pale in comparison.

Sadly there is a huge chunk of the population that are prepared to carry along with this farce. These are the kind of people who applauded Muscat’s pushback antics, who are amused by his backing of criminals as Labour representatives and who will think that the minister’s driver is some kind of latter day hero who was valiantly defending the right to have an unblemished car mirror. As I explained in this blog only yesterday, this is also the result of the erosion of authorities and institutions. It is the result of the gradual hacking away at any semblance of system of accountability and rule of law. It is also the result of the drunken stupor induced by that famous number – 36,000.

Two shots. They might be the beginning of a wider awareness. Or they might just be the starting pistol’s shots announcing the beginning of our descent into the absolute pits of mediocrity.

Grazzi Joseph. Nibqghu nafuhulek.

Categories
Citizenship Mediawatch Politics

I will, in short, dream for a while

vaclav_akkuzaBack in 1992, Vaclav Havel was the President of a reborn Czechoslovakia. The fall of the Wall and the crumbling of the Iron Curtain was still fresh in recent memory and Havel’s new republic was making its way towards the ideal of “Western Democracy”. Fukuyama might be standing round the corner proclaiming the end of history but for the Czechoslovak playwright and poet President the future was full of hope. In the summer of 1992, Havel wrote a series of essays published in a book called “Summer Meditations”. In “Beyond the Shock of Freedom” he tries to imagine what Czechoslovakia would be like in the future (ten, fifteen, or twenty years). Though he admits that “life is unfathomable” he does try to dream for a while.

It’s not Martin Luther King’s dream. In many ways it is much more down to earth. What we read is a President who hopes to shepherd his newborn Western nation to working the basic tenets of what was understood to be the workings of a western liberal democracy. This was, remember, around the same time as the second mandate of Fenech Adami’s reworking of the Maltese republic – from Work, Justice and Liberty we had segued onto “Solidarity… always… everywhere”. Solidarity was a page lifted straight from the rebirth of another former Iron curtain nation – Walesa’s Poland. It was the call for change that was answered and that began to break away at the shackles of totalitarian hypocrisy.

But back to Havel’s dream. It remains relevant today – and not just for Czechoslovakia (the split into the Czech and Slovak republics occurred a little while after Havel published his thoughts). I find Havel’s hopes for the citizenry particularly telling. What he describes as ‘the shock of freedom’ has impacted the way citizens think and he hopes for an evolution in their attitude. The civic responsibility that he evokes involves confidence and pride – leading citizens to feel comfortable with their own country. Here is an extract from the opening lines of his essay with my emphasis added.

In the first place, I hope the atmosphere of our lives will change. The shock of freedom, expressed through frustration, paralysis and spite, will have gradually dissipated from society. Citizens will be more confident and proud, and will share a feeling of co-responsibility for public affairs.They will believe that it makes sense to live in this country.

Political life will have become more harmonious. We will have two large parties with their own traditions, their own intellectual potential, clear programs, and their own grass-roots support. They will be led by a new generation of young, well-educated politicians whose outlook has not been distorted by the era of totalitarianism. And of course there will be several smaller parties as well.

Our constitutional and political system will have been created and tested. It will have a set of established gentlemanly, unbendable rules. The legislative bodies will work calmly, with deliberation and objectivity. The executive branch of government and the civil service will be inconspicuous and efficient. The judiciary will be independent and will enjoy popular trust, and there will be an ample supply of new judges. […] A well-functioning, courteous police force wioll enjoy the respect of the population, and thanks to it – not only to it – there will no longer be anything like the high crime rate there is now.

At the head of the state will be a grey-haired professor with the charm of a Richard von Weizsacker.

We will, in short, be a stable Central Europen democracy that has found its identity and learned to live with itself.

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development Politics

The Hunter outside the Palace

When we decided to change the logo of SDM (the Christian Democrat Student organisation) in the mid-1990s we had decided to include a motto within a design that was meant to portray citizen participation and inclusion. The slogan, taken from Caldera’s tome describing the Christian Democrat principles translated as such “the ideal democratic palace is made up of the whole people”. We were very much into the notion of participatory democracy at the time and it was an interesting formative period of my  life.

One crucial question I have been asking myself recently, particularly after the discussions at the Vilnius closing conference of the European Year of Citizens, is “how far do citizens really want to participate”? Is not an ideal democracy one where citizens are duly represented and where such representatives go about with the business of managing the demos as entrusted unto them? Should a citizen be “active” on a daily basis or should his interventions be limited to the two instances of (1) electing those to be entrusted with the res publica and (2) intervening in moments of crises (taking to the streets)/extraordinary intervention by referendum.

The referendum – a method of public consultation is by now a familiar concept in Maltese politics. European Union membership and divorce have served to speed up the learning curve in this field and we know have a petition for a new referendum this time in the hope of abolishing Spring Hunting for good. It would seem that the representatives of our hunting community are suddenly alarmed that this petition for a referendum might be successful and they have kicked off a counter move – this time the move is a petition by the hunters to amend the very act that gives rise to Referenda. In the hunters’ opinion, such an act should never be used to stifle minorities.

It would seem therefore that the learning curve has hit a huge obstacle. The hunters’ move betrays a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of democratic action and participation. An act such as the referendum act is written in such a way so as to ensure that it does not become a tool for minorities to be ‘stifled’. Given the size of our population, it is already a gargantuan task to obtain a number of signatures that is sufficient to get a referendum going. Then, once the referendum does take place, one should also remember that it requires a majority vote – very much like a national election where similar issues are (supposedly) put on the plate in the form of electoral manifestos. That is why this blog (and a few others) have often insisted for more clarity from political parties during election time as to their commitments for their period in government.

hunter

That is also why the vague propositions found in manifestos are often more of an affront to representative democracy than the very clear aims of a referendum proposition. One should also not forget that a law that is a direct result of a referendum could also be challenged in the courts of law – especially if a citizen could claim that his fundamental rights are being infringed. I seriously doubt that a hunter’s right to shoot at will in Spring  time falls within the ambit of the fundamental rights of humankind and I only mention this check in order to paint a clear picture that goes beyond the PR-oriented assessment of rule of law and politics that is very much encouraged by our political classes today.

As it stands, the hunters are firmly entrenched outside the palace. They are not alone. Our political class have diluted all forms of accountability that would normally allow a democratic system based on rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances to work. When you have a government that first enacts a law, then rethinks it, then admits it was wrong, then admits it failed to consult stakeholders, then also remembers that there was no mention of this law in its political manifesto – and all the while such a government acts as though this was the most natural way of things and actually tries to get brownie points from its whole u-turn by claiming that it is “listening”… well then, something is rotten in Malta’s democratic palace.

“We are accounted poor citizens, the patricians good.
What authority surfeits on would relieve us: if they
would yield us but the superfluity, while it were
wholesome, we might guess they relieved us humanely;
but they think we are too dear: the leanness that
afflicts us, the object of our misery, is as an
inventory to particularise their abundance; our
sufferance is a gain to them Let us revenge this with
our pikes, ere we become rakes: for the gods know I
speak this in hunger for bread, not in thirst for revenge.”

(from Coriolanus, William Shakespeare).

 

Categories
Politics Uncategorized

I.M. Jack : An embarrassment to democracy

In this latest round up of commentaries on recent events J’accuse takes a look at a number of issues that have been hot in the past week. Unfortunately due to other commitments posting on this blog has not been as regular as I would have hoped. Here then is a look at why J’accuse finds that this Labour government is becoming more and more of an embarrassment to democracy. Let’s see a few of the last weeks’ events:

I. Doublespeak

Once again I join other observers who have by now noticed that in dealing with the press and media this government opts for half-truths or prevarication.

Joseph Muscat’s replies about Air Malta’s restructuring – a boomerang deviated onto Tonio Fenech’s lap in what Muscat believes to be a sly move – is just one example of our government still thinking in opposition mode. In this case we have a clear indicator that this Labour government is either unaware of, or unwilling to take on, the Responsibilities of Government (my capitals). So what if Tonio Fenech or whoever else had appointed a team for Air Malta’s restructuring? Is it not the responsibility of this government to look into the plans and see whether (a) it agrees with them and therefore gives them its go-ahead, or (b) any of these plans need re-directing in the sense of vision and goals.

Muscat prefers to play the three monkeys with the whole business – this is a typical corollary of his behaviour when in opposition. It clearly demonstrates that he has no clue about alternatives (or as he would call them “roadmaps”) and so prefers to keep the opposition-hat on just in case the restructuring is a failure: in which case he will obviously blame the previous government. But that is not the business of government is it? The chain of responsibility necessitates a different type of answer – if, for example, Air Malta’s plans include a possibility of privatisation you’d expect the Prime Minister to know.

It’s not just Muscat. Manuel Mallia has chimed in with Muscat and introduced a new term in Maltese language “inveritiera“. What’s that exactly? Are they trying to be politically correct about the word “lie”? Mallia’s remit is quite the mess right now and the performance of the (outgoing) Brigadier in an interview about his resignation and future left much to be desired. Another one having difficultes coping with double speak is Konrad Mizzi. The way he screened the questions from journalists about his wife’s appointment is absolute balderdash. The hot potato is thrown here and there while nobody (NOBODY) in the Labour government assumes responsibility.

If this were not the party that had busted everyone’s balls whinging about political responsibility when it was in opposition we’d not be so interested in this so very sudden volte-face. 

II: Bad Company

The topic of the John Dalli and Shiv Nair appointments are being dealt with perfectly well on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s blog. There’s no denying that when the resources available to that blog are put to good news it can trump any amount of excuses for journalism that our decrepit excuse for a fourth estate has become. Glaringly Shiv Nair’s closeness to the Labour government (and his evident hand in deals from China to North Africa) goes directly against Joseph Muscat’s 15 points to combat corruption when in government. Nair’s wheeling and dealing may be convenient for the likes of the dupes that populate our government benches – at least they may SEEM like to have a plan – but in partnering with the devil to fulfil their hapless electoral promises they are only (slightly) postponing the inevitable implosion.

Whether one is black listed by the World Bank or whether his recent dealings raise huge question marks (from Bahamas to OLAF) the fact of the matter remains that this government has no qualms dealing with persons who cause many an eyebrow to be raised. Worse still is the unshamefaced approach with which such cavorting takes place – and the replies that are given in response to any questions are preposterously bereft of any semblance of accountability.

It is becoming tougher and tougher for this government to speak of any form of accountability. Take Anton Refalo who still got away with his incredible declaration of assets. His performance in the Gozo channel Call-Back Saga would suffice to get him the boot in any other government worth its name. Not this one of course. (The Sunday Times is the latest to call for his resignation). At no point will these matters be tackled – no sir – as there is always a scapegoat reply (such as look at what the others did). Anton Refalo is also responsible for retaining the services of the disgraced Joseph Grech who has now been found suspiciously wanting in another scandal relating to the fraudulent use of funds by the Gozo Action Group.

It never ends does it? Varist blames “people working behind his back” for the stipend flop this week (remember the calls for Giovanna Debono’s head when some funds were lost thanks to hopeless action by people under her responsibility?). Bad company and a shameless approach to accountability : the assault on democratic representation is not about to begin … it is in full swing.

III. Neutralising Simon

There was another farce in parliament. With Joseph Muscat choosing to use (abuse?) of his parliamentary privilege to shut Simon Busuttil up. Busuttil’s line of questioning fits in clearly with the notion of responsibility and in any case parliament is not about concrete proof. The merest suspicion can be voiced in parliament and it is up to the MP voicing it to bear the consequences – should he lie then it is his credibility as a politician that is at stake. Muscat chose to refer to his speaker who came up with a magnificent interpretation that made a mess of the whole history of parliamentary privilege (that dates back to the mid 1500s).

We have a Prime Minister that is unable to face truths, deviously slips out of uncomfortable situations and who prefers to grandstand on the international stage while secretly hoping that his investment in a band of shady characters might help him pull off the greatest escape ever. Joseph Muscat and his party spent opposition signing cheques that would obviously bounce. The great unwashed loved his parading and swallowed his populistic approach to the hilt. Once in government the free for all in appointments was soon to be followed by an incredible demonstration of ineptness. It would not be so bad if the long term effect would not be the complete and utter erosion of our institutions.

The Malta Labour Party’s Taghna Lkoll has managed to prove that it is what we suspected all along: Small ideas for small people.

“What the medicine is to disease, the law is to public affairs” – Justinian.