Tag: elections

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – the Monday Progressives

Short notes from the weekend.

Marine – Le Pen got 20% of the votes in yesterday’s first round scrutiny in France. Francois Hollande (complaining left) will battle it out with Nicholas Sarkozy (exhausting right) in the next round of votes that will determine the next Monsieur le President. French radios are all abuzz this morning about the record number of votes that Le Pen’s extreme right obtained as though this signifies anything other than a strong meeting point for an angry protest vote. The main problem for Hollande and the progressive anti-Sarkozy coalition he will probably amass for the showdown in two weeks time is the same as that of most left-leaning oppositions around Europe: the absence of a plan. A campaign that is built on disgruntlement and anger at the economic crisis and at the perceived arrogance with which the right handled such crisis can work to get a party into power: the next step of what to do with that power is equally important though and that is what is so worrying about the so-called progressive movement.

Sondages – An archaic law in France prohibits the media from announcing the results of exit polls before eight in the evening. In the past Belgian and other francophone media such as Swiss and Luxembourgish have been used to circumvent this prohibition. This year a number of French publications will be facing court procedures for having dared to publish the results by seven in the evening. A full hour before most polling stations closed.

Disgruntled votes – Le Pen’s followers are already talking about “pegging their nose and voting left”. Nose pegging is fast becoming a trend in the anti-voting that takes place in modern democracies plagued with a dearth of propositive policies. It would seem that the aim of most voters is simply to avoid giving another term to Sarkozy – few votes are used to vote positively, for someone with a plan. Even Le Pen’s voters are prepared to vote for the much detested left so long as Sarkozy and his UMP are broken up. So much for solutions to the ills of the 21st century.

The Value of Human Life – Newspaper reporting of the fine accorded to contractors whose “work” had brought about the death of an elderly woman in Sliema risks being very misleading. The fine of €8,000 is ridiculous and nowhere near being the proverbial “prohibitive” which is what fines are meant to be. It was meted out under rules and laws that apply to work conditions. That those rules need to be revised immediately to be more than a prohibitive warning for contractors is patently evident. On the other hand the fine has nothing to do with the value of the life of the woman who lost her life in these circumstances. The Times report actually referred to other civil cases in progress and one can presume that this is a civil compensation case – the kind of case that actually quantifies the losses for relatives as well as for injured persons. Controversial as such judgements on the value of life may be (do read The Price of Everything) they are a very different kettle of fish from the “fine” that has hit the news and misguided so many people.

Quatrains – On a footballing note it is interesting how following yesterday’s trouncing of Roma, the media tried to focus on the minor incident between Lamela and Lichsteiner. Even more interesting were the attempts of some Romanisti to condemn the Swiss for his “unwarranted provocation”. What was he guilty of doing? The very same thing supercapitantotti had done eight years ago to Igor Tudor… only that time, since Totti was not (heaven forbid) wearing the glorious striped colours it was not a provocation but a saintly gesture. Relativism. It’s everywhere. Quattro e a casa.

 

Categories
Politics

Il-palazz demokratiku

Ilbieraħ

Meta isseħibt fl-għaqda ta’ l-iStudenti Demokristjani Maltin kont fit-tieni sena tiegħi fil-kors tal-liġi. L-esperjenza tiegħi politika sa dakinhar kienet fl-MŻPN Għawdex (kumitat distrettwali) fejn fost l-oħrajn ħdimt għal żmien twil ma Chris Said u Nathaniel Attard. Il-politika li konna ħaddimna ġewwa Għawdex kienet kostruttiva u lokali -qabel ma waslu l-Kunsilli Lokali. Għal bidu kont isseħibt mal-Għ.S.L (tal-liġi) iżda il-ġibda lejn il-ħajja politika kienet kbira wisq u wara insistenza ta’ ċertu Fabio Pirotta (illum Brussel) dħalt f’din l-għaqda u għall-ewwel darba kont affaxxinat mill-ideat u twemmin politiku. Kellna ktieb ta’ Rafael Caldera maqlub għall-Malti li kien jitratta il-ħsieb demokristjan. Qaxxartu minn qoxra sa’ qoxra. U laqatni. L-iktar li  laqatni kien il-ħsieb bażiku u lajk li ma kontx qed nistenna li insib.

F’dak li kien jikkkonċerna id-dilemma ta’ politika konfessjonali li inkwetatni mhux ftit dak iż-żmien, solvejt il-problema. L-interpretazzjoni tiegħi ta’ Caldera kienet waħda li tasal biex tara l-politika demokristjana bħala waħda msejsa fuq l-element soċjali tat-twemmin nisrani. Element soċjali li joħroġ mill-prinċipju essenzjali tal-filosofija nisranija – fejn il-viżjoni soċjali hija intrinsikament marbuta madwar is-saħħa tal-individwu u l-kapaċita tiegħu li jirrispetta lil għajru.

Ma domtx ma integrajt ruħi fil-grupp u ma domniex ma bdejna rivoluzzjoni ċkejkna fi ħdan l-SDM. Konna grupp magħqud illi ħsibna illi din l-għaqda għandha skop edukattiv u propożittiv li jmur lil hinn mill-menu politiku offert fil-pajjiż. Fuq kollox kellna viżjoni. Bdejna billi għamilna ftit “spring cleaning”. Għamilniha ċara li ma konna se niddependu fuq ħadd u ma konna ser inkunu l-vużċi ta’ ħadd ħlief tal-prinċipji li inħaddnu. Kien ovvjament l-idealiżmu taż-żgħażagħ. Parti importanti tal-bidliet li għamilna kien li għażilna logo ġdid u motto ġdid meħud minn Caldera. “Il-palazz demokratiku ideali ikun magħmul mill-poplu sħiħ“.

Min jaf kemm issarajna bejnietna biex naslu għal dawn il-bidliet. Il-bidliet pero kienu bażi ta’ programm usa’. Bħala għaqda politika il-missjoni tagħna kienet ċara li inwasslu messaġġ. Kien madwar dak iż-żmien li seħħew ir-riformi fl-istatut tal-KSU. Biex inkunu ċari dawk ir-riformi kienu qed isiru xorta. Li għamilna (jew forsi nista ngħid li bdejt nagħmel (mhux biex nitfantas imma biex nerfa’ r-responsabbilta) hu li offrejna li nikkontribwixxu fl-emendar tal-istatut. Il-programm tagħna kien wieħed ċar u trasparenti imsejjes fuq prinċipju doppju kruċjali: ir-rapprezentanza u l-parteċipazzjoni.

Forsi taraw issa minn fejn konna ġejjin. Ma kienx kliem fieragħ ta’ Caldera. Il-palazz demokratiku ideali kien wieħed li xtaqna inwettqu fiċ-cokon tas-sistema rappreżentattiva tal-istudenti. Il-mudell li spiċċajna adottajna kien wieħed maħsub fil-konfini ta’ dawn l-ideali. Inutli nerġa intenni dak li spjegajt elf darba. Eżekuttiv elett biex ikun kompetenti fil-management tal-istrutturi rappreżentattivi. Żewġ kummissjonijiet maħsuba biex jirrapreżentaw kemm jista’ jkun kull interess studentesk – hux politiku soċjali jew edukattiv u kummissjoni oħra li bħala studenti universitarji ma ninsewx id-detto “All work and no play….”

Biex tħaddem struttura bħal dik trid tifimha u trid dejjem titlaq mill-kunċett li kull ma jsir isir għall ikbar interess tal-istudenti. Il-palazz demokratiku ideali huwa palazz għax iħaddan lil kullħadd u jaħdem f’isem u għal kullħadd. Il-palazz demokratiku ideali m’għandux bouncers mal-bieb.

Illum

Dak il-proġett tagħna issa wasalt biex ngħid li ma ħadimx. L-ideali li kellna ma tħaddnux minn min ġie warajna. Din m’hix kundanna. Hija stat ta’ fatt. Ironikament is-sistema ilha ħafna tiġi ikkritika minħabba il-“first past the post” għax fl-eżekuttiv jitla’ blokk wieħed ġeneralment – u allura jgħidu li hemm kriżi taż rappreżentanza. Ironikament ukoll bosta huma għaqdiet li għandhom leħen u post awtomatiku fil-Kummissjoni Politika Soċjali li (suppost) tfassal il-politika tal-Kunsill illi jgorru dwar ir-rappreżentanza.

Falliet l-iktar is-sistema għax rebħet mentalita li diffiċli tikkumbattiha. Il-mentalita partiġġjana illi toffri iz-zunnarija ta’ karriera fil-partiti bħala kunsilliera jew membri parlamentari żgħażagħ via il-fast track ta’ xi post fuq it-think tank ta’ partit meta l-inka fuq iċ-ċertifikat tal-gradwazzjoni għoddu mank kellu ċans jinxef.  Iż-żmien fl-universita meta ż-żgħażugħ (jaqq kemm nobogħda dil-kelma) suppost qed jifforma l-ideat tiegħu u jaħseb b’rasu issa bdew jgħadduha bħala estensjonijiet robotiċi tal-falliment politiku. Jimitawhom kuljum. Il-jiħadisti tal-poplu partiġġjan isinnu l-azzarini tal-gwerer ta’ ħaddieħor fil-palazz tal-istudenti. Dażgur li falliet is-sistema.

Erħilhom allura meta jasal żmien l-Laqgħa Ġenerali Annwali jibdew bit-tfiegħ ta’ tajn u ħama. Hekk jagħmlu l-kbar u hekk tgħallmu ż-żgħar. Ilbieraħ segwejt ftit li ġara fl-AGM bejn nostalġja u oħra. Hemm qiegħdin. Sistema lesta biex timplodi imma li ma timplodix għax ikun hemm xi ħames mitt bażużlu jitilgħu għar-rent-a-vote. Parteċipazzjoni? Falluta.

Imbagħad issegwi il-mini “dibattibekki”. Għandu punt min qed jitlob iktar trasparenza fl-accounting. Wara kollox jiġu eletti managers biex imexxu bil-għaqal. M’hi skuża xejn li għaqda li tħaddem eluf ta’ ewri ma żviluppatx sistema miftuħa ta’ tendering – u anki immur lil hinn u ngħid li imisshom għandhom kumitat indipendenti aġġudikativ elett minn fost il-KPS. L-istupidaġni tal-kjass li inqala fuq xi kummenti dwar il-GUG kien xempju tal-partiġjaniżmu sfrenat. Mejtin biex joħolqu il-Julian Galea fatto in casa qabdu ma kumment frivolu ta’ Kummissarju Edukattiv fuq Facebook. Issa ħalli li l-kummissarju wera nuqqas ta’ maturita u inġenju f’dan il-każ imma il-punt kruċjali hu li li kieku l-Pulse jafu x’isarraf l-istatut kienu ikun jafu li l-liasion kollu li għandhom bżonn l-Għawdxin jitwettaq fi ħdan il-Kummissjoni Politika Soċjali. Imma le. Irridu nitfgħu il-bżar fl-għajnejn u kullħadd jaf kemm jiswa l-block vote Għawdxi hux sur Mercieca?

Oltre il-block vote hemm il-possibilta ta’ riforma. Reġgħu ċiku briku. M’għandi xejn kontra riforma. Kif diġa għidt… nasal biex naqbel li s-sistema falliet. Il-ħasra hi li nara wisq djufija fis-sejħiet tar-riforma. Jekk ir-riforma hija ibbażata fuq xi kunċett imwiegħer ta’ fair meta fair ifisser li jkun hemm xi rappreżentanza proporzjonali kemm biex kullħadd ikollu biċċ mill-kejk allura lura sejrin mhux il-quddiem. Mingħajr prinċipji sodi immirati lejn garanziji taż rappreżentanza u parteċipazzjoni it-triq tista twassal biss gżall-mera kompleta tal-politika falluta nazzjonali li tilfet kull tip ta’ kredtu mal-poplu. Dik il-politika li twassal biex ikun hemm rekord ta’ nies li jagħżlu ma jivvotawx għax il-paroli medjatiku kollu ta’ Wenzu u Ġużi ma jservux biex jikkonvinċu lll-votant b’garanzija ta- rappreżentanza xierqa.

Riforma iva. Kombrikola biex ikun hemm ċejċa għal kullħadd le. hemm bżonn li l-istudenti jgħarfu x’ifisser tkun student b’ideat innovativi. Hemm bżonn jiftakru x’inhu l- iskop tal-eqdem Kunsill f’Malta u jaħdmu biex l-istrutturi tagħha jerġgħu isiru denji li jħaddnu fosthom il-mexxejja u l-idealisti tal-futur. Fuq kollox dawk il-fehmiet bażiċi li slitna minn Caldera hemm bżonn jaslu fuq fomm kullħadd.

Il-palazz demokratiku ideali ikun magħmul mill-poplu sħiħ.

 

addendum: VoxPop magħmul minn Insiteronline

 

Categories
Local Councils Politics

The Julian Galea Electors

Julian Galea is the only PN candidate in Sliema to have survived the mess from the previous council. On any other day he would have been hailed as a resilient survivor instead, like an ugly wart, he has become the latest manifestation of the obsessive symptoms of Maltese electoral practices. Galea’s infamy began when he was unlucky enough to be entrapped into a recording of vile pronouncements expounding quite succinctly his base intolerance for anything Labour (Apparently, if you believe Galea this happened two years ago in a meeting between PN candidates – bravu Cirillu). It was too late to withdraw him from the electoral lists (even death is not strong enough to nullify a candidate’s listing once the nominations are closed).

We all know where it went from there. It’s not like no one had heard about Julian Galea’s insipid pronouncements – Labour made it quite a point to have them broadcast all over the place. Armed with the knowledge of Galea’s behaviour any voter in his right mind would have desisted from even mistakenly marking the little square on the ballot beside the candidate’s disgraced name if only to spare him the ignominy of having to remaining in the public eye for an extended period of time.

Julian Galea was – how shall I put it kindly – not just not presentable but also supposedly unelectable. The only persons you’d expect would put their mark near his name in the hope of his getting elected to the Sliema council would be scheming Labourites hoping to capitalise on his glaring presence. Yet….

Julian Galea got 233 votes. Two centuries and a third. He “only” lost 60 votes from his previous tally in 2009. True he got elected on the 17th count when he had still not reached the quota of 517 having obtained 376 votes in all (inheriting 143 from other candidates). What would have been a miserable performance must be seen from another perspective though.  Who were those 233 souls who still rallied for Julian and his phobias?

Forget the noise from the pundits trying to desperately fit the Local Council shoe onto the twin ugly sisters’ General Election feet. This has nothing to do with labour/nationalist swings. It has nothing to do with the supposed “changing of Malta’s political demography”. Here you had the plain and simple reality of what makes up the bulk of Maltese politics.

On the eve of the elections we tried to warn you in “The Ugly Dress Rehearsal“. J’accuse described what the voter should be looking at in the candidates:

It should be obvious to anyone who stops to think for a moment that the ultimate consideration therefore when casting one’s vote is the competence and potential of the candidate. To summarise it more succinctly: It is not WHO is behind the candidate but rather WHO HE IS and WHAT HE STANDS FOR. 

Did the voters do any of that? Do the results of the Local Council Elections show us a discerning voter who is involved in large scale swings and confidence issues and is busy sending “messages” to this or that party? Not really no. You might enjoy the charade of conflicting interpretations that the PLPN circus is likely to feed you over the next coming weeks. You might love the myriad interpretations: “PN must listen. Labour has gained inroads in the North. Time for change.” Lahdidah.

In reality what happened is much simpler. Occam’s razor again. It rained. Heavily. Most people had had enough of the circus (except maybe Silvio Zammit). They just could not be bothered. Who bothered to go out to vote? The die-hards. They are the people who wouldn’t miss a trip to the ballot if they were dying. It’s ingrained. Their vote is tattooed on their brain. And then in Local Councils there are what we can assume to be the core of voters for each candidate. Families, neighbours, close friends who feel obliged to get their man in.

That is how Julian Galea, no matter what he says or does will keep getting at least around 250 votes every time he contests the Local Council elections. It is anything but an assessment of his capacity to convince voters to vote for him. If you want a litmus test for that just look at AD’s darling Mike Briguglio. In 2009 Mike got 457 votes and was not elected (Edward Cuschieri – PN – got elected on the 10th count in that election even though his first preference votes numbered 222). This time round his tally was 485 votes. Not much of a shift was there? That 28 vote increase transformed AD’s failure into success. Or at least we would like to think so.

Another way of reading the results – and by this I mean most of the results is that they are about as prophetic and indicative as tea leaves at the bottom of a teacup. Voters have neither swung nor used their votes to express any particular concern. Even less should we be worrying about those who did not bother to turn up.  Protest vote my foot. At this rate the only conclusion that I am willing to draw about these absentees is that they saw nothing available to make the trip to the ballot box worth it. More than a protest vote it is a lazily calculated snub at what  is on offer on the menu. I’m guessing there will be much less of these when the General Elections come along.

So there you have it. What have the LC Elections in 2012 taught us about your average voter? That he still remains that – average. The intelligent voter stayed at home this time round. He is still out there however.

 

Will the parties take note?

 

Categories
Politics Rubriques

I.M. Jack – the March Hare (I)

1. The State of the Parties

(PN) It’s over for GonziPN – or so seems to be the general opinion in the punditry pages. Following Gonzi’s landslide victory in the one-man race poll (96.6%) we are seeing a definite shift away from the one-man monolith that was victorious last election and a contemporaneous effort to re-establish roots among the electorate. Which leaves us with a number of conclusions and concerns.

First of all insofar as the business of governance is concerned, the PN General Council vote has not changed much. Even with a repentant Debono returning into the fold (his idea of repentance being that he believes he was proved right) the lasting impression is of a party that will go to any lengths to survive a full term in power. The dissidents within the fold excluded themselves from the 96%, mostly by abstaining. Meanwhile the “papabili” such as De Marco or Busuttil rallied behind the leader.

The PN remains a fragmented party in search of a definition. The signs coming from the minor tussles in Local Council campaigns are not positive. The fragility of the very fabric that should be keeping the party together is evident with its dealings with past and prospective candidates. There is however a silent larger picture with the usual suspects seeming to prefer a “silenzio stampa” to the noise we had become accustomed to.

Might there be a new strategy in the making? Is the transition back from GonziPN to PN a superficial diversion from deeper moves that might bring about a timely resetting of the PN modus operandi? Above all, are we dealing here with the proverbial “too little, too late”?

J’accuse vote: Brownian Motion.

(PL) Not much to be added here. The PL’s only consistency is its constant assault on the weak points of governance. The strategy of blaming every ill -imagined or real – on “GonziPN” is combined with procedural and psychological pressures to push a teetering government off the seat of power.

The prolonged lifeline of the current government might soon turn out to be the PL’s weakness. While Joseph gleefully repeats the “iggranfat mas-siggu tal-poter” mantra he fails to appreciate that the longer he is prancing about as the “prattikament Prim Ministru” the more he will actually set people wondering whether he has what it takes to carry out the job. How long they will be happy with his evasive answers as to actual plans might be anybodies guess but it might soon be time to stop taking bets.

J’accuse vote: Hooke’s Law.

(AD) Like the football team intent on surviving the drop AD can only plan its strategy step by step. Don’t blame the outfit for concentrating on the Local Council elections for now, General Elections can wait. AD may be short of manpower but they could have been greedy and fielded more candidates irrespective of their quality in areas such as Sliema where they could expect a huge backlash at the outgoing council’s farce. Instead AD are content to field their single version of a “heavyweight” with party chairman Briguglio.

Don’t expect many people to look at AD’s manifesto, which is a pity. The most the small party can hope is to get some mileage and exposure that could serve as a platform for an assault on the impossible come the next General Election.

J’accuse vote: Small Hadron Collider.

(Blogs) They’re not a political party but they’re evolving too. We are in a positive boom phase with more blogs than you could care to count (or read in a day). That is definitely positive. Expect to find more of the short-lived instruments – the lunga manu of party propaganda. Expect to be surprised that notwithstanding what is now a long internet presence (at least five years of growing internet readership) we will find that users (mostly readers) have trouble coming to terms with the immediacy and interactivity of the net. Most importantly the ability of your average voter to use his meninges to sieve through the information shot in his direction is about to be severely tested.
J’accuse vote : Blog and be damned.

 

Categories
Politics

Malta Post Franco (III) – GonziPN

I really do not find Joseph Muscat’s constant referring to the Nationalist Party as GonziPN productive or palatable. Probably Muscat thinks the same of anyone who still refers to him as “Inhobbkom” Joseph. But this is not about Muscat. This post is about the party that made it to government in 2008 against all odds and got to govern with a one-seat majority. The one-seat majority is Malta’s version of the “majority prize” that adjusts the parliamentary distribution of seats in order to just about have a majority of parliamentary members who were elected on one party ticket. Yes it is important to make that distinction. I did say “elected on one party’s ticket” and not “who support the party”.

It is not too fine a distinction and it is the distinction upon which the current uncertainty of governance lies. Its roots pass through the recruitment stage for candidates in 2008 by the Nationalist party and pass further down through the last leadership battle won by Lawrence Gonzi and lead at to the very bottom of the party’s recent history when the faction based on marketing, polls and pragmatic results started to eat away at the values that defined what the nationalist party represented and most of all that had forged the choices that were at the basis of visions for the future.

The Context

It was a domino effect that resulted from the party’s adaptation to the realities of post-Berlin wall politics – a reality that was only postponed for two reasons. Firstly, in the immediate aftermath of “the End of History” when the continent’s politicians were dabbling with the discourses of Fukuyama, a Nationalist Malta was busy reconstructing a nation from the badly managed socialist heritage of the late seventies and eighties. The “Xogħol, Ġustizzja, Libertà” and “Solidarjetà… dejjem.. kullimkien” slogans were not simply populist mating calls wooing the electorate but building blocks for a new society. There was promise and a set of values around which to plan the future. The nationalist party had no time for internecine squabbles between 1987 and 1994. It was busy.

Then came the second reason for the postponement of any need to adapt to “the End of History”. The challenge to drag an unwilling nation (there never was unanimity in this matter) into the EU proved to be an energy sapping exercise. The mission to join the EU club provided the necessary “value-driven” campaign that could keep the nationalist movement that had been constructed around Eddie Fenech Adami together for a while longer. Last election I wrote many a time that these choices (modernisation, construction of a democratic nation, EU membership) were “obvious choices” for which the PN should not be blowing its own trumpet too often. They may have been obvious to me and to many an educated gent and lady who had lived through the socialist period and longed to join the Western world but they were not obvious for Alfred Sant (and Joseph Muscat at the time) and his freezing of the EU membership bid in 1996 was ironically the freshest breath of air for a nationalist party that had been badly bruised by the electoral result.

In an ironic twist of the historical narrative Dom Mintoff proved to be the saviour of the nationalist party’s renewed bid to join the EU. From the hara-kiri of Sant’s short-lived government to May 2004 the Nationalist machine – party and government  – had one obsession, one goal, one direction that did not allow for any distraction (let alone dissension). And then, starting from the infamous Luxol Ground speech by Eddie Fenech Adami the nationalist party lost its reference points and the downward spiral began. Bereft of the main challenges that had kept its clock ticking the PN suddenly discovered that for the first time since 1981 it was a party without a cause. All too suddenly it had become a mirror image of its greatest enemy: all noise and no substance.

All the Men that made GonziPN

This was the party that Lawrence Gonzi inherited after the war of attrition with the Dalli faction. Sure, the rot of many years in power had begun to set in. Sure, the cliques and favors that would eventually translate into media stories of nepotism and friends of friends networks continued to eat at the foundations of a party that had lost its compass. These were effects though, not causes, of the great decline of the PN machinery. 2008 was the benchmark year. In order to win at the polls again the PN dropped any remaining travesty of being a party with a plan and transformed into a Presidential movement. PN became GonziPN and the party machinery ditched the value-driven inspiration in favour of the marketing machinery and the dogs of war.

Having an opposition that puts up a feeble fight did not help obviate the redundancies in the policy category. After all who needs ideas when you can win by simply saying “Don’t vote for the other?”. The race for number one votes on the ballots meant that the web cast for potential candidates was as wide as possible (and with the only consideration being vote pulling factor). Errors that had already been committed at local council level with unpalatable candidates being preferred in favour of statistical and numerical victories were now repeated at national level. How did the Pullicino Orlando’s, the Mugliett’s and the Debono’s end up on the nationalist benches in parliament? Ask the 2008 “successful” campaigners – they will tell you. All that GonziPN needed was a slogan – a dream that might link its quest to past substance – and even for that it went and filched it off Monsieur Sarkozy. “Ensemble tout est possible” became unshamefacedly “Flimkien kollox possibli”. The die was cast.

Few would deny that the 2008 victory was a victory by default. GonziPN did not win the election, it was Sant’s Labour that lost it. Before long heroes such as JPO were bouncing up and down on their seats – not content to have survived the travesty of marketing and bitching that could have very well meant the downfall of this kind of politic had Sant played his cards properly. There can be no doubt that the downfall of this government was fashioned within the halls of Dar Centrali back in 2008 when the decision was made to transform a movement of social values and economic well-being into a presidential party honed for power without a back up plan.

Such short-sightedness was also the result of an unwillingness to engage with its own roots and to take up the unfinished business of creating a post-Berlin Wall raison d’etre.  It was a mixture of laziness and excessive confidence that combined with a new generation of Young Turks who had been bred to unquestionably blend in to the echelons of power without engaging with new ideas. The PN born out of the 2008 election was the final death stab at the inspirational party that had read the national narrative so well for so long. From the moment GonziPN’s disparate motley crew took its place in parliament to govern with its artificial relative majority, “uncertainty” was a time bomb waiting to happen.

Dealing with Franco

Delaying writing this post has had its advantages. By now the General Council has ended and we all know how Lawrence Gonzi has chosen to deal with the hot potato that is Franco Debono. Can it be surprising that the party that opted for the Presidential-style mould will try to solve this latest challenge by reinforcing the presidential image? The end-of-term leadership race will in all probability turn into a victory by acclamation by Lawrence Gonzi. Who will dare stir the boat any further? Inevitably the leadership “challenge” will buy the PN time in government. Franco can no longer legitimately yell his lack of confidence in Lawrence Gonzi – even he will have to bow to the nationalist party’s vote.

Buying time also means buying time for the government projects that were coming to their end to be finalised. There will inevitably be accusatory fingers pointed at projects and laws finished and enacted on the eve of an election. Honestly speaking most would have been end-of-term projects anyway and would have suffered the same fate. That is not the biggest problem for GonziPN. The biggest problem is that this  “leadership race” is the last-ditch reaction by Lawrence Gonzi and worse, an insistence on engaging within the “presidential” context dynamic. What remains to be seen and what is of paramount importance for the party is whether it is learning from the past mistakes. To do so it has to acknowledge them humbly and prepare to rebuild from scratch.

2012 is many political light years away from 1989. It might still not be too late for the nationalist party to make an appointment with history and use this latest borrowed time to take up real politics (not realpolitik) once again. For that it needs less noise, less drama, less taste-based propaganda and bull and to concentrate on the substance. Values, policies and a bottom-up realisation that this is the time to face new challenges within new parameters might only just make it.

Will fate throw another lifeline for the PN and spare it the (by now very necessary) years of rebuilding in opposition? We can only hope that if it does then the Nationalist party gets down to the real business of politics.

Categories
Politics

Malta Post-Franco (II) – Franco

There could be no other place to begin than with the main protagonist. Franco Debono kept the whole nation waiting with bated breath for the unfolding of whatever his plan might be. Notwithstanding his declared agenda it was hard to second guess where he may be going with it – especially since the timing of most of his decisions seemed to be misjudged and more importantly because whatever plans he had were constantly outshone by his ego.

It could be that in order to fight the establishment you do need balls the size of Mosta dome and it is also a fact that in Malta short of renting an applaud-me crowd of hacks and elves you end up having to blow your own trumpet. It could be all that and more but there seemed to be more than one point where Franco Debono seemed to have lost the plot.

To be fair most of the contents of Franco Debono’s list of grievances survive the test of political sanity. They are far from being a Norman Lowell style list of anachronistic or loony policies. Taken individually some of the minor points (cassette tapes in court) tend to remove  the shine from a plan that includes wholistic institutional reform and a strong direct challenge to the PLPN lifeline of unregulated party financing. Franco Debono has done more for the cause of highlighting the problems of our duopolistic rush to mediocrity than anyone else in the last twenty years. So what  went wrong?

Well beyond the egomaniacal self-aggrandisement and the scattered presentation of the grievances, Franco Debono’s biggest problem was one: timing. It is always a pertinent question to ask when analysing the news: Why Now? Why indeed did Franco rock the boat when he did? Franco’s edginess became pronounced following the divorce vote in parliament – Dr Gonzi’s vote against the popular vote seems to have done the trick. The problem is that judging by what Franco has to say nowadays there is no real correlation between the divorce vote and the problems he highlights.

From day one, this government has always been at risk of being at the mercy of a one-seat renegade. As I pointed out early after last election, GonziPN might have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat but this was done at a the expense of stability. It was not just the one seat-majority but also the pick’n’mix of candidates that were virtually an undeclared coalition of disparate ideas and agendas patched together simply to garner votes.

So why does Franco wait till the dying moments of this legislature before dropping the big bomb? The urgency of institutional reform and of electoral reform did not occur overnight. The question of “cliques” running our political parties – a direct consequence of their internal systems adapting to the parallel mechanisms of power on a national scale – were also there from Day 1. So why now?

The outcome of last Thursday’s vote might point to a compromise having been reached. Did Franco get a promise that the legislation he wants will be passed through parliament? That’s highly unlikely. You do not prepare a “wholistic change” to constitutional structures in six months. Even the much taunted Party Financing bill risks running into a 3/4 majority parliament wall should it attempt to introduce crimes for violations of electoral law.

So if that was not the compromise what was? The hunch we have is that Franco is attempting to change the power hierarchies of the nationalist party by threatening the stability of government. The hints are there – his calls for PM Gonzi’s resignation are qualified with additional calls that he should change his ring of advisors and that a number of ministers’ heads should roll. Ironically Debono sees the strongest justification for filling the party hierarchies (and Ministries) as being popular support : universal suffrage.

So Debono’s timing for the party financing and reform laws blew the wind out of his sails as to whether or not he is the great champion of reform. Instead the timing of his abstention and all that surrounds it points to the real battle he seems to be engaging: an internal one within the PN hierarchy. Either Don Quixote has chosen the wrong windmill to battle or he has identified the wrong priority.

Again Debono stands as living proof of the wrong perception that PLPN politics has of our nation’s constitutional construct. Oftentimes we use the word “arrogant” to describe politicians. Well the arrogance of PLPN political thought lies in the fact that to them the constitutional institutions and the rules governing them are there to serve the party and its need to fit in a duopolistic system of alternation.

Which is what leads a backbencher who is suddenly thrust into a chair of dizzying slim-majority power in parliament to take on the whole system with the simple aim of improving his stance within the Nationalist party hierarchy.

To get at Austin Gatt, Joe Saliba, Carm Mifsud Bonnici, Richard Cachia Caruana and others Franco Debono decided that the best option was to threaten to topple government. He had had enough waiting in the sidelines for his opinions and ideas to be heard and for a place in the decision making clique that counts. So he refused to play.

The honourable aims of reforming and improving our constitutional and institutional framework, of changing our electoral laws and rules of party financing became a club to be wielded clumsily in the hands of a very angry backbencher who believed that he had been overlooked one time too many.

What next for Debono? It remains to be seen whether the nationalist party will play out their part of the deal that won them a temporary respite from the Debono tsunami. His role within the party is imperiled if he fails to obtain the right to present himself as a candidate for the next election. Technically his career should be over: “sacrificed” as he likes to put it, for the greater good. Ironically he might be a magnet for the kind of voter that liked his shit-stirring antics and who would rather vote a maverick than vote labour. That kind of voter believed Franco’s promises of reform and is the kind who would have loved Franco’s swan song in parliament.

Debono’s fate is intrinsically tied to the decisions that the party that he claims he loves will take in the near future. If the PN once again will be in the business of assembling a rag-tag group of disparate candidates then he might be in on the off-chance that his Champion of the Disgruntled image wins him a few number 1s. It will be a hard struggle though and until the next elections Debono might still have the last word in precipitating a Nationalist party decision to go to the polls.

The Age of the Generalissimo is, in all probability, almost over.