Tag: elections

Categories
Politics

Prep Talk for an Election

The Debono Damocles’ Sword still hangs on the nationalist government notwithstanding all the peace entreaties of the last hours. Lawrence Gonzi must be plucking away at his own version of “loves me – loves me not” petals while rumour has it that the strategy team at Pietà are already hard at work preparing for a tough campaign. So what we have really is speculation about the “when” of an election and the closer we get to the official expiry date of the nationalist mandate the more the “if” becomes superfluous. It’s all well and good for the punters and underground betters who would slip a euro or two on the outcome of Thursday’s confidence vote but if we were to look at the happenings from a wider point of view the importance of this moment is minor. Trivial even.

For the day will come when the election is called – with or without a Franco tantrum – and the nation will shift to election gear without as much as a by-your-leave. That day will mark the first day in the life of Franco the non-entity, relegated to the footnotes of history and the school reports of a Jesuit college. It will also be the end of speculation as to whether an election should take place and this will be replaced by speculation on who will get the most votes. We’ve seen the polls that talk of swings of point advantages and of the presumed underdogs. We are still in the realm of electioneering though – it’s all about tactic. When to call the election, what marketing and spin to push in the run up to gather people’s attention, and then we move into the appearances – the debates, the flaws and the track records.

All well and good. We are after all experts in the field. If Italy is a nation of football coaches, Malta is a nation of election supremos. Everybody knows what it takes to win an election. Or to lose it. What we do seem to be forgetting more and more – as we are all taken up with suppositions, political chess moves and admiration/scorn at the latest politician who makes his move in the arena – what we seem to be forgetting is that politics is about content. You know: the program, the manifesto, the ideas, the management plan, the principles espoused by the candidates. Yep those. Because whether Franco caves in on Thursday or whether we will have an election close to the next budget makes no difference. Theoretically we need to be voting on content.

And my friends, lend me your ears – I’ll repay you with interest – of content there does not seem to be much. Gatt, Cachia Caruana and lord knows who else might be locked in some room planning strategy but if they are going by the same measure as last time round then strategy involves packaging muck and shit and selling it as gold in the hope that enough consumers fall for it. There will also be large helpings of “the others are a crock of unelectable shite” to go around – which is short of a synoptic way of saying “hey, who cares what we have to offer – so long as you don’t get the other bunch”.

Now if I was a part of the Nationalist party with its history I would be speaking in the language of sacrifices and principles. This is the time of sackcloth and rolling up of sleeves. This is the time for the party to look inwards and ask itself who it wants to be and what principles it wants to espouse. From the social (education, pensions, solidarity) to the economic (how to run a nation responsibly, thriftily while stimulating creativity and open competition). First get your DNA in place. Then comes the all important part. Only get people on board who are willing to fight for this plan. They must believe in these principles more than they must yearn for power. For power is borrowed in trust but principles should be for life.

The sacrifice that a reformed nationalist party must be prepared to make is that it should be clear that it prefers principles over power. A minority in parliament with strong beliefs is a stronger foundation for the future than a ramshackle combination of mercenaries prepared to win the temporary vote but without a clue about the road ahead.

This is the real prep talk that should be on the lips of the nationalist party team right now. It should be obvious that power for power’s sake is a dangerous weapon indeed. And I have the feeling that the first person to notice this will be Joseph Muscat should he wake up in a Castille office the first working day after the election.

Categories
Politics

Windows of Opportunism

The good news is that it would be a “landslide defeat”. Labour would probably stroll into government with a victory by default that affords it a “stable” three-seat margin (at least). Such a majority would ensure that Labour can afford to have at least one “Franco” or “JPO” without losing its parliamentary majority. If that’s what counts as stable government these days then Muscat’s dream team would be as solid as a rock.

If the stakes were all about getting into power and staying there then Labour would be the horse to bet on. The core voters would be joined by the disgruntled, the “about time we change” (it’s only fair) and the new clan of PN-haters to form an unassailable lead at the polls and Bob’s your uncle. Or is he?

Windows

Well it’s not all roses is it? Franco Debono is promising to be the hair that broke the (fragile) camel’s back. J’accuse has chronicled how his behaviour has exposed the weakness of a machine that was assembled solely for the purpose of winning an election to the detriment of any coherent plans and values of governance. Sure, economically an argument can be made that the Par idejn sodi motley crew has contributed to the weathering of the economic storm until now. Some circles might beg to differ and will claim that our micro-economy would never have really borne the brunt of the euro maelstrom anyway – so it’s not thanks to Tonio and Lawrence that we’re quite ok.

Although budget wise we got a half-hearted OK by the Commission this week (bar some expensive tweaks to the deficit) the government remains unaccountable for a long list of grudges and defects that is only aggravated by its perverse ability to antagonise through perceived arrogance. A disjointed team was exposed in the issues of Transport Reform, Divorce Legislation and social and criminal reform laws – not to mention the honoraria fiasco. There is much revising and soul-searching to be made.

For every mea culpa on the government side there was a mini-window of opportunity for a prepared opposition to shine. Do we have a beacon prepared to step in once the current set of governors crumbles? J’accuse is painfully aware of the over-used cliché of the “unelectability of the opposition”. The fact that it is oft repeated and the fact that it was a major weapon in the armoury of GonziPN’s last election victory does not make it outdated automatically.

Muscat’s Labour seems intent on repeating GonziPN’s fatal error of 2008. They prepare for some sort of electoral victory but is this a party that is proving that it has the right credentials to govern? The smokescreen of the Franco saga might invigorate Labour hopefuls and build their hope for a change in government. The removal of the power weary Nationalists would not come a moment too soon for them. The mistake they make is that they equate the satisfaction of removing an expired government with the automatic assumption that anyone who steps in by default will be good for the job.

Who do you want to be today?

As Anglu Farrugia and Joe Mizzi table a motion for a vote of no confidence (to be held on Thursday 19th) Muscat’s Labour is counting on a snap election and a short-cut to the corridors of power. What it will do with the power when it holds it is anybody’s guess. Until now we do know that Labour is not Nationalist. We have promises of utility bill cuts without an explanation as to where the money to cover these expenses will come from. We have a farcical approach to manifesto writing (the cards to my chest approach) coordinated by an old timer and now with an arriviste error-prone wannabe as a manifesto secretary.

At the moment when it could have made its will clear and its vote count – the divorce votes in parliament- Labour wavered. This was the party in opposition mind you, not the one in government. In that instance Muscat displayed an inability to muster his men and his party behind one clear progressive cause notwithstanding the fact that it was not nuclear science. Did Labour (in opposition) manage to block vote a YES to divorce? No it didn’t. Muscat – in opposition may I remind you – conjured up the FREE VOTE. What is the free vote other than an admission that the Labour leader could not really be sure which way his member’s consciences would be playing?

On a straightforward progressive policy that should have been a piece of cake Labour faltered. It failed to take a clear party position and was unable to be clear about the way it would vote. This was the party in opposition with no governmental power to lose. Opportunism dictated that Labour gives the impression of going both ways. Thankfully in the end common sense prevailed and parliament enacted a divorce law. But not thanks to Labour. Not thanks to the PN either but still… it’s not the point here.

From the Libyan crisis to the Euro Crisis to Transport issues it has been evident that Labour is operating on the knee-jerk opportunist basis. It is a short-term policy based on populism of the basest order. The error lies in the fact that Labour has chosen to emulate the PN in its worst form – that 2008 electoral bouillabaisse that Lawrence Gonzi is ruing to this day. this kind of electoral machine gets you to cut the ribbon but leaves you reeling under your own unmerited success.

Joseph Muscat might get to sit in the driving seat at a Castille office… the real worry is whether once the persian windows are thrown open and he is blinded by the sunlight coming from across the wesgħa tal-Furjana he better have a clue about where he wants to go next… otherwise he will find that it will take much less than a Franco Debono to bring him crashing down into reality.

 

Categories
Politics

That Constitutional Question

Identifying Lou Bondi’s pitch on Tuesday’s Bondi+ was not too difficult. Franco Debono is doing a good enough job of undermining any valid points he may have with his behavioural shifting from the conspiracy theorist to the unabashedly ambitious politician. Franco seems to be unable to reconcile the values of his political mission with his unbridled hunger to slither up the greasy ladder of power as we know it. His behaviour plays into the hands of the spin-doctors of  “taste” who are prepared to highlight his faux pas until they totally eclipse any reasonable matter he may rightly wish to bring onto the forefront of the national agenda.

Bondi desperately tried to pitch the Franco vs Gonzi angle repeatedly throughout the program – infamously culminating in Franco’s refusal to “parrot” the words that the anchorman (and Nationalist quasi-candidate endorser) had desperately tried to plant in his nervous interlocutor’s mouth all evening. One aspect of this angle pitched by Bondi was his continued insistence that Franco was way out of his rights when he threatened to bring down this government by withholding his confidence vote when the time comes.

In a little “f’hiex tifhem?” (a very typical Maltese challenge of “what’s your expertise in this”) moment Bondi referred to his university lecturing credentials (“I taught politics and not just sociology – ghandek zball madornali“) presumably inspired by Franco’s earlier stunt of using his school reports. For a second I was worried that the two would pull down their pants and compare the size of their private members (sic) but a little side jab about the “Santana booing incident” (as witnessed from the I’m A VIP Quasi-Minister section of the crowd) did the trick.

Back to the constitution.

For it is a constitutional issue we are talking about. Does a lone MP from the parliamentary group of the party in government have the right to threaten to bring down the government? In bipolar (sorry, bipartisan) Malta we tend to run off with the idea that the game is one of simple mathematics – you win an election, you have the autocratic right to govern (should I say Oligarchic Franco?). Sure, what with the pilfering and tweaking of the electoral laws we have perfected the English constitutional bipartisan system to perfection and driven more than one death blow to the possibility of proportional representation.

Last election’s carcades were hooting to the tune of a D’Hondt majority (see Bertoon illustration that we cooked up the next day). the D’Hondt system of voting combined with our “tweaked” constitutional provisions had led to a relative majority government – no party had obtained more than 50% of the votes but one party had 1,500 votes than the other. A constitutional clause had come into play and the way it worked was –

a) if only two parties are elected to parliament,
b) if none of the two parties obtain more than 50% of the votes,
then the party with the largest number of votes (a relative majority) will be entitled to an adjustment of seats in order to be able to enjoy a majority of seats in parliament. That’s all found in article 51(1)(ii) of the Constitution of Malta.

Interestingly (and useful for later discussion) the provisos to this article are a rare instance in which reference is made directly to “political parties”.  It’s interesting because the Constitutional structure relating to representation and government (and therefore to the management of the basic power entrusted by “the people”) centres around individual “representatives” as elected to parliament by universal suffrage. The constitutional link between elector and elected is direct – there was no original intention for the intermediaries we now call “political parties”*.

This important distinction between political parties and members can be clearly seen from the Constitutional article on the appointment of the Prime Minister – article 80:

Wherever there shall be occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister, the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgment , is best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House (…)

Again. No parties. The President takes one good look at the House of Representatives and determines whether any member among them can count on “the support of a majority of the members” – that’s what is in play whenever a “confidence vote” comes into play. It’s an opportunity to put to test whether the PM still enjoys that  majority support. In the current context it’s what Joseph Muscat would like to table (a motion of confidence) and where Franco’s threat might come into play (by not voting for the PM and thus undermining his ability to “command the support of a majority”.

Now comes the hard part for hardcore nationalist voters to digest. Franco Debono is the latest symptom of the Coalition of the Diverse called GonziPN that oh-so-miraculously snatched victory from the jaws of defeat last election. The rainbow coalition within GonziPN was possible because of a lack of scrutiny, a loose combination of values (if any) and mainly because any candidate who could steal valuable votes that could lead to the relative majority victory (and therefore to the automatic majority in parliament) was backed to the hilt. Remember the JPO saga? Remember the spin masters backing what was very evidently a loose gun to the hilt – basta nitilghu?

So when the members of parliament finally took their place in the house of representatives Lawrence Gonzi could assume that he commands the support of the majority of members. He assumed it because any leader of a political party in Malta who has just won the election assumes that his party members will back him to govern. Easy. Alfred Sant assumed that in 1996. Lawrence Gonzi had no reason not to in 2008. The mechanism is not foolproof however. At the basis of the whole system remains the basic currency of power transfer – the representatives themselves. As Franco has reminded us more than once the “support of the representatives” cannot be taken for granted.

The mechanism of “support” or confidence is a check on the power of government. Viewed from outside the convoluted scenario that Franco has created around himself (with the help of the bloodsucking media) you will understand that the right of a member to withdraw his support is an important check in our democracy. It is just as important (if not more) as the existence of an opposition.

Even though our political parties operate on the assumption that “loyalty” is universally automatic they have now been exposed to the democratic truth that it is not. The failure is not of the system but of the arrogant assumption that the bipartisan mechanisms that the parties have written into the constitution will guarantee their permanent alternation. Franco’s methods might be obtuse and distasteful especially when they betray blatant and crude ambition but on a political level the renegade politician who disagrees with the party line was not only predictable but threatens to become a constant in the future.

The more political parties ignore the need to be coherent politically and the more they just throw anything at the electorate in the hope that something bites the more they can expect of “Franco-like” personalities. The failure to whip Franco into the party line is not a democratic failure or a constitutional flaw but a failure of the political party to operate as an effective vehicle of democratic representation.

D’hondt worry? Frankly it was only a matter of time. It’s actually a miracle it took this long for the shit to hit the fan.

* In a recent House of Commons document (Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation)  political parties were defined as “the mechanism by which people of any background can be actively involved in the tasks of shaping policy and deciding  how society should be governed. While they are not perfect organisations they are essential for the effective functioning of our democracy. Without the support of political parties it would be difficult for individual Members of Parliament, as legislators and/or as members of the Executive, to organise themselves effectively for the task of promoting the national interest—including by challenge to the Government, where that is necessary and appropriate—and ensuring that proposed new laws are proportionate, effective and accurately drafted.”

Categories
Divorce

Rethinking Silence

I enjoyed reading yesterday’s Independent’s editorial (Period of silence silent no more) on the “cheap flight” to Malta. Michael Carabott describes the pre-electoral period of silence as being “as useful as a chocolate teapot”. The Editor’s take is split between the uselessness of the “silence” itself and the manner in which it is apparently ignored on the web.

During the 2008 elections this blog and its related sites (the Malta Chronicle) shut down for the day – choosing to respect a law with which we disagree completely. Other blogs – notably Running Commentary – chose to blog on in defiance opting for a more hands down approach to the issue. I recall that already then the Independent had pointed a (mild) accusatory finger at the online world while highlighting the disparity of treatment.

Whatever our opinion on the matter may be there is little doubt that the archaic laws apply to any publication: whether in print or on the ether. It is the law itself that has to be changed and there is no way of circumventing the prohibition (I’d dare say even on social networks) without risking falling foul of a particularly nitpicking officer of the law (who would probably have been duly informed by a whistleblower of sorts).

Having said that today’s period of silence is interesting. We technically cannot provide any propaganda urging voters to vote one way or another come tomorrow. On the other hand it serves us as a perfect excuse to reflect on the commonalities between this referendum and the normal electoral procedure. In the absence of the usual PL/PN divide we have demonstrated an inability to think and act differently. We dug the trenches, we formed the lines and above all every facet of our approach to a national decision required the Black vs White physiognomy that puts us all in familiar territory.

So the Rules of the Game (with intentional capitals) are applied to this little mini-bout. A Chief Electoral Commissioner is stunned into a non-reactive coma the moment “foreign elements” are placed on the plate. A Broadcasting Authority finds itself applying the very same paradigms that had been nurtured and abused by the parties. We had the “cheap flights”, we had the “billboards”, and we had the mudslinging about “dirty tactics”. It was all there to see. Barring the fact that the Holy Roman Catholic Church made a guest appearance this time round we had all the trappings of the usual PLPN debacle.

Back to the silence. It is ridiculous in this day and age that we still apply laws dreamt up for the 50’s, 60s and 70s when banning the use of the word “Malta” could turn out to be a sly political move. True, we are not the only nation to have “days of reflection” but then again the reasons behind these laws have become rather obsolete. One of the main justifications for a ban on press and media chit chat was the danger of “last minute lies” being spread without the opportunity of rebuttal. Nowadays it takes two hours for a tweet to go viral and spread across the web – how’s that for sufficient time for rebuttal (coupled with a massive in-the-face explosion for the original perpetrator)?

J’accuse had half a mind to break the silence. We might still do that but for now we will be hitting the beach in order to have the right angle for reflection. Meanwhile a series of pre-programmed posts have been set to entertain you throughout the day.

Also… look out on these pages over the weekend. We’ve got a lovely surprise for you that will be unwrapped on Monday.

Categories
Jasmine Politics

Conflicts, Interests & Elections

Would you believe that the international position of a number of countries is determined solely by the need to win points in national elections? No? Ok. So here goes a bit of speculation:

  • Denmark – enthusiastic participation in coalition wins incumbent many points for imminent election “With general elections set to take place before November, the move is allowing Denmark’s government to score points with the electorate – strongly in favor of the mission – and Washington, said Bjoern Moeller, a specialist of African conflicts at the Danish Institute for International Affairs.”
  • France – Sarkozy, frontman of “immediate action” supposedly refused to handover operations to NATO because NATO is coordinated from Brussels and it would deny him of the valuable chance of grandstanding before his home electors (who have suddenly found some new confidence in Mr. Bobblehead). Some speculate that Sarkozy’s re-election campaign started in Tripoli.
  • Russia – we thought they’d just abstain right? Nope. The Medvedev vs Putin battle has opened up. Putin’s ridiculing of the interventionist approach found a critic closer to home as Medvedev – Putin’s future opponent for the next presidential election opened fire on Russia’s president.
  • Germany – another abstention. The answer lies in Baden-Wurtemburg – an important regional election for Merkel’s christian-democrats: “The main motivation, it was felt, was rather the state election next Sunday (March 27) in the extremely important state of Baden-Wuertemberg, where the Christian Democrats have ruled the roost since 1953 and fear its very possible loss this time. Although it is relatively prosperous (with the main Daimler-Benz works), Merkel’s party lost face after the Stuttgart railway station violence and is also aware that most people, regardless of their views on Gaddafi, do not want any more German soldiers fighting and dying in other continents. Merkel probably hoped that a cool response on Libya might win anti-war voters, even though the USA command is firmly welcomed on German soil.” BW is not the last regional election this year – there’s five others after that.
  • Spain – the commitment of the Iberian nation can also be explained in terms of electoral losses. By getting a quasi-unanimous vote in parliament in favour of participation in the UN resolution implementation, Zapatero ensured that no political party would get political mileage out of the decision: “Of the 340 lawmakers present, 336 voted in favour of Spain’s participation, three voted against – two from the far-left Izquierda Unida party and one from the tiny left-wing nationalist BNG party – and one lawmaker abstained.”

It is impossible to escape the reality that intervention on an international level is never purely altruistic. Whether it is electoral calculations or business interests, you cannot avoid factoring in these “egoistic” considerations.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Paragon of Democracy

Lights are out or returning back on this morning in Malta. It’s long past being a funny situation – the power station business that is – and the blackout will ironically throw more fuel into the incandescent fire that is every discussion about power stations, government contracts and governmental mismanagement.

While Malta floundered around in the dark UK Deputy PM Nick Clegg was busy reassuring his voters that the forthcoming government programme will include “the “biggest shake-up of our democracy” in 178 years”. This includes fixed-term parliaments, a fully elected House of Lords and a referendum on electoral reform.

The Liberal leader is in charge of the reform plans and has stated that he wants to “transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state”. Centralised states were on the mind of Clegg throughout his presentation and at one point he stated:

Britain was once the cradle of modern democracy. We are now, on some measures, the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta.

Now that’s a bugger innit? The contrast being made is obvious. Britain has relinquished its past as a “cradle of modern democracy” and having done so has approached – what? – Malta. Ouch. That hurts. It’s painful. But there must be a reason why Nick’s first thought when thinking of a decentralised (and consequentially distant from being a cradle of modern democracy) country leaps to Malta.

House of Lords Chamber
Image by UK Parliament via Flickr

My bet is that if any repercussions will be had in Malta all blame will fall squarely on the nutjobs at the Alleanza Liberali who have carried the “Liberal” name for quite some time now – with dire consequences on any chances that name might have if taken up by normal minded people. There might even be a photo of Nick with John Zammit (who is currently busy working on www.freewebs.com/mintoffjani) as part of his Mintoffjan/Liberal project.

It would be too easy though to blame it on the nutjobs though. Nick Clegg, deputy PM of one of the largest political realities in Europe does not think highly of our political system – were it just a voice out of the blue it would be something we could easily ignore. Instead, Clegg is simply confirming what this forum has said for ages – the PLPN duopoly has much to answer for in this respect.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]