Tag: highlight

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Teeth

Although a baby’s first teeth usually develop while still in the womb, they actually start to emerge through the gums when the baby is around six months old. We call this process teething. According to the NHS online guide, early teething should not cause a baby any problems – unless it affects feeding, in which case it sucks (or rather literally, it doesn’t).

We’ve heard the phrase “teething problems” used many a time this week of course thanks to Arriva’s bungled arrival into the world of Maltese gemgem, political intrigue and hot suns that would melt even the most defiant revolutionary spirit. I’ll put forward an early caveat (warning) here: yes, I still live in Luxembourg and I have not had the opportunity to try out the system myself so I am speaking purely from an outside point of view – probably by the time I savour the pleasure of an air-conditioned bus trip to Għadira in August it will be a different kettle of fish.

Incisors

The confusion of the first few days of service cannot really all be dismissed as ‘teething problems’. Once you remove the (by now) 70 renegade bus drivers from the equation you still end up with a number of extremely disappointing facts. They range from the obvious (shelters from the sun) to the technically avoidable (ticket machines going loco) to the downright silly (bus size problems on certain routes – Balluta Hill) and to the profanely inept (bad planning of certain routes: including prime suspect Bisazza Street, Mrabat Street and more).

I am aware of the fact that I subconsciously keep trying to give Arriva a break – maybe that stems from having experienced efficient bus systems across Europe that are similar to the plans on paper in Malta. There does however seem to be a gaping absence of ‘local input’ in the planning part. Either that, or the locals involved in the planning were as apt for the job as Hitler would be as a kindergarten assistant in Jerusalem. Is it another case of the ‘ċuċ Malti’? I doubt it. Arriva must know by now that Malta’s transport system is neither that of Athens nor of Berlin or Strasbourg. I am convinced that they are engaging in a lot of listening at this point: taking note of all the tweaks that are needed to mother this baby out of the teething trouble it has. My hopes are still pinned on an eventual success for the company.

Canines

One thing I cannot really accept is Austin Gatt’s position in the whole saga. We are at pains as a people to distinguish between the responsibilities of a ministry and those of a private company that has embarked on a huge project. Gatt’s ministry might be responsible for having chosen Arriva out of a number of tenderers but after that it should be Maltese Public Expectation vs The Boys from Arriva. Gatt does not help by speaking as though he was the CEO of Arriva (vide the driver sacking business) but neither does the mentality that we have been groomed to have: that any service is ultimately given to us by government. We find it hard to understand that a faulty ticket machine is a problem we should track down to some incompetence within Arriva and not in Austin Gatt’s ministry.

I do not say this to defend Austin Gatt or his ministerial minions who have suddenly vanished from sight unable to take the flak for the bad planning. I say this because what we have on balance is a national transport grid: something that would benefit everybody by being efficient – and not just Austin’s men. We all have a duty to scrutinise Arriva’s performance as much as we have a social duty to collaborate with the company and help it through its teething problems where justified. At the end of the day Gatt and his men may push the button on penalty clauses, (just as Arriva was eager to get compensation for the Bisazza Street gaffe), but an efficient transport system is not built on penalty clauses alone.

Molars

It is part of the inevitable course of 21st century Maltese politics that party positions are created by default. The divorce issue gave us a Labour position built by default. Labour never pronounced itself in favour or against divorce. It just defined what it was not: in this case Labour’s position was that it had no party position. The ploy worked for the man in the street who now sees Joseph’s team as the champions of progressive nothingness and is happier for it. We may soon see the same business with Arriva. Joseph’s team will nurture the discontent of the public on this issue. What we will not know is whether Labour’s team are proposing a return to the old Xarabanks or whether they too would be trying to solve Arriva’s teething problems if they take up Austin’s ministerial job.

As things stand Labour need not take a position but will still win sympathy from people who want something different from the status quo. How that will solve the problems of the shelters, the bendy buses, the ticketing machines and the unruly drivers is anyone’s guess. We’ve seen it all before in the VAT-CET saga haven’t we? Same; same but different. The crisis of representation is doomed to continue and trust you me: the teething problems in this case are gargantuan. Blessed are the oblivious for they will vote PLPN and be satisfied.

Got Milk?

Francis Zammit-Dimech penned an interesting article this week in the Times (Vision of a changing nation). In it he distanced himself from the ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’ approaches within the PN and made a case for a modern party based on a mosaic structure glued together by values such as the common good and human dignity. It might be a working solution that challenges the clumsily assembled ‘umbrella party’ visions and ‘new liberals’ a-la-Frank Psaila. There is a case to be made here especially if the likes of Zammit-Dimech can manage to convince the party that Christian-Democrats can and will feel comfortable legislating in favour of minority rights based on the common good and human dignity.

We will need to wait and see whether this line can be elaborated further. The parliamentary legislative track record seems to still be confused and is based more on interest-based legislation than clear guiding principles. Even in the seemingly frivolous – such as alcohol sales regulation and that of entertainment – there seems to be an intellectual and ideological dishonesty and hypocrisy at work. How else do you explain that village festas have been given a carte-blanche regarding alcohol sales while a concert organiser has to adhere to strict conditions and pay an exorbitant fee as a guarantee in order to organise his event? This is a simple but effective example of the inconsistencies that are the order of the day when umbrella-parties feeding off conflicting networks try to please the world.

Ironically, the more ‘avant-garde’ (wankellectual if you like) part of the nation seems to be the one sacrificed on a regular basis. Which is why we get censorship problems and why 21st century social habits are still out-lawed (as in not legalised) in our nation. When they do try to find some balls and legislate (see for example cohabitation) they get it all so damningly wrong (not making it available for persons who were previously married).

First Ladies

Ever since Lady Di’s tragic death in 1997 we have witnessed the concept of public grief develop into a hideously impersonal theatrical show pumped up by the media and fed by the big brother syndrome that afflicts the general public. We are not the first generation to suffer from this morbid concern with the remembrance of the deceased that so often smacks of lack of real respect. The Victorians were notoriously fixated with their complicated rules for mourning and dealing with death that culminated with the huge confusion on how exactly to go about the funeral arrangements when the great Queen herself joined her beloved Albert in the sky.

Public outpourings of sentiment tend to become cringe-worthy after a while when it is blatantly obvious that the act of condolence has become automatic rather than genuine. When people start to fall over themselves in a race for the dramatic we slip into the theatrical and the hyperbolic, quickly losing every sense of decorum. In my book this smacks of disrespect to the recently departed. We have not reached the stage of the ancient Romans who would hire mourners to wail and scratch themselves behind the funeral procession but we are risking losing any sense of social decorum by following this folly that is public mourning in the 21st century.

I never met and did not know Mrs Fenech-Adami. She passed away within a day of Betty Ford, the wife of former US President Gerald Ford. Obviously I did not know Mrs Ford either. On a human level I can only offer my sincere condolences to the families of the departed. They are the ones who will feel the biggest emptiness as a dear beloved leaves them for another world.

On a public level I can appreciate the two very different first ladies of two very different nations. Betty Ford was a political animal through and through. She is remembered as a woman who battled for civil rights – pressing for abortion rights and women’s rights during her husband’s presidential period. She never shied from the public view and used her position to push political objectives she believed in. She will be most remembered for her personal fight against drug and alcohol abuse. After having confronted the demons herself in her own private life she transformed the battle into a public one – opening the now famous Betty Ford Centre in California and pressing for further awareness on the issue of drug and alcohol abuse.

Mrs Fenech-Adami could not have been any more different. Her husband’s latest public intervention – when he controversially suggested that divorce was a matter of conscience – highlighted the distinction between ‘moral’ and ‘political’ decisions. Whether or not we agree with Eddie, the stamp of Fenech-Adami’s moral compass was clear to see and it helps us understand the public face of Mrs Fenech-Adami. It is clumsy of us to try to pigeon hole Mrs Fenech-Adami’s public life into a political box. Mrs Fenech-Adami was not political. She was a strong, principled woman with a solid catholic upbringing. From what I can see, that made her the pillar and reference point of her family. We can easily confuse principles and values with humility and ‘knowing her place’, but we would be doing her a great disservice.

I like to see Mrs Fenech-Adami as a moral rock built on the no-nonsense, principled approach that you might disagree with but cannot help but admire. It is with that memory that I offer my sincere condolences first and foremost to the Fenech-Adami family and secondly to the wider family that had gotten used to having someone like Mary as a reference point – in that latter case I can see no reason for anything other than pride.

www.akkuza.com would like to extend another note of sympathy and support in what has been a sad week for some of us. A huge hug goes out to Mark and his family after the loss of a young, vibrant sister, daughter and friend. “Oh heart, if one should say to you that the soul perishes like the body, answer that the flower withers, but the seed remains” (Khalil Gibran).

This is the J’acccuse column from the Malta Independent on Sunday of the 10th July 2011.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse : The Summer Plank

I find the latest Facebook fad in Malta to be quite a happy coincidence. I’m talking about ‘planking’ of course – the ‘sport’ that has taken the Maltese corners of Facebook by storm with adults and kids alike ‘doing the plank’. The phenomenon shows many of the symptoms of any Maltese trend: it is a year or so late by international standards (rather early, that) and it has immediately divided public opinion between the pro and con crowds. And of course there are still those among us who lag behind, completely oblivious to the very existence of ‘planking’ and what it is all about.

Allow J’accuse to come to the rescue. The International Planking rules may be summarised as follows: To perform a plank one must lie horizontally, face down in a rigid stance with no expression whatsoever on one’s face. Legs must remain straight with toes pointed. The idea is to get yourself photographed in that position and then to tag that photo on Facebook with a phrase that indicates your planking intention. The international rules also add that potential plankers must plank safely and not expose themselves to undue risk.

I am told that the planking craze kicked off by chance in Malta when a clumsy attempt to plank over public furniture ended in a disastrous ‘fail’ (another web craze term). Be that as it may, planking has given us a very creative page on Facebook that has quietly slipped to the top of the popularity rankings in the place of the divorce-related pages. The divorce pages are suffering from the fickle attention span of the average ‘internet enthusiast’ and the sudden drought on the web as the summer sun gets people away from the internet and closer to the beach.

Plankuza

The intriguing part of the planking phenomenon is the manner in which it has instigated what I generally think to be a passive-reactive public to become very, very creative. While J’accuse urges respect for public furniture and above all respect for safety we cannot but bow to the genius of the man who ‘planked’ atop a bank ATM canopy on Spinola Hill up to Paceville. It remains one of our favourites. I tried the ‘sport’ myself in the pristine waters of Gћadira Bay (note: I was not the planker but the support that was necessary to elevate the aforementioned planker out of the water). Within seconds of the snapshot there were people around us nodding in enthusiastic acknowledgement and one particular dad set about explaining to his offspring what this ‘sport’ was all about.

Gћadira, by the way, is fast becoming a gem of a beach – at least as long as school is still in session and the boats have not yet started to choke the shores. Cleanliness, organisation and safety are witness to the efforts that have been taken to return our beaches to their natural beauty. I was joined in Gћadira by a friend who travelled there by bus. Actually it was a bus and a hitched ride because the original bus could not make it all the way up the hill to Mellieћa and broke down. Passengers were dumped in the summer sun and my friend who is a veteran visitor to the islands knew better than to wait for a Transport Malta alternative.

It’s sad really that the charming old buses will be leaving the streets. I made it a point to catch at least two rides (and a ferry crossing to Valletta) this time around, and snapped enough photos and collected enough tickets for my little personal scrapbook. On the whole, though, I do not think that the smoke-belching, unreliable monsters will be missed on the streets. If anything, the decision to switch to a new operator with new buses can only be greeted with gladness. I dare the Nationalist government to trumpet this achievement and to expect to reap some rewards of gratitude on this one. It is 2011 after all, isn’t it Emmanuel Delia? The absolute cock-up that was the saga of pedestrian Bisazza Street vs Arriva rescheduling has shown us that even when ushering in the obvious (a working bus system) there seems to be more than an inability to plan ahead.

The Planked

Who will pay for the ‘compensation’ that is due to Arriva for the rescheduling around a major route? Minister Austin Gatt told the press he had no clue what this bill would amount to. The man who seems to be trying to milk all the credit for the occasion, the aforementioned Emmanuel Delia – an unelected civil servant who will be contesting the next election on a nationalist ticket – fluffed with a million excuses and tried to finger the blame onto another Ministry’s late planning. What Delia failed to underline is that whether the bumbling is due to his hopeless planning skills or that of others, the bill is still to be footed by the citizen and nobody else.

The rescheduling has some other citizens up in arms. On my visits to Sliema I noticed many photocopied signs urging Sliema citizens to unite in protest at what is being done to their town. Tigné residents, it seems, are at the heart of this latest NIMBY uprising. Worse still they seem to have been marginalised by the rest of Sliema who are not impressed by the Tigné residents suddenly growing a civil conscience the moment they finally got to be on the receiving end of controversial decisions. But that’s us, isn’t it? The ‘I’m all right and sod you Jack’ mentality pervades across the voting spectrum which is why civil right activists like the tiny, undermanned Alternattiva Demokratika will be allowed into the home throughout a particular NIMBY campaign but will be ditched the moment the big issue of which networker to put in government comes around.

Cultured Planks

I have long bored readers with my idea that our current political set-up is an opiate of the people. The relativist race to zero-value perfection coupled with the nepotist networking that puts planning decisions in the hands of party-favoured goofs serves to neutralise healthy competition, to kill new ideas and to turn us into a nation of unreactive planks. Every now and then you do get some sparks of hope – as I did when attending the conference on Valletta 18 that was a prelude to Valletta’s bid to become European Culture Capital in seven year’s time. There is more about this in the blog but I’d like to say that it would be great if the effort to bridge the gap between the ‘culturati’ and those who currently live the culture unconsciously is actually made. The danger of the liberal arts closing themselves up in an elite group remains dangerously alive.

Speaking of liberals it seems to be the fashion these days for everyone and his mother to display liberal traits. This week I asked Bertu to fashion a cartoon that shows our society’s key players and their attitude towards fashionable liberalism. Just look at the papers over the past week and you will see both major parties falling over themselves trying to expose the liberal side of their ‘umbrella’ (or in Gonzi’s case – ‘rainbow’) movements. Judging by the reactions I have been listening to in social circles, the Maltese voter must be daydreaming his days away or planking to his heart’s content. The ‘we are liberal’ line is being swallowed – hook, line and sinker.

The Unexplained Planks

This week I was ‘accused’ of being too nationalist (particularly in an article in l-orizzont) and of being too anti-nationalist. It made me wonder whether people tend to remember only the parts of the article that they dislike. It does make sense really. Our basic instinct is to have our little electoral Jiminy Cricket conscience always at the back of our mind. He is there to yell out warnings whenever what we are reading challenges our ‘traditional’ voting trend and inclination. So as a nationalist voter you may skim through an article that criticises Joseph Muscat’s opportunist fashioning of his policies (and maybe nod in agreement) but your attention will only peak if (for the sake of example) I call your beloved leader Lawrence Gonzi a plonker (sic).

So as our parties refashion what they represent into two huge blocks of nothing, the voting population will dig its heels in the ground and still think in terms of black or white, red or blue. Their voting conscience remains as immovable and rigid as a planker in pose position. Unfortunately the tsunami of change promised post-referendum has only served to consolidate the ill-advised “umbrella movements” and their knee-jerk reactions.

To the Duchy

My week-long, wedding-related, visit comes to an end. There are a couple of people who I’d like to congratulate. There’s Pierre Mejlak and Chris at Merlin for the wonderful book and launch at Mdina. Dak li l-lejl iћallik tgћid is available online at Sierra Distributors and I would strongly recommend that you get a copy. Then there is the chef at Adira Lido in Gћadira Bay. I really have to thank him for a mixed seafood platter that was an out-of-this-world explosion of Mediterranean taste that would have been enough to make this latest visit home worthwhile. Thanks a million and see you again in August.

 

www.akkuza.com has reviewed Pierre’s latest masterpiece, sat through Valletta 18 and is now gearing for the latest collection of stories for www.re-vu.org. Happy birthday, Kika!

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Arts

Dak li l-Lejl

Last night, Merlin’s flagship author Pierre Mejlak launched his latest collection of short stories entitled “dak li l-lejl iħallik tgħid” (“what the night lets you say”). The event was held in the sumptuous settings of Mdina’s Palazzo Falson – a jewel in Malta’s heritage crown and will surely be registered as an all-round success by the organisers. Merlin has hit on a winning formula that is a combination of finding worthy texts, packaging them in an exciting wrapping and creating an aura of anticipation around them. In doing so it may be leading the way to the rediscovery of Maltese literature by an ever widening audience.

Marketing ploys may spice up the look, feel and spin of a literature piece but the proof of the pie is in the eating. Whether you are leaving the magnificent setting of Palazzo Falson or walking out of your bookshop of choice with book in hand, there is only so much that the package can sell (and it has gone some way in doing so by getting to buy the book). The list of deserved praises that Mejlak’s previous works have attracted might tickle the fancy of a first-time reader but there’s no better selling point than the wonderful weaving of ideas and words that is Pierre’s imagination set to paper.

The moment you start reading a story of Pierre’s you switch off from reality and follow the author’s melodic pan pipe into the realm of fantasy. In pIerre’s case, the elaborate insights of an observant narrator combine to provide a simple, unputtdownable text that transforms the mundane into an attractive fun-fair. You willingly join the Pied Piper for the ride and enjoy every single word of it.

Minor spoiler alert: the next paragraphs contain hints of the first story without revealing the plot.

I confirmed this feeling with the Prelude and first story (“l-ambaxxatriċi”) last night. Pierre promised, Pierre delivered. (I’m quite sure he’d deny the promising bit but he will definitely smile half-shyly at the delivery stage). For the story about the lady ambassador, Pierre has ventured to the Europe of Mitterand, Spadolini and Platini – and his characters now roam the corridors of the Elysée as happily as they did the piazzas of Qala and Nadur.

The storyline pushes the suspension of belief to its limits – toeing the fine line between credibility and fisherman’s lies – until you notice that the narrator is not desperately marketing the latest twisted truth but is actually conniving with you, the reader, in awe and appreciation at how quickly an elaborately designed story served someone else a dual purpose. And the moment you actually reach the end of Pierre’s Archer-like tale you are at one with the narrator’s observation … this time gazing angrily at a coffin.

Objective achieved : you thank the narrator for the ride and eagerly turn the page for a ticket on the next rollercoaster ride in a very, very colourful and unpredictable playground.

Two-thumbs up. Again.

One for nottebrava:

Categories
Politics

Misunderstanding Eddie

I was left fuming this morning during the Ghandi Xi Nghid program with Eddie Fenech Adami. Unlike many people who have suddenly discovered how hard it is for a party to harbour diametrically opposite ideas within its fold I was positively pissed off at Andrew (Azzopardi) and at the way he imputed certain statements to this blog.

The program was its usual entertaining self and Andrew had the right guest under the spotlight. There really was no need to claim that J’accuse had asked questions of Eddie’s involvement in the divorce debate or that we had in any way criticised his apologetic stance vis-a-vis the catcholic position. Eddie is controversial enough as it is and does not need help of misunderstood blog posts.

Let’s be clear Andrew dismissed my angry fluster with his usual jokes – and as I told him at the end there would be no hard feelings. Ghandi Xi Nghid is on a roll at the moment and can afford a slip or two in the process – especially when the star of the show provides it with a good supply of controversial statements. What frustrated me most was that the very core of what Andrew misunderstood in my blog is exaclty what I did NOT want to engage in: because I think it is useless and counterproductive.

Eddie has not changed from the Eddie of the ’80s and ’90s. His position is perfectly understandable. He is no longer the nationalist party and as we explained in the previous blog post (Understanding Eddie) he has taken a perfectly understandable stance. Understandable does not mean that we agree with his position but that we can understand where he is coming from. That is different.

Eddie, and politicians like Eddie, are arguing against “relativism”. My favourite quote of the programme has been ignored by the sensationalists. Eddie stated (my paraphrasing) “partit li jitlef il-valuri jista jisfaxxa”. That is where I understand Eddie and agree. Both the PN and the PL “jistghu jisfaxxaw”. We have had ample proof that they abdicated from a position of principle ages ago. They are henceforth speaking from a position of populist relativism. The “free vote” is the culminating point. Parliament passing the law with mathematical calculations is the corollary.

The likes of Alison Bezzina (my ears are bleeding), Moviment Tindahalx et al are unwittingly participating in the sensationalist game. (I picked their comments on facebook – am sure there are more in the same vein where they came from). Sure Eddie’s “hoping that parliament votes against the law” is sensationally appalling. But he is a retired politician! Eddie hoping for a particular outcome should be as useful to the whole assessment as Mintoff hoping for another outcome. It isn’t. But they do not realise it!

What worries me much more is that Andrew (in the programme) defaulted on the opportunity to highlight the democratic deficit that Eddie’s position actually creates. When Eddie says that moral issues are not for voting upon as parties he creates that vacuum. When Eddie says that a party without values can disband he admits the contradiction. This is why I was angry at Andrew running down the very very uselessly distracting track of the role of religion and tolerance.

This has nothing to do with tolerance and alot to do with parties being clear about what they have to offer and obliging their members to follow suit. The biggest danger in this whole mess is the vacant minefield unleashed by Labour’s Free Vote. We said it at the beginning and say it again: No to Free Vote because a Free Vote is an abdication from representative rights.

Parties need to have the balls to stick by their principles. If the PN wants to be an anti-divorcist conservative party it is free to do so. It should cut the bull about the social-liberals that need being taken care of. Who would we elect then? A Hodge-podge of indecisive conservative/liberals who would unleash their conscience on matters of state at every opportunity?

That is why we should not be spoofing Eddie and calling him a dinosaur. We should be joining him and pointing our fingers at the farces who represent us in parliament. We should EXPECT our parties to represent clear values – and not a pick and mix that represents no one but their MPs individual conscience.

Let’s not make Andrew’s mistake and get lost in the translation… stop misunderstanding Eddie and ask more questions of the fools who are really trying to take us all for a ride.

P.S. Andrew is a very nice guy. I am sure he understands my anger on this point. I must also make it clear that he offered to read a clarification in the second part of the programme and I refused because I thought that the damage had already been done. Hu hsieb Dru.

Categories
Divorce

Understanding Eddie

Former President and Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami has chipped in to the post-referendum debate with an article on the Sunday Times (MP’s credibility on moral issues being put to the test). The article is bound to attract its own corner of controversy – particularly because on the face of it, it is firmly grounded on theological interpretations and principles that have come to be closely associated with pronouncements made by the retired politician.

Part I – Understanding Eddie

It would be unfair not to try to understand the constitutional underpinnings of Eddie’s (forgive the familiarity but it was Eddie for too long to be easy to drop) reasonings simply because the moral values that Eddie subscribes to are so deeply intertwined with those of a particular church. As a small aside in these days when nostalgia for “Salvaturi ta’ Malta” seems to be a new trend it would be good to remember that the moral foundation of the wave of Solidarity, Work, Justice and Liberty was inextricably linked to the christian-democrat interpretation of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine.

Back to Eddie and MP’s credibility though. The former PM is no longer in the driving seat and he can afford to assess the situation from a more principled approach without the quasi-macchiavellian calculations that tarnished his later years in power. To put it bluntly the saving or crumbling of a government is no longer a part of Eddie’s calculations so he can afford to be morally honest with regard to his guiding principles.

The former PM first distinguishes between the moral issue behind the Independence and EU referenda and the moral issue that underlies a referendum on an issue such as divorce. Those among the media (and politicians) inclined to sensationalise will point to Eddie’s reference to Pope John Paul II’s list: divorce, free love (whatever that means), abortion, contraception, the fight against life in its initial and final phases, the manipulation of ‘life’. They will rush to compare it to KMB’s meanderings pre-EU accession about AIDS and Sicilian workers etc. At J’accuse we don’t think that Eddie is in the business of cheap scaremongering this time round. His question goes deep to the constitutional mechanism this country will choose in the future for determining issues that fall heavily on the “moral” side as against the “pragmatically political”.

Part II – Parliament’s Dilemma

This is where we begin to understand Eddie. Better still. Once the noise of controversy and rash anti-clericalism subsides we can even agree with him. Not with his position on divorce legislation but on his outlook towards constitutional frameworks that we form to enact such legislation. You see, the huge problem that this parliament has is that it is unable to come to terms with the fact that no matter how many times it twists and turns this Rubik Cube of Divorce the final decision will ultimately lie in its hands.

Our parliament is  designed around – and bends to – the will of a duopolistic anachronism. Once the divorce issue hit the fan it exposed the fundamental weakness of both parties: contemporaneously. No matter how much a “wobbly coalition of economic, social, religious and cultural forces” you can cobble together, no matter how far you can go with the oxymoronic faux progressives it is blatabtly impossible to retain a semblance of coherence when faced with a clearcut decision on a “moral issue”. The only party that would have been comfortable at the outset is still lying outside the closed club of our parliament.

J’accuse wrote at the outset: this is an issue for parliament to decide, not for the people to be lumped with. For parliament to decide this issue it needs to have at least one party that is committed (as a party, as a leader as MPs) to introduce divorce. This commitment must be clear at election time and the electors will have implicitly accepted divorce legislation as part of the party’s manifesto. Neither the conservative nationalists nor the pussyfooting progressives could get themselves to do that. We do get the sophistry of flags of convenience (cue PN with its token gay, liberal and ultra-cool section) or of the logistical sumersaults (cue PL with its private member bills, free votes) but no party wants to assume the responsibility of being the pro-divorce party on election day.

Part III – Why Eddie may be right (and wrong)

Here’s what our former PM did in 2003 – when Labour’s Sant insisted that the referendum result is neither here nor there:

The last two referendums held in Malta dealt with two major political developments. The people were asked to approve the proposed Constitution for Independence and Malta’s accession to the European Union. In both referendums there was a clear majority for the two proposals. Yet the Labour Party MPs continued to oppose both proposals notwithstanding the positive referendum results on those two eminently political issues.

It is worth recalling that as Prime Minister in 2003, faced with that stand by the Labour Party, I opted to advise the President to dissolve Parliament forthwith and call a fresh election in which accession to the European Union was the main issue. I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right.

On the one hand Eddie distinguishes between political and moral decisions. For political issues it is simple. If one party insists on not recognising the will of the people then the solution is to dissolve parliament and call an election. The people can then either choose between two parties and their options (yes, sadly the dualism will prevail).

Eddie does however create a vacuum – legally that is. Here is his reasoning on taking decisions on what he terms “moral issues”:

I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right. As a Christian I believe, on the authority of none other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that divorce is morally wrong and therefore wrong for society. Should one change this view because a democratic majority decides otherwise? Definitely not.

Which leaves us with a political and constitutional vacuum. Who will decide on divorce legislation for the people? The conscience of 69 parliamentarians? Elected on what basis? Eddie is being economic with the truth here because the convenient classification of a vote on civil divorce legislation as a “moral issue” effectively creates a vacuum of representation. It sabotages the very heart of representative democracy which is based on the principle that someone somewhere takes decisions “for the people”. You know the mantra: “a government for the people by the people”.

How do we therefore solve the impasse? The answer is written on the walls. Our political parties should be obliged to shed their convenient status of “wobbly coalitions”. On issues such as divorce there should be a clear position: not a free vote. I expect a party presenting candidates as future representatives in parliament to be clear about what they believe on such issues. By voting for a party I would then also be exercising my choice of or against a particular issue – and expecting it to shoulder the responsibilities in parliament.

Part IV – A parliament of representatives (with a clean conscience)

A parliament that would have been made up of representatives elected on a clean bill of ideas – and not on a mix and match of ideals in order to throw the widest net – would not have wasted the infamous €4 milllion euros finding out what was already a known fact before the debate. Such a parliament would have had a clear mandate to legislate beyond the individual member’s conscience.

Our current parliament will in all probability patch together a law of sorts that is passed with (what now seem to be) 37 ayes but it remains a parliament that is unable to come to terms with the requirements of a huge chunk of its demos. The battle for the emancipation of the Maltese citizen is far from being won.

Former Prime Minister and President Eddie Fenech Adami is right in one thing. The best solution in this kind of situation is probably the dissolution of parliament. This would allow the formation of a new parliament based on new parties hopefully committed to particular principles and policies. Hopefully too, parties will be clear with potential candidates about what the party represents and will ask them to leave their individual conscience at the front door, in the confessional or in any case outside parliament.

The greatest hope I reserve for the eventual voter : that he or she may learn a lesson from this hobbled parliament and choose to discern between false menus and the real deal the next time he or she has to make a choice.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Sophistry, Protagoras & San Ċipress

The return of summer has meant the return of the time-slot dedicated to listening to podcasts at a leisurely pace while lapping up the sun on a beach. This week I caught up on the “History of Philosophy without Gaps” series delivered by Peter Adamson of King’s College (available gratis on iTunes). As luck (and universal karma) would have it, I had stumbled on the episode called “Making the Weaker argument the Stronger: the Sophists” (ep. 14 if you care to look it up) and it couldn’t have been a better time to discover the sophists and their school of thought.

Thanks mainly to Plato (see “Protagoras”), the school of the Sophists has had quite a bit of philosophical bad mouthing through the ages and this is mainly because they were seen as a professional class of thinkers who dabbled in the art of “spurious learning that would lead to political success”. From the sophist school (or rather from their detractors) we get the word “sophistry”, which is invariably defined as “an argument that seems plausible but is fallacious or misleading, especially one that is deliberately devised to be so”, or as “the art of using deceptive speech and writing”.

The early sophists invested much in the concept of “virtue” but would soon inject it with a huge dose of relativism − as Protagoras himself would tell us: “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”. The problem with sophists however was that via this relativism they were more concerned with persuasion than with the value of truth. In teaching the early politicians the art of persuasion they also thought them that truth could only stand in the way of a successful politician. Truth was not a priority − they would boast that a good sophist could persuade someone that the worse was the better reason… they could make black appear to be white.

The Sophist school lives

The Divorce Debate Hot Potato has left the hands of the people who spoke decisively on the matter and is back in the hands of the bungling lot who are still at odds trying to understand why the rest of the world calls them “representatives”. This is the short-term after-shock when the rocked establishment does what it does best and pulls out the shots for its own survival. Let me put it bluntly: We have two anachronistic parties that had been stripped bare of any semblance of principle beyond the one and only grail of vote-grabbing. Both parties are at this point busily attempting to show the people that they represent their will (Hell Yeah) while contemporaneously attempting to have officially nothing to do with it in the process (Heavens No).

A few weeks back I wrote about Pontius Pilate. His ruse of “release Barabbas” never worked. The people threw the Messiah back into his hands and all he could do was wash them. Not with our modern day Sophists though − far be it from them to wash their hands publicly. Instead they do the impossible and find themselves ditching truth in order to sell the implausible and fallacious packaged as political dogma. To me, the prize of the day, nay the millennium, must go to Inhobbkom Joseph. Sophist to a tee, il-Mexxej has wriggled his way out of Labour’s non-position to the extent that a huge amount of his supporters actually believe that the Labour party is in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation.

Muscat’s post-result speech fell just short of letting people assume that it was thanks to Joseph and his party that Yes carried the day. Nothing new there… I still meet Nationalist Party card carriers who believe the spin that the Yes movement seven years ago was a purely in-house affair. Muscat then performed logical acrobatics of an impressive kind in which he managed to imply that the Nationalist Party is obliged to vote Yes (or resign) while conveniently ignoring the fact that this paladin of progressive politics has not got the balls to tell his own party to stuff the free vote where the sun does not shine. The fallacy (Labour is a pro-divorce party) had been sold − hook, line and sinker to the electorate − while Muscat abetted anti-divorce MPs in his own party. Epic representative fail but huge sophist success.

The powers of an MP

At the other end of our poor political spectrum, the only man with a pair of considerable male attributes remains unsurprisingly Austin Gatt. Much as I disagree with his position (completely and utterly) on divorce itself, there is no doubt that Austin Gatt was clear from day one and his position is an interesting standard in the sea of wavering compromises that are the official party positions. Austin said he could never fit in a party that would be in favour of divorce and that he would resign if his party would pronounce itself in favour. His position is that his conscience trumps the voice of the people in this matter and that he is willing to face the consequences with the electorate (luckily for him he will not be contesting the next election so not much facing to be done there).

I have consistently argued that a referendum was not the right way to introduce a civil right such as divorce. One reason was that in the real world we would have clear direction from parties who could legislate responsibly and professionally with the balance between common good and minority rights in mind. The mess this referendum has put us in is not a result of the YES/NO answer (it has been pointed out that the 53/47 per cent ratio was the same as when the “debate” was officially launched) but a result of our representatives abdicating their responsibility at the start of it all. We cannot have spineless parties without a position (two sets of free votes − 69 consciences − and a collective bandwagon of shameless sophistry) suddenly being trusted with the enacting of such a delicate piece of legislation − and all the signs show that they cannot seem to understand how to do it either.

Kollox suġġettiv (everything’s subjective)

It’s now all about fine-tuning for the parties and the electorate would do well to take note. Muscat’s PL and Gonzi’s PN are about to pull one of those wool-before-your eyes tricks in which they excel. Our tendency to be card-carrying voters before being free-thinking emancipated citizens risks nullifying all the awareness that has been gained over the last four weeks. Both PL and PN want to be seen as fulfilling the will of the people while also being non-committal as parties on such an important aspect as a minority right.

Through the divorce debate we saw the gradual rise of a kernel of a Civil Rights Movement. It was one that “Stood Up” and called a spade a spade beyond the useless rhetoric and empty sophistry of the parties. It was promising − and we recognised the momentum. What seems to have been heavily underestimated though was the pulling power of the parties in their attempt to hegemonise (and in the process mollify) the political decision making in our country. Sure, eventually the Ayes will have it − and Austin will do his little tantrum − but will we revert to the spineless politics and the slow pace of opiated Maltese dualism?

The answer to this question seems to be a resounding “of course”. Deborah Schembri has done us the honours. She was a more than promising leader for the kernel Civil Rights Movement and proved her ability to argue above the noise. She surprised everyone by announcing on the people’s forum − (very aptly) Xarabank − that she would choose a career in politics over a vocation as people’s representative (my choice of words). Another one bites the dust (forgive us for being sceptical about the chances of Debbie changing Labour rather than vice-versa).

San Ċipress

And if you were wondering whether Debbie’s absorption will be a one-off distraction factor then look at the new spin from the PN camp involving another budding star − Cyrus Engerer. No sooner had Deborah announced her “career path choice” did the spin begin to portray the liberal side of PN as the new stars. Much as you might like Cyrus and Deborah as politicians who showed their mettle in the divorce debate, you might be heading towards grave disappointment as they are transformed into the latest tools for survival by the PL-PN opiates.

The boredom threshold of a tired electorate is lower than that of a prime time “journalist”. Having taken great pains to cast his decision, the voter just cannot wait for his representatives to just get a move on beyond the fuss and enact the damn law. The voters’ impatience is the political party’s boon − they will reason their way out of this mess and both will try to sell the idea that they are the people’s party. Meanwhile, the short-lived Civil Rights Movement risks being the greatest loser: can you imagine the PLPN handling other important issues beyond divorce? Of course not. And yet Cyrus and Deborah chose to obstinately operate from within the rudderless ships and allow themselves to be paraded like the latest “vara” (statue) at some village festa.

In the words of one of Malta’s foremost philosophers of the 21st century… “jekk intom ghandkom vara, ahna ghandna vara isbah minnkom, jekk intom qieghdin hara, ahna qieghdin hara iktar minnkom,… u jekk intom ghandkom lil Debbie… ahna ghandna ‘l Cyrus (ahjar minnkom)”….

Will we ever learn? If you’re still not convinced by all this sophistry then you might want to try to take a peek on Alternattiva’s quest to remind our representatives why they should stop dilly-dallying. They’re meeting (aptly again) on 7 June at Hastings Garden at 9.30am. If you’re taking an iPod along then do buy the single “I’d rather dance with you”… by the Kings of Convenience − a pleasant tune to listen to before the latest round of philosophy – hopefully there will be less sophistry involved.

www.akkuza.com − thinking different because you don’t seem to want to.