Tag: Highlights

Categories
Articles

J’accuse: Plebiscites in the age of clicktivism

The mass is a weird being. I am not referring to the Eucharistic celebration in Catholic rites but to the “mass” as a collective of human beings that can be formed either randomly or purposely within a particular context or aim.

At worst a “mass” is a loose connection of humans, each going about their independent lives that happen to have a common element at one particular moment − the best example are commuters on public transport. Think, for example, of the mass of commuters at peak hour in a metropolitan city. At its most effective the mass is a flock, a herd or a gaggle of humans who assemble with a particular intention − such as famously assembled on the morning of the 14th of July 1789 in Paris with the very clear intention of taking possession of the arms in the Bastille.

Apart from the religious connotation, we are used to hearing about “mass meetings” on this island. It’s a national sport that has grown since the formation of political parties and for a few decades (possibly still nowadays) these “mass meetings” have been attended with such religious fervour that one would be forgiven for confusing the religious with the profane. The nineties brought us the full explosion of “mass marketing” − that ended when the personal and different became exalted (see the great Desigual campaign) − before that the mantra of maxploitative products would be capturing the attention of as large a part of the mass as possible.

The social network

In this day and age, the principles underlying successful Internet companies also rely on capturing the masses. Social networks such as Facebook and Google Plus rely heavily on the basic building block of a particular form of mass connections. Having lured the masses into their fold with the bait of “connectivity”, the social networks proceed to fence them off from the rest of the net and to attempt to keep them in their corner of the virtual world.

A problem that both companies like Facebook and Google or parties like our political behemoths may face is the unpredictable frivolity of the masses. A mass is fickle and oftentimes misrepresented. Its power lies in sheer numbers and it is a very rare mass that is constantly clear and uniform on what it wants unless there are very clearly defined rules to calculate its wishes.

Take modern democracy, as envisaged mainly in post-war constitutions, as an example. We had taken the Greek city-state idea of a demos (the mass described as a people or commonwealth) and created a set of rules by which the people through majority voting entrusted a part of them to enact laws in their name and for their better comfort.

Even if we were to set aside the cliché of “the least of all evils” that is often bandied around when talking about the democratic system of government, we would have to acknowledge that the tyranny of the majority business is limited to periodical assessments of the general political orientation that the mass might prefer. In our case we vote every five years. In matters of utmost importance (or in our case when the representatives do not have the balls to legislate the obvious), the ball is thrown back into the mass’ court for it to decide by way of what is commonly known as “the referendum”.

I heart populism

But, as I said in the beginning, the mass is a weird being. There is an increasing tendency to talk in terms of masses. To assume that some kind of majority idea exists about this or that idea. The tools of the net I mentioned earlier have served to exacerbate this tendency and encourage it to the point of legal fallacy and sublime foolishness. The language of engagement in a country where every person is a politician born can only make matters worse. In a perfect utopia (allow me the tautology) the marvels of the Internet would be harnessed to be able to accurately gauge the thoughts and ideas of the masses. But is it a good idea? Should we be governed, judged and policed by the masses?

Ironically, when viewed through the eyes of the press, the noise from Malta’s society presents an inherent contradiction. On the one hand there are the conspiracy theorists − those who assume that anything (from the naming of a bus stop to the arraignment of an individual in court) is decided in some control room by an elite of Freemasons, networked politicians and whatever other label the conspiracy theorist may fancy. On the other hand there is a trend of speaking for the masses: you know the kind that generalise their thoughts as though they represent a huge chunk of the community.

The mass-stirrers are the latest trend in our desert of political values. Having ditched their respective ideological grounds for the fluid umbrella approach, our political parties are now victims of their own populist trends. I have bored you to death with the example of the non-policy of the Labour Party in the divorce debate. It will not be the last time that you will see Labour (and possibly even the PN) operate in this manner. The basic building block of their modus operandi is the pandering to the masses − which is after all what populism is all about. We risk having a government run on vox pops and referenda.

A brave new world

Did I hear you say not bad? Well, let me put it this way. The danger of “the mass” and its frivolous wills can only be appreciated when you look back at the way “the mass” has acted in recent past. Take for example the sad case of the pederast priests. Sure, what the priests did deserves a shower of opprobrium and condemnation of the harshest kind. Which is what the courts of law are there for. Had it been left to the masses and the mass reaction (as stirred by the media) we would have most probably witnessed a lynch mob.

It’s not that the deeds of the two men do not stir feelings of anger and disgust in me but that I would rather entrust their fate in the hands of a clear law with clear punishment than in the hands of a jury of the masses any day. A mass thinks with a hot head. It does not factor calmly and has a short-term rationale. Which is why the only details a mass is worried with is “how high is the tree?” and “is the rope long enough?” or “is the straw dry enough for the fire?”

Mass fail

With Internet activism (or clicktivism) you risk running away with the idea that there is a huge interest in a particular idea or principle. There’s a lot of noise on comment boards and “Likes” being clicked like there is no tomorrow.

When push comes to shove matters may not turn out to be as noisy or likeable as we may have thought. A Facebook friend pointed out two separate incidents that seem to confirm this trend.

First there was the huge online fuss about “The Oasis” development that could have given the impression that all Malta was against the desecration of another green corner of the island. It turns out that when the developer invited the online “complainers” for a meeting to air their complaints only two people turned out. That’s a slap in the face for clicktivism.

The other story was that of the Eritrean Ashih, who had recently lost his life tragically while saving another person from drowning. It seemed that notwithstanding all the bla and rhetoric acknowledging the man’s ultimate sacrifice, when it came to donations to a special fund, the masses were nowhere to be seen. The figure representing “private donations” out of the sum of €6,673 collected was a mere €50. The rest came from various funds and from the hotel where Ashih had worked. I’m not being a bean-counting Scrooge here but it does say much about the much trumpeted “generosity and open heart” of the Maltese public does it not?

Politics for the masses

The populist politicians have fashioned a symbiotic system that guarantees a fast track to the pinnacles of power. Modern day Neros do not fiddle while Rome burns. They are instead so engrossed with the micro-management of pleasing the peasants and keeping their pitchforks at bay that they lost the plot on the real business of responsible government away from the whimsical frivolity of the masses. I’d like to say that that is the case only in our little corner of the world but I would be lying.

The US credit rating downgrading for the first time ever and the imminent clouds of doom that are hovering in the European economic skies (and that’s ALL Europe, including The Cocooned Republic), are in a way the result of the modern day fiddlers. For a long time now they have been busy manufacturing politics for the masses while faking obeisance to the economic rules that bound a still fragile Union. Now the disparate leaders of the European Union are reluctant to break up their holidaymaking as their economy burns. What could they do anyway? Ask the people how to solve the woes? The masses are already gathering in Greece and Spain. The Spanish “Indignados” are “summoning the spirits of ’68” in order to express their disappointment with the current governors. Meanwhile, further south the protracted Jasmine Revolution has reached the bloody confines of Syria… and history, as they tend to say, seems to have gone full circle.

Ite, missa est

We get the word “mass” for the liturgical celebration from the Latin “missa” which originally meant “dismissed”. It’s from the phrase at the end of the celebration when the celebrant invites the congregation to leave. In this day and age mass movements seem to have the power to install and dismiss the leaders of nations at their will. It is an intelligent nation that learns from past mistakes and distinguishes between the frivolous, immediate and spontaneous will of the masses and the informed guidance based on long-term planning and values.

Do we have what it takes to tell the difference? And more importantly, are our representatives investing enough thought and time to develop the right value based policies? Or are we to be saddled with more headless politics for the masses? Ite, missa est.

www.akkuza.com has moved to the island of mass beaching for the next two weeks. Here’s to hoping there’s no mass jellyfish invasion.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : You can't always get what you want

This is the J’accuse column from yesterday’s The Malta Independent on Sunday (July 31st).

I cannot stand conspiracy theories. Worse still, I cannot stand most conspiracy theorists for their willingness to accept half-truths and bent facts much more readily than keeping their feet firmly on the ground. The stubborn manner with which a conspiracy theorist will bark out his “facts” and non sequiturs, without pausing to allow some much needed oxygen to reach his brain cells, is extremely frustrating. For someone who cannot stand conspiracy theories, the behaviour of Malta’s press world (commentators included) over the past week has been crazy to say the least.

A series of curious incidents that would each merit a separate chapter in the burgeoning annals of Maltese political and social eccentricity were pounced upon by a media circus that was all too eager to fill columns and pixels with whatever qualifies as a “scoop” or “exclusive” this day. The colourful summer recipe included some amateur spinning, some hastily assembled assumptions, a dash of insinuations and (in most of these cases) plenty of blind hope in partisan savoir-faire.

Cyrus the grate

If you set aside the Norway massacres, the latest life-vest thrown to the euro and the stories about the US’s battle to avoid economic hell (or if you actually thought of those before), then you would probably be thinking of the manner in which Cyrus is getting his name slapped across the headlines. He seems to manage to do so with grating irregularity and has long surpassed the star factor that his fellow councilman Nikki Dimech had achieved with his little bit of shenanigans some time back.

The latest instalment in the record-running show “PLPN’s Got Talent (kemm ahna sbieh min jaf jarana) is a series of events that − if you believe the conspiracy theorists − was triggered off by Cyrus’ Great Switch. Incidentally, here is one for the Black Belt Conspiracy Theorists − did you know that the name Cyrus has been linked to the Indo-European meaning “humiliator of the enemy”? Now that’s some food for thought. A kiwi, almost.

I cannot bore you with all the sordid details of the step by step accounts of what happened, who phoned whom and who called for who’s resignation. I’ll let you be bored elsewhere because frankly, if you have not picked up the various truths and colourings-in, then you might as well go on living the life of the blissfully ignorant. For those of you who love to perform the weekly hara-kiri of senseless speculation I have a few questions prepared.

A series of interesting questions

The PN first. Do you ever intend to start vetting candidates in such a manner as to avoid indecent surprises once they are elected to Parliament? Do you have any mechanism that somehow tests candidate suitability on the basis of the supposed basic set of values your party used to proudly carry? Do you still think that backing JPO to the hilt in the run up to the elections was a brilliant scheme?

And now Labour. The vetting question holds true for you too. Is it really enough for someone to say “I don’t like PN anymore” for them to suddenly waltz in and become a prized asset in your roadshow? Your “Dear Leader” called for the resignation of Edgar G C for having called the police commissioner. Are you telling me that a Labour PM would not be worried about having a politically motivated police force and that therefore no phone calls would be made asking for reassurance that none of it is happening?

Worse still, it is a fact that EGC called Commissioner Rizzo upon instigation and in the presence of Cyrus Engerer. The same Engerer is under investigation for criminal offences. The worst that could have happened, politically speaking, is that such accusations and process are now public knowledge − but that does not change the nature of the offence for which he is ultimately accused. It does not in any way absolve Cyrus from the necessity to go through the due process. My question is − given the stinking web of networks and interests that seem to be weaved into the case − wouldn’t a temporary suspension from the Labour Party be the least you could do to ensure that Engerer gets to defend himself without the burden/excuse of political manipulation?

Networks

I dealt with the role of networks in the whole story before it unfolded any further. For further elucidation do pop over at www.akkuza.com and check out the post entitled “I.M. Jack − the one about Cyrusgate”. The way I see it we have a perfectly normal course of events in Maltese politics and social life that is suddenly being given a specific twist because of the convenience it has for certain parts of the partisan charade (and possibly for Cyrus himself).

Maltese social life is based on the building of networks. As I said in the blog: our PLPN society is built on webs and connections and networks. You publicly move up the ladder and before you know it you are a wheel in the power machine: sometimes you end up using that wheel’s power in complicated rituals that involve the exchanging of favours. Within that power system lies an unwritten rule that family and close friends might be given added consideration: it’s private you know. Think of the last time you saw someone getting his friend through on the VIP list in some nightclub and then think wider, bigger.

Look around you. Whether you are at the bank or at the grocer or at the public registry or negotiating a discount on your fine with a warden, there is one thing in common. You look at them beyond the normal confines of basic social interaction. You try to get to the banker who knows you or is a cousin twice removed, you prefer the grocer who treats you as a friend or the tax assessor who is married to your office mate’s brother and hopefully you are lucky enough to be dealing with a reasonable warden. These connections are crucial (as Google+ and Facebook have long found out) because the main currency on which these circles operate is the trading of power units.

Buying power

The policeman who meets a politician in the street and guarantees that a hush-hush case will probably be heard behind closed doors is attempting to wield the power he has in his sphere of influence. You find this kind of power all over the place − take civil services everywhere for example. Sometimes it is impressive what will open a door or close another. In Luxembourg, where the civil service employs mainly Luxembourgers, I learnt a crucial lesson that oils the wheels in your favour. It was simple really. Do not address the public servants in French. Short of Luxembourgish try English. Often it makes the difference between being ignored or misdirected and getting what you want immediately without as much as a huff.

What I believe lies behind the grossly inflated Cyrusgate is the wielding of multiple bits of power with the mistaken intention of upsetting or strengthening partisan loyalties. When suspicion falls on the police force about expediting or delaying the application of justice, what we are really saying is that there is a PC somewhere who holds the key to the speed of treatment of a dossier with Cyrus’ name on it. The mere fact that he can choose to speed it up is his little corner of power. Did this constable use it to ingratiate himself with one of the two parties? I doubt it. Can it happen? Possibly. And it can happen in favour of any of the two hubs of the main networks: the PL or the PN. And that is what worries me in the end.

Think also of the intricate network of lawyering that has been mentioned. Between Cyrus’ lawyer and Marvic’s lawyer we have a confusing cross-section of party and government loyalties. It’s clumsy but it’s done. That is the problem. I have long stopped blaming the policeman or the lawyer. I blame the system encouraged by voters (you know that don’t you?). Even though it should not make sense we accept lawyers shifting between their lawyer’s cap and their political cap as though it is the most obvious thing in the world. It’s not OK. It’s far from being OK but it’s how we do it in this country − whoever is in government.

Getting what you want

There’s no knowing how Cyrusgate will end. Papers like MaltaToday will go on milking the conspiracy theory dry while caught in a web of inherent contradictions. What jars most is not the need for the press to fill their papers with gossip that sells like pastizzi, but the readiness of the observers to swallow the filth without as much as a simple question that should bring the illogical conspiracy theory crumbling down. What will remain is a series of networks that are nurtured to feed the illogical partisan politics that is becoming less and less representative of value-driven politics every day.

The question on everyone’s lips once the police were suspected to be involved in Cyrusgate was “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Well maybe not in Latin but the gist was there. The phrase means “who will guard us from our guardians”? The biggest worry I have goes beyond that issue. In fact, I am convinced that our guardians only operate along the social mores that we have all become accustomed to and accept. They are the same social guidelines and standards that we continue to endorse every election year. Seen in that light, the question everyone is asking should be rephrased into one that is more simple and accurate: “Who will protect us from ourselves?”

www.akkuza.com is still dispensing highhanded advice from grey and rainy Luxembourg. We’re in Malta for August though – just enough time to remember why we still bother aye?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse : The Meaning of Life

This is the J’accuse column that appeared on the Malta Independent on Sunday on the 24th of July.

Speaking to the press after the bombing and shooting that rocked the world, Oslo Mayor Fabian Stang could hardly control his emotions. In a phone interview with the BBC, Stang spoke of how he wished he could have been on Utoya island to put himself between the heartless gunman and his victims: “I would have told him to take me and spare the young campers.” Stang’s words were echoed by both the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Stoltenberg. The nation had been stung and the biggest tragedy among all the unfolding tragedies was that the agent of the grim reaper had chosen to target the promising youth of a peaceful nation.

Although early signals (mostly US based) pointed towards another al Qaeda linked tragedy, it seems to be increasingly probable that the perpetrator was nothing less than a crazed Christian right-winger who could have been acting on the basis of some grudge against the liberal government. Be that as it may, Friday’s focus was on the loss of life. The grief and mourning was based on a common value: that of appreciation of life and of the wasted potential among the 80 or so young men and women who were indiscriminately shot while on their political camp retreat.

Life as we know it

It is normal for a nation to mourn its dead. When the dead are the result of an extremist rampage and include large numbers of people in their youthful prime there is no end to the sense of loss. Society values life. Even the most savage of communities understands the importance and value of life − life is not and cannot be treated lightly. There is a reason why murder ranks above theft or larceny in a criminal code. It is the most obvious demonstration of the importance of life to a society. From Hammurabi to the modern day, life has been treated as the most precious gift and the taking of a life was conversely the most severe of punishments. Life, as we know it, can never be treated lightly.

If we zoom out of the zone of operations of a Christian Fundamentalist in Norway and zoom into Somalia’s regions run by Muslim extremists, we find another example of the abuse of life for the sake of some twisted political agenda. The Al-Shabab Islamists have denied western aid agencies access to the famine stricken parts of Somalia because they believe that reports of famine are all part of “Western propaganda”. The Al-Shabab control regions − Bakool and Lower Shamble − that are among the worst struck by droughts and are still refusing access to the much-needed aid agencies.

Real life choices are being made daily in the regions immediately outside Somalia’s capital Mogadishu. The image of mothers wrapping material tightly around their stomachs in order not to feel hunger pains and save whatever food found for their offspring was an image of ultimate sacrifice. It’s a recurrent story in our “civilisation” − whenever the tyrant or the crazed mass murder has left his mark, you will also find symbols of human self-sacrifice: forgoing their own right to a life in order to save others. We build our greatest narratives around this idea − from the sacrifice of sons of gods to the last Harry Potter installation when even the young wizard has to die for a while (apologies for the mini-spoiler) in order to save the world of Muggles and magic.

Sacrifice

The latest news from Norway describes the attacker as a Christian extremist. We’re dealing with labels here. As a friend commented on Facebook, you cannot describe the work of this man as madness because there is no folly in the manner of execution. This is the work of someone with twisted principles and whose value of life is severely handicapped by a tunnel vision that can only be damaging. There was a kind of sense of relief to note that the hand of al Qaeda and all things claiming to be “Muslim inspired” was not remotely present this time round. The stereotypical assessments (big bomb, big attack therefore Muslim extremists must be behind it Q.E.D) fell on their face rather quickly and there is a lesson to be learnt there too about making rash value judgements on the face of appearances.

This week we had the opportunity to learn an equally important set of lessons in Malta too. The tragic death of young Eritrean Ashih while trying to save the life of a French person at sea gave us a first, important example. Ashih had faced the perils and terrors of open sea in his gamble to start a new life away from the troubles he left behind. He had survived the first part of his Iliad and begun to build a new life in Malta. This was the Malta whose louder members tend to remind men like him that it has no use for them… that they better return to their homeland. I am sure that when he jumped into the sea he did not think for one instant that this would be his last jump. There would have been no time to think that anyway for his thoughts were selfless and his mind was focused on saving the life of another person. Which is why we should be all the more thankful and respectful to the memory of Ashih.

A life in jeopardy

Another life that is in the news this week is that of Emmanuel Cini. The man whose latest label in life is that of “disabled man” has chosen to go on a hunger strike until Austin Gatt resigns his position as minister and Arriva mends its ways. Cini’s plight hit national headlines on his second day of starving and soon became the darling and hero of those who had been making a living out of complaining about the transport system. The nation’s gossip circles got so carried away by the apparent “guts”, “balls” and more demonstrated by the poor moribund that it seemed that nobody asked themselves the simple question: “Is a faulty transport system worth dying for?”

Sure, Cini did colour his protest with the idea that he is a “prisoner in his own home” but somehow the whole shebang did have a ring of “false prima donna” about it. It definitely does not matter to the cause of protesting faulty public transport whether Cini is a bona fide sick person or an ex-gay porn star or an ex-drama teacher or an ex-claimant for other state benefits or an ex-classical radio host, but slowly there is a jigsaw puzzle of clues that point to the conclusion that the kind of help someone like Cini needs goes beyond a direct bus to St Thomas Bay from his doorstep.

His “cause” is in no way aided by those who glorify his actions and equate him to some modern day Mahatma Gandhi without pointing out the absurd disproportionality in his “ends and means” calculations. I’d hate to think that there are idiots out there who would secretly hope for to him pass away simply to be able to lump his death on Austin Gatt’s conscience.

By day five of his hunger strike Emmanuel Cini mysteriously disappeared from the mainstream press reporting. Although some people had begun to unearth his very colourful (and interesting) past, the general reaction in the press was one of silence. It may be all the better for him − his cause can never be successful because it is one that is based on a faulty premise: that the teething problems of Arriva are worth dying for. It is a premise that makes a mockery of the value of life and needs to be changed before it is too late. Cini may be in too fragile a state to notice that at most he can be a temporary tool for yet another bandwagon of opportunist jerks. It is hopefully not too late for him to change his ill-advised choice.

Life is beautiful

It is stories like these that can help us appreciate the beauty of life notwithstanding all moments of adversity. “La vita é bella” said the poet who could see it in the smallest and most insignificant of moments. At times all it takes is learning to appreciate the world around you − minus the prejudice, minus the intolerance and minus the grudges we build over time. And smile. Enjoy life… you (probably) only get one chance to do it and it would be such a shame to live to regret it.

www.akkuza.com still thinks life is beautiful notwithstanding the greyest and coldest summer in our seven years of Luxembourg life. Log on to the site for further fun tips on how to carpe diem.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics

Apologia for the PN

Since I know that no matter what I write in this post I will be labelled “PN apologist” I thought of giving it a direct title and spare the superficial readers the typing. The final divorce vote has been taken and by now we all know which way the vote went. The conscience of the MPs who reflected the will of the referendum majority trumped that of those who still believed majority had nothing to do with what they decide. A majority of MPs, acting on their conscience, voted in a private members bill and Malta has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century thanks to the will of the people.

It’s funny how even the most “liberal” of commentators seem to have written this off as a Labour victory of some kind. True, they have not gone to the extreme of constitutional expert Luciano Busuttil who first posted this on facebook:

TODAY WE SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE DIVORCE SAGA WITH THE ‘LABOUR GOVERNMENT’ PASSING THE LAW TO REFLECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

Then, in a bout of euphoria he went on to impress us with his constitutional savoir-faire by adding:

IL-PRIM MINISTRU HU DAK LI L-PRESIDENT TAR-REPUBBLIKA JARA SKOND IL-KOSTITUZZJONI LI KAPACI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT. ILLUM IL-PRIM MINISTRU KIEN PARTI MILL-MINORANZA.

The “liberals” are busy pounding Lawrence though and let’s face it Lawrence could have only done worse had he donned a cassock and kick started an impromptu rosary in parliament. Fact is though that those busy pummeling Gonzi should be doing so with equal (or variable) measure to Joseph too. They still don’t get it do they? It’s one thing pooh-poohing Gonzi for sticking to his guns and voting Nyet all the way to the final vote and it’s another transporting this to the land of wishful thinking and collapsing governments. Here are a few inconfutable facts as to the why and because:

  • we had a free vote (and yes, Joseph is back to calling it frijvowt – see Times interview and his reply about Adrian Vassallo). Our parties did not oblige their members to vote in favour or against. As JOSEPH said – everyone was free to vote as he thinks. So NO – neither Labour nor PN or any faction thereof can claim to have in any way been part of the vote. We’ve dealt with this before and it remains a true constant.
  • the biggest consequence of the free vote is the shattering of Luciano Busuttil’s inexpert dreams. This was not a financial vote. It was not tied to the doing or undoing of government. It was a Private Member’s Bill in which EACH AND EVERY MP VOTED ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE. The vote was simple – do you accept the divorce bill or not? What does that say about the “KAPACITA LI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT”? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because this vote does not tell the President who has the confidence of the majority of parliamentary members. It tells the President WHAT the majority of MPs voting on a specific motion decided. Punto (and unfortunately for constitutional beginners) e basta.
  • What lessons do we learn? We learn that Gonzi stuck to his principle till the end. We learn that he was comfortable with voting no after ensuring that the will of the people is respected. That made many of us think less highly about Dr Gonzi. We also learnt that Joseph’s labour refused to take a position. More importantly we learn that Joseph’s labour is willing to take advantage of giving the false impression that it has a position on something – when it had nothing of the sort.

If anyone has been proven right by the turn of events then that must surely be this page, this blog and this blogger. Our two parties have confirmed their abdication from representative politics.

Voting PN next election translates into voting in chaos. A party without identity and values is not a party that can come up with proper programmes.

Voting PL next election translates into voting in absolute opportunism. Their weathervane approach to policy is extremely dangerous and is no guarantee for proper policies and programmes either.

Last Saturday I posted what I called a “Cyrus WTF moment” on facebook (it was later picked up by bloggers elsewhere). To me it illustrates the manner in which many have fallen for Labour’s non-policy hook, line and sinker. Others might put my statements down to “high handed opinions from abroad“. We’ve been there before – incidentally when we were told by PN stalwarts to shut up because they did not like what we were saying… it seems now that the weathervane has shifted for the Labourites and Joseph lovers to tell us not to interfere because we live abroad. Moviment Tindahalx indeed….

The Cyrus WTF moment :

 “Engerer says that whilst he and Opposition leader Jospeh Muscat do not agree on issues such as same-sex marriage, Muscat is open to be convinced on the contrary.” – and thank f**k for that….

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch

Austin & the two Emmanuels

Minister Gatt has taken note of the hunger strike announced by Emmanuel Cini. He has asked Arriva to speak to the hunger striker and try to ensure that his ends are met. We know this from a report in the Times in which Gatt’s actions were transmitted to the Times by a spokesman for Dr Gatt.

Minister Gatt did not speak directly to the press. He did not speak to Emmanuel Cini either. If the striker is even half serious you’d expect a bit more commitment from Gatt. Instead of his usual gutsy dismissive statement we get his metatron – a spokesman for Dr Gatt. Which makes you wonder what happened to the other Emmanuel, the one who was only too happy to have his name linked to anything Arriva before the fiasco began.

You know which Emmanuel we are talking about. The one who very evidently would not understand the meaning of a hunger strike.


DAY 4 OF HUNGER STRIKE: THE REAL EMMANUEL

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch

Veiled Arguments

The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” metaphor is back to haunt us. Only a while back we had a Archiepiscopal warning from the pulpit about the various wolves attired in sheep’s best (and they were not referring to vêtements signé Desigual) and now we have PM Gonzi accusing the Labour Party of having a lupine nature disguised as a fluffy animal. The phrase first appears in the Matthew 7:15 (that’s the bible, not an early morning Matt):

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

What is Gonzi on about then? Well I am not sure whether this report by MaltaToday and this one by the Times of Malta were from the same event  but they make an interesting reading into the mind of the One Who Many Think Committed Hara Kiri. The PM was commenting on Cyrus Engerer’s volte-face and trying to give his spin to the issue. We’d love to see Lawrence Gonzi’s credibility ratings at the moment but even if we assumed that there are still some people who take his word as the law we can find some interesting conclusions to continue to draw.

the counter-spin: wolves, the 80s and tolerance

MaltaToday highlighted Gonzi’s weak attempt at counter-spin. He pounced onto Joseph’s Muscat silent fatwa on Adrian Vassallo’s solo run and painted a picture of 80’s style intolerance in which “In-Nazzjon” was a public taboo. It’s tiring. Nauseating even. This whole business of projecting Labour’s past onto the future milked to some success for the 2008 Taste Campaign is long past its sell-by date. Gonzi is evidently clutching at straws with this argument. It is only made worse with his stress on “tolerance” – fresh from his monumental “NO” and spitting in the face of the vox populi (see “Drawing Conclusions”). There are inklings of the dire need that Dr Gonzi has for some intelligent (new?) advice before speaking to the press when he then opts to couch his ideas in biblical metaphors : triggering the very red lights that have made him lose so much in the popularity polls. Fail.

the ideas on switching parties

The Times report is more concerned with Gonzi’s opinion on Engerer’s choice to switch parties. According to the Times:

” Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said he respected the decision of Sliema deputy mayor Cyrus Engerer to resign from the Nationalist Party and join Labour but disagreed with his reasons. Mr Engerer did not resign because of the PN’s stand on divorce but pinned his decision on one issue: Dr Gonzi’s No vote against divorce legislation in Parliament on Wednesday.”

Much is being made elsewhere about Engerer’s Damascene switch (including questions being asked about whether it was not so sudden). Dr Gonzi is here “respecting” the decision made by the young turk. Many will confuse “respecting” with “agreeing with ” or “accepting” Cyrus’ switch. Gonzi does neither. He disagrees with the motivation (His own No vote) and above all he has a problem with the assessment of principles.

anchors

It’s the last bit that is very telling. Principles. Here is how Dr Gonzi reads the latest crisis:

“I fear we are reaching a situation where people are no longer anchored to their principles.”

People and principles. Is Gonzi, like almost everyone in the political arena, missing the woods for the trees? We have written elsewhere that the biggest problem is the lack of principled backbone within the major parties – their choice to not commit. Gonzi is pointing his fingers at “people who are no longer anchored in their principles” using Engerer as an excuse. His fingers are pointed in the wrong direction. It is the parties who have abdicated from representing clear cut principles and sacrificed these principles on the altar of populist convenience.

Wolves, Pots & Kettles

The biggest demonstration of this dog-eat-dog unprincipled world was the exchange of accusations by the PM and leader of Opposition. While Gonzi was accusing Joseph of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Joseph was busy spinning the line that “Labour had never changed its position throughout the debate”. Nobody can deny that. The point is that Labour had no position to change. It had no position on divorce. That is what Gonzi should have told Cyrus Engerer – that he was joining a party that did not have the balls to take an official position on divorce.

There’s another question I need to ask Joseph. How come “Labour not changing position” is good but “Gonzi not changing position (and always standing for the NO)” becomes bad? It’s stupid, stupid, stupid all over the place. It’s like two people tossing a coin ten times and the result is 7 heads and 3 tails. Joseph is suddenly “right” because he backed heads while Gonzi is wrong because he called “tails” all along?? Meanwhile Labour chose not to call heads or tails but wins prizes for being constant in not taking a position. Is this a crazy world or not?

Engerer

Will Engerer manage to change Labour into a real progressive party? Does he have the clout? Will it matter? It won’t to the token voters who just see Labour as the new lesser evil away from GonziPN. The question is “what will it take for them to notice that MuscatPL is same, same but different?” How long till we will be discussing how MuscatPL failed to take leadership on civil society issues, or worse still how its attempts to play the populist led to a hodge podge of botched legislation? We’re kicking off with “kids’ right to maintenance till they are 23″…. quite a good start to raise unprincipled, spoilt brats whose concept of politics is waving the blue/red flag whenever duty calls….

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle – j’accuse 2011