2. The Law is an Ass
Or is it? One effect of the multiplication of immediately available information has been the massive impact that this has had on the interaction between the demos and the institutional framework that represents them. By this I mean that what is commonly referred to as “the people” tends to give more and more input on the processes that exist in a democratic environment. I would hazard to state that for a very long time one major imperfection of democracy functioned to its advantage and longevity. This imperfection was the practical impossibility of involving everyone and everything in every single decision that needed to be taken within the framework of separation of powers.
A new advert by the Guardian called “Three Little Pigs” (see below) turns out to be a perfect illustration of what I mean here. The majority of information reaching us comes from the traditional media (or in some cases citizen journalists) and then these “facts” that have been reported are given the demo-treatment. Reactions – indignation, satisfaction, summary judgements etc – might even influence the follow-up to a news item. All the while the usual machinery of the state might be interacting with a particular news item : a crime? a sporting achievement? a public blunder by a public person? an injustice to a citizen?
Where does this take us? I believe that the current shift is crucial to the redefinition of a major democratic paradigm. It’s as if you could check in on your accountant/lawyer’s/doctor’s work on a daily basis and you suddenly tried to influence how he or she goes about the job. The rules and structures behind democratic processes are what binds us all and keeps us a step away from chaos. If, for example, we suddenly all had a say about how a day in the court should run we would steamroll over procedures that have been developed to guarantee and safeguard a multiplicity of rights. The same goes with reporting in newspapers, decisions on governance and governability and more. The danger is further confounded when public judgements are made on the basis of political expediency or allegiance. Reason and social mores are put aside so long as we can shoot from the hip about the “inadequacy of legislation” – forgetting that there is a process behind the formation of such legislation that guarantees stability.
3. Owen Bonnici and Students’ House
This bit of news in the Times got my blog fingers itching and is a perfect example of the cavalier attitude that the modern band of politicians have towards the guarantees of the law and more.
Labour MP Owen Bonnici has asked for an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee or the Auditor-General into whether government rules were broken when parts of Students’ House at the University were handed to the University Students’ Council, which then rented them out for commercial purposes.
Now I admit that having been KSU President I might have a considerable advantage over Owen in this one but the story jars on many a point. Let’s begin with the basic. The most basic. KSU is an autonomous organisation – one of the oldest in Malta having been founded back in 1901. The good operation of the Students’ Council requires that it operates free from outside pressure and that includes the administrative organs of the University of Malta, not to mention the government. I hate to go down this line because it plays into the retro-fetish of nationalist enthusiasts but one of the greatest coups to safaguard KSU’s (at the time SRC’s) autonomy occurred in the 70’s under – you guessed it – Mr Mintoff.
At the time SRC ran the house now known as the NSTS Building in Saint Paul’s and Mintoff wanted to get his hands on this prize property at a time when most Uni assets were up for grabs. What happened next was that a foundation was created (the NSTF) with the SRC as one of its members. Technically speaking NSTF is still a branch of KSU with KSU still participating actively in the management of the foundation. The foundation kept the property an arms breath away from the meddling government at the time. Why do I mention all this? It is important to understand the issue of autonomy of the student body and that Dar l-Istudent on Campus is for all intents and purposes a KSU managed property (I hesitate to say owned).
Which brings me to Owen and his “reporting”. What public accounts? What auditor-general? Would Owen be so kind as to ask the same gentlemen to initiate an investigation on the Labour and Nationalist parties in order to examine whether their management of financial affairs is tip-top? Why doesn’t he? Owen’s insistence is a bit like inviting Alexander Ball over to Malta to protect us from the evil French. We all know what happened for the next 264 years.
So there are suspicions about the current committee’s handling of tenders? Deal with it in the appropriate forum. Sure the latest generation of party lackeys on both sides of the spectrum will make a meal out of it as they have tended to do since the PLPN colleges planted more and more idiots from their school of bipartisan thought. What needs to be done in this case is to gather a movement of students who will vote the suspect batch out of the representative organ and then presumably replace them with persons who can properly manage students’ house. If the students do not turn out to vote in that manner then there is nobody else to blame.
Bonnici’s act simply threatens the very autonomy of the student council and its rights of administration and management that were acquired over a long time after a series of tough battles by the predecessors of the current executive. It’s a wrong move that can only benefit Bonnici’s exposure but one that the students will ultimately end up regretting: if the PAC or Auditor-General follow through on the absurd request that is.
