Tag: Lawrence Gonzi

Categories
Euroland

Press Standards & Poor Berlusconi

Italy’s sovereign debt rating has been revised downwards (A from A+) by Standard and Poor’s. The marginal comment to this revision was that the country’s outlook was “negative”. Notwithstanding Berlusconi’s “manovra” that seemed to have appeased worries in the institutional corridors of Brussels, the credit rating agency “cited fears over Italy’s ability to cut state spending and bring its finances in order, particularly given the country’s growth prospects.” (BBC)

The Italian government’s reaction to this revision is once again redolent of the double-vision that is evident in every major capital in Europe these days. On the one hand there is the inevitable reality that is a euroland crisis that is crying for a common solution (common because of the interdependence of the euroland states) while on the other hand there is the survival instinct of the parties in government eager to avoid losing valuable election points in the national microcosm.

Malta’s Labour has been lashing at Gonzi & Co. for what they claim is the “ostrich” mentality that has overcome Pietà and Castille. The tune from Labour and other critics of government is that the Government has “conveniently ignored” Moody’s recent downgrading. For its part, barring the bravado of mavericks like Austin Gatt, the party in government seems to be content with the government by default line that has worked so well in recent years. While it is true that Labour is far from offering a practical alternative to the current men at the driving seat, it is also blatantly evident that the government by default lacks a coherent, value-driven and globally conscious plan. Surely a tough nut to crack for voters.

Back to Berlusconi and his government. The first reaction to the S&P revision was a tirade on the fourth estate. His government and its manoeuvres was not to blame – instead it was the bad feeling and lack of confidence generated by the papers. Pity that the stock exchanges in Milan and elsewhere seemed to be more on the wavelength of S&P and the papers than on Berlusconi’s side. Here is part of Palazzo Chigi’s official reaction (from La Stampa):

«Il governo ha sempre ottenuto la fiducia dal Parlamento, dimostrando così la solidità della propria maggioranza. Le valutazioni di Standard & Poor’s sembrano dettate più dai retroscena dei quotidiani che dalla realtà delle cose e appaiono viziate da considerazioni politiche»

The question is whose reality (realtà) is the real one and whose is the virtual?

The truth is out there.

 

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: Drawing conclusions

Some time before “The Divorce Debate” went into overdrive, I had pointed out that this would be a good litmus test for the way our society sees itself and its politicians. That big mirror has been held up against our faces for some time now and I find myself in an unenviable situation of still not seeing eye to eye with most sides of the political spectrum. The most obvious conclusion would be that my understanding of the goings on is fatally flawed. Then again there is a possibility that the J’accuse perspective still resides resolutely outside the dualistic-partisan way of thinking. Which is why I cannot see “victors” or “losers” in the aftermath of “Civil Rights Debate Mark I”, I can only draw a number of conclusions. I thought I’d share them with you (sharing being a très social network concept). Feel free to “Like” or “Dislike” (or as the new Google+ lingo would have it: to “+1”).

*The 44 consciences*

I was called a “non-gentleman” on Facebook this week. This was because apparently I could not get myself to “admit” that the divorce bill had got through Parliament “thanks to Labour”. This is just the kind of “Right/Wrong” argumentation that allows people to lose their perspective. I have been arguing for some time that the PL-PN have abdicated their representative duties by not working with a party position on the divorce issue. When it came to voting in Parliament, both PN and PL chose the same formula: “conscience”. Both Muscat and Gonzi gave their members a “free vote” (a term brought into the debate by the Labour leader incidentally).

From that point on neither Labour nor the Nationalists could claim ownership of any votes in Parliament when the day of reckoning came. Neither could, for the sake of argument, the Vegetarians, the Smokers, Gozitans, Qriema (people from Città Pinto) or the Federation of Openly Homosexual MPs. We could play a statistical game and see which YES votes were cast by veggies, tobacco addicts, Gozitans, Qriema or gays, but at no point in time would our eccentric (and purely illustrative) choice of venn diagram material justify the statement “it was the Non-Smoking Ayes that made the difference”. There was no common stand by smokers as there was no common position for Nationalist or Labourite MPs. The vote was personal. You may disagree with that but it is a fact.

The parties did not perform their representative function in Parliament throughout the divorce vote. Which is why J’accuse has for some time now accused them of abdicating their responsibility. When Joseph Muscat dismissed questions regarding Adrian Vassallo’s “NO” vote, he implied that Vassallo would have to face the consequences of his vote with the electorate. There was nowt else Joseph could do because, very importantly, Labour had no position on divorce and had actually aided and abetted Adrian Vassallo’s “conscientious” vote in much the same way as it had done with those who voted in favour. Incidentally, it is also all Labour “YES” voters who have to face the consequences of their vote. Implying that Labour has some collective responsibility for a positive or negative outcome is a gigantic non sequitur and should not be confused with the next point: the people’s voice.

*Vox Dei and Gonzi’s Nay*

Vox Populi, Vox Dei is the Latin maxim that underpins one of the essential elements of democracy in this day and age. “The voice of the people is the voice of God” is the kind of logical conundrum that would have titillated the likes of Pierre Abèlard and Bernard of Clairvaux. If Abèlard and Bernard’s problems were great (google them… it’s a fun read), Lawrence of the Nationalist’s dilemma was even greater. On the one hand he is at the helm of a party struggling to deal with its conservative vestiges and on the other hand he is the Prime Minster of a nation that had yelled its acquiescence to the introduction of a bit of 20th century legislation.

Then there was the matter of “conscience” − or as Gonzi’s predecessor in Castille had described it, “moral matters that require a vote of conscience”. In Gonzi’s mind, as in the mind of many others, Vox Dei spoke rather clearly through the precepts of his religious and moral formation. In the end, Gonzi’s interpretation of Vox Dei won over the Vox Populi and he cast the infamous “No” vote − condemning him to the same circle of hell as others before him who spat in the face of the will of the demos.

What made the matter all the worse was Gonzi’s “calculated” vote: one that made sure that the divorce bill would actually pass before casting the symbolic “No”. In that way Gonzi’s “No” rang out a doubly-defiant note: firstly it was the ugliest of nays from a Prime Minister refusing to serve the will of the people once they had spoken (and after being consulted upon his insistence), and secondly it was Gonzi’s “Eppur si muove” moment − flying in the face even of those in his party who had advocated a wider, liberal approach to society.

*The Birth of MuscatPL”*

Joseph Muscat rushed to swing the hammer and ring Gonzi’s death knell. I have no doubt that as other commentators have aptly put it, this was Gonzi’s hara kiri moment by any standard. He may survive for some time yet, but the emphasis is on “surviving” and there is no end to the damage wrought to the PN in the public polls. I do find Joseph’s choice of words to announce this death particularly interesting, though (I must remind you that my analysis comes without the blinkers of partisan subjugation.) Joseph chose to state that “Gonzi lost the moral leadership of the party”. Funny that, coming from someone who has still to prove that he has the moral leadership of his own party. Partisan voters can look away tut-tutting at this point but if you are “gentlemen” or “ladies” enough do consider this…

Labour’s moral position during the divorce debate was not one of leadership of any kind but one that can be summarised as “To each his own (conscience)”. What we had during the divorce campaign are Pro and Anti Divorce Movements. Labour did not take a position on divorce (no morals there) and very clearly left it to each and every MP to make a “conscientious” choice of his own. What Labour is now highlighting is Joseph’s statement of his “personal” view that divorce legislation is necessary. Now that view is commendable but it remains a “personal” view nonetheless. I did not, and still do not see Joseph “morally leading” his supposed progressive party.

In other words, we still have to see Labour snap out of its “wait-and-see” fence sitting mentality and become pro-active and committed (as a party please, no free votes) to civil rights legislation in order to become progressive. What we have right now is a clumsy forming of “MuscatPL”. If Joseph’s position is popular then PL will spin it as the party position − which it is not. The biggest loss will be that to the Civil Right Voters, who until now wrongly assume that Joseph’s PL can be their rightful representatives.

*Chaos Theory*

The Nationalist Party is in disarray. This particular conclusion was confirmed in the aftermath of the parliamentary vote. The schizophrenic attempt to combine opposing value-driven interpretations under one “umbrella” party was doomed to backfire in the long term. It seems that Lawrence Gonzi had neither the patience nor the power to slow down or change course of a party rushing towards impending doom so he stepped on the accelerator. Gonzi’s “No” had the “liberal” fringe up in arms and Cyrus Engerer’s defection was the culmination point. Here is Robert Arrigo writing in the Independent on Friday, making it clear which side of the Vox Populi fence he sits on: “If I voted no, I would have made fools out of the electorate and I would have made a mockery out of the oath that I had taken. (…) I do believe that the Nationalist Party will read the writing on the wall, and will start heeding the people. Arrogance has been thrown out, and the people’s will must be sovereign.”

*Luck of the Draw*

Beyond the oath and the vote there are a number of conclusions to be drawn. The Nationalist Party has for some time tried to experiment with “umbrella politics” and is now reaping the consequences of this short-sighted, unprincipled approach. In 2008 people voted for gonziPN, not bothering to look beyond the Gonzi smokescreen. When gonziPN’s glue no longer held together we began to see the fragile face of a fragmented party − most vulnerable on social issues when faced with “progressive” civil rights. The reason for this fragile face is the lowering of the barrier for candidates: an anything-goes, vote-catching criterion. Surely some part of the PN is rueing Joe Saliba’s (and all the spin-doctor’s) backing of JPO and his antics back then?

The Labour Party is only delaying its own cracked picture thanks to the temporary euphoria and high it is getting by interpreting the divorce vote as some sort of victory. What Labour does not realise is that it is taking the first baby steps towards a “muscatPL” − a clone of PN’s 2008 doomed formula that held together for two years on a flimsy relative majority. To be fair, it might even obtain a larger majority but what might not work is the promise of progressive politics. Divorce was an easy gamble once it was clear where the wind was blowing. Will it be the same for gay rights, for IVF legislation and for the (dare we say it?) eventual raring of the ugly head of abortion? Unless Labour is prepared to commit itself in black and white to a set of principles, it remains an opportunist vehicle that not only has no moral leadership but also no value grounding: an abdication from representative politics.

Alternattiva Demokratika turn out to be the greatest losers in pragmatic and practical terms. Deborah Schembri successfully headed a progressive civil rights movement. She then had to opt for a party in which to presumably pursue her objectives. That she chose Labour might mean that she knows something that we don’t about future Labour commitments on civil rights. That she did not chose a home that would be obvious given her recent political activism: Alternattiva Demokratika − only goes to show how unattractive is the option, long before the people go to the polls.

Then we had Cyrus Engerer. I suspect that the Sliema deputy mayor’s move was based firstly on anger and frustration when faced with the gargantuan battle of converting the conservative base in the PN fold. Whether out of spite or out of principle, Cyrus reportedly switched allegiance but never considered the AD option. It is ironic that two high-profile figures of our temporary civil rights movements did not consider joining Malta’s one political formation that has always been clear and outspoken on civil rights and would have fit the party political programme like a glove.

The voter − the source of the vox populi − is fast turning into a mixture of angry, frustrated or disillusioned people. The tendency to stick to old habits is as strong as ever. It is hard to explain to Labourites that their joy lies in a decision and vote that had little to do with their party position. They may know who to vote for come next election but do they know WHAT that vote will translate into? It is even harder to explain to Nationalist voters that they are reaping what they have long sown by relying on “lesser evil” propaganda and drowning the possibility of a more open and representative form of politics. Franco Debono is pushing a commendable project that would give Malta a “European constitution”. It would be sad if such a debate were to be kicked off while the smoke, dust and anger of the latest battle is still around.

www.akkuza.com was almost silent last week thanks to the end of the judicial year in Luxembourg sending us into overdrive. We’ll be back – no worries.

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
Jasmine Politics

Jekk Alla Jrid

After Prime Minister Gonzi’s press conference, the first since the UN Security Council Declaration on the no-fly zone, I think I have figured out the man behind “par idejn sodi”. The position and attitude of Dr Gonzi in the name of, and at the head of, the Maltese nation is worthy of a bishop. Of an archbishop even. The position is not political. It is religious. You could fill the gaps in his press conference. The words to fill the gap are the Maltese “jekk alla jrid” (if God wills).

If God wills the guns will be put down. If God wills the Libyan leader who threatened bloodshed in the Mediterranean basin will suddenly develop a human side and will not proceed with the massacre. If God wills there will be no need of enforcing the no-fly zone because there would be no more fighting. If God wills we will not need to send planes from our island. If God wills we will remain the selective Florence Nightingale of the Mediterranean – the unsung heroes. If God wills the Malta Tourism Authority will remain the only authority reminding the world that all we care about is tourism – and that, hey, we are not a British base we are an independent republic that freed itself of the Brit oppressor (and NATO) in 1979. Jeez… haven’t you guys seen Gensna?

If God wills… Well, in God we trust… thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that for practical and assertive action there’s Britain, France and the USA.

(In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011 (reprise) )

****

Categories
Immigration Jasmine

The Devil You Know

Joseph Muscat must be chewing his liver by now. The Libyan Crisis has propelled our Prime Minister back up in the popularity stakes thanks to the wonderful transformation of our island into the Florence Nightingale of the Mediterranean. After the early hesitant pussy-footing Prime Minister Gonzi took a stand in line with the UN, the EU and the major policy-makers of the West. The “neutrality” issue was only bandied about by remnants of the “That 70’s Show” that still tend to appear as uninvited warts in our political constellation.

Thankfully, Muscat’s labour distanced itself from the likes of Reno Calleja but it was already too late. Muscat had dilly-dallied and hedged his bets too far. He had once again proven himself to be a massive FAIL in the statesman department. All the better for Lawrence and his troops who could draw cheques on the well thought international reputation bequeathed by his nationalist predecessors. There is no doubt that on an international level most voters with a thinking head on their necks would prefer the consistency and statesmanship of Lawrence Gonzi any day.

Behind the Scenes

It’s not so airy fairy behind the scenes though is it? We may be passing through a moment when Facebook is full of Maltese of all colours and creeds declaiming their pride to be Maltese and joy to see their nation at the service of humanity and humanitarian activity. As shiploads and planeloads of escapees from Libya entered our air and sea ports we clapped enthusiastically and patted ourselves on the back for a job well done.

David Cameron stopped short of granting a new George Cross to the island (the reference to the first period of assistance by the Maltese was not so cryptic was it?) and US viewers got their umpteenth chance to discover that Malta was an “independent tiny island” in the Mediterranean (so we also got the publicity Joseph had crassly craved for).

But we kept smelling something fishy. For behind the statesmanlike dealing with the crisis there was an incredible volte-face at both a political and popular level. Just think of it. We were watching a boatload of 2,000 workers who had lost their job due to the events in a troubled nation. Few, if anybody, were calling for them to “Go Back to Their Country”. We were suddenly the most hospitable of nations – an oasis of opportunity.

What difference is there, I ask, between a boatload of Eritreans displaced by Civil War and a boatload of Chinese displaced by Civil War? The Chinese are going home I hear you say? Oh so that is what it takes does it? So what you  mean is that so long as we can wash our hands from the responsibility of safeguarding the human life ourselves then we are quite happy to don the nurse’s hat and play the hero. Is that it?

Libya no More

Until a few months ago we have seen boatloads of Sudanese, Eritreans and Somalis heading to our country. All we could think of was “Go Away”. When we panicked and when we could not draw the attention of the international community to our plight (hell, despite all efforts the Swedish foreign minister still finds claims of immigration exodus “an exaggeration”) we turned to those who offered an alternative: Muammar Gaddafi’s Iron Fist (with the connivance of Signor Maroni and the EU Commission).

We were happy to turn the boats back to Libya and then like the proverbial monkeys closed our eyes, ears and mouth as to the consequences. They were another people’s problem. So yes. Until a few months ago we bargained with Colonel Gaddafi of the “pills in Nescafe and Al Qaeda in Benghazi”. We asked the man who paid mercenaries to shoot on his own people, his own blood, his own nation to help us solve the illegal immigrant problem.

We trusted a mad man to provide us with a humanitarian solution. He obliged. Later he would come up with the 5 billion euro blackmail as the lives of thousands of persons became subject to a barter with a Europe that was too busy to care.

Still patting yourself on the back?

 


From OpenDemocracy.org:

EU migration control: made by Gaddafi?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta