Tag: Panamagate

Categories
Constitutional Development

A Study in Outcomes

outcomes_akkuza

The public verdict on the thirteen hour debate on the confidence motion in government was already out before the debate actually started. To many this had been a complete waste of time. To many more this was once again a descent into partisan pique, mudslinging and tomfoolery – a sentiment that would turn out to be fodder to the Labour side that claimed to be over and above the divisiveness that was still being sown by what in its words was a “negative” Opposition. That much time was dedicated to explain why and how a no-confidence motion had been moved is understandable. As is the marathon efforts of the Labour side of the house to turn this into a game of deviation.

In many ways Labour succeeded into getting everyone to believe that this was a motion of no-confidence in all its work and not in a very particular set of circumstances that threaten to damage any such good that has been done. We’ll have more time to delve into the lessons to be learnt from the marathon debate – lessons, I hasten to add, for all sides. What I would like to start with is the end: more specifically the tone of triumphalism set by Labour who claim to have “won the vote of confidence” and seem to believe to have weathered the storm. Politically it is true that the government survived the confidence motion and managed to turn it into a confirmation of what the countermotion deemed to be sterling work.

There’s another interesting angle to this chess game though. Admittedly it is an angle that can only be seen once you wear the dumbed down spectacles of partisan illusion but it is an angle that is worth exploring just the same.

At 9 am on Monday morning we knew already the numbers of the vote. The Nationalist side had 29 votes that would go to the no confidence side. Add to them the two independent MPs – that’s 31. Labour had it’s record majority of 38 MPs ready to shoot down any proposal that would shed a bad light on government. As partisan things go the numbers ran 38 against 31. So basically in order for the PN to claim even a slight form of victory one would expect that the number on the side of the No confidence motion would be anything above 31. Even if in the end it would lose the vote, any number of shifts from the preordained position would surely have been a victory of sorts to work upon.

Now the same goes for Labour though. It is useless to gloat on getting ones own votes that are after all only a reflection of the public state of mind in 2013. For Labour to “win” anything out of the vote you’d expect them to win over at least one vote from the other side. Anything less would not be a vote of confidence but merely a retrenchment of a party hanging on to power.

As it turns out there were no surprises. Indeed, no victors were to be registered in the House. The numbers at 9am remained the same numbers at 10pm. This may all sound like crazy reasoning but it is not all that fanciful as your average partisan voter may hope. There is truth also in these numbers. There is truth in the inflexibility of a popularly mandated majority that prefers to stick to power rather than take action on the rot that has begun to set. There is also truth in another not insignificant detail. The numbers do not really reflect the numbers at the start of this parliament in 2013. Seen from that perspective there is already one Labour MP who has shifted her allegiance to the side that has no confidence in this government.

In many ways she reflects the voice of the shifting mood outside of the house where seats are no longer so certain. This has to be the first lesson from the 13 hour marathon on Monday. Nobody won the vote that day – the only victor was a general retrenching. There was one ray of hope though, one MP sitting on the independent benches was doing her homework and had an ear and her heart outside the house. She was listening to the real numbers that underlie the house of representatives. And they were not smiling.

Categories
Panamagate Politics

Here come the doorsteppers (I)

unnamed

Politics has reached a shallow point in Malta. We’ve all heard that phrase by now. Trust in politicians on the island has gravitated towards the same low point as has been shared for a long time and for different reasons on the rest of the continent. We’re slightly delayed – it has only just begun to dawn on a large part of the population that “the Game” has nothing to do with power and that the alternating race to mediocrity is only destined to produce more of the same, but different. At the same time as this great realisation is happening – within the confines of cliche’ ridden appraisals that your average citizen is capable of – there is still a strong pull towards the partisan DNA that is, much to the chagrin of Andrew Borg Cardona and Charles Mangion, programmed into the vast majority of the voting population.

It’s not just Konrad Mizzi who is afflicted by the mysterious “internal conflict”, it’s all bona fide “partitarji” on both sides of the political chasm. Labourites cannot believe that their government is coming so close to repeating the short stunt under Sant… one mega-crisis and it’s all over. Deep down they all see the horrible error in Mizzi’s ways, even they understand that the Energy Minister’s position is untenable but they are loath to admit it. The pull of the party is too huge and trumps all. The Nationalist party card bearers also have a dilemma of their own. They’d love to see the back of this government but they are still not 100% convinced that their own party is good enough to lead and many have still not understood the modus operandi of Simon’s politics.

The time would have been ripe for reasoned debate centred around reform and improvement. Politics, particularly party politics, is in the doldrums. Anyone with a brain between their ears could tell that the sell-by date of mediocre politics is long past. Reasoned debate and rational argument are what the doctor ordered – it’s the right medicine for both parties internally as well as for our institutional set-up. Rational and reasoned debate requires information and an exchange of ideas and programmes with the best for the country being the ultimate goal.

What we have got instead is the return of the non-political exchange. Politics with a big P has been thrown out of the window and the machines of spin are out all over again because as soon as a moment of crisis brings the faint glimmer of a possible election round the corner our parties do what they do best – entrench and send out the soldiers: in this case one important element are the “doorsteppers”.

It’s not a new breed of political animal. The latest morph on both sides are Mario Frendo and Nicole Buttigieg. They are sent to the enemy lines in search of the soundbite that can be processed and fed into the propaganda machine. They form part of a wider circle and game played by the politicians themselves who hide behind feeble excuses, half-truths and word games to destroy any possibility of debate. We’ve seen them before. Joseph Muscat was one of them himself. Ministers and shadow ministers on both sides of parliament began their career as doorstepping journalists of sorts, as did some of our MEPs. I remember one of the earlier morphs of these doorsteppers in the form of Simone Cini who shadowed Eddie Fenech Adami all the way to PN mass meetings provoking the worst out of the worst.

It’s weird. Even the language of the two parties switches away from real meaningful essence and we now hear of accusations of “fascism”, “return to the eighties”, “stifling of speech” and more. The nationalist party brouhaha about the use of criminal libel was surreal for example for it really begged the question “What did you think of criminal libel in the 25 years that you were in government?”. Someone from the Independent did bother asking Marthese Portelli only to get some long-winded non-reply based on “just look at the good things we have done in those years so please just ignore the way we looked away from any possible reform”.

“Concentrating on the good we did” seems to be the new karma. Konrad Mizzi is magically oblivious to his textbook case of “things not to do unless you want to lose your position as minister”. He still thinks that it’s a conspiracy by the PN to remove what he believes is the best performing Labour cabinet member and nothing more. Aside from the fact that his own admission of naivety should suffice to make him lose any possibility of sitting in ANY position of public responsibility, his excuse seems to have gone down as sufficiently plausible with the rest of the PL crowd. Now he’s probably on his way to being anointed as a soldier of steel.

So we are down to looking at the doorsteppers. Planted in the middle of crowds who have the collective political nous of a football hooligan they will “interview” and provoke for the sake of getting a snapshot of the worst of the worst of the opposite party’s supporters – oblivious all the while to the fact that they could very well have sampled someone from their own inner circles with very much the same results.

… to be continued

Categories
Corruption Panamagate

The Price of Time

the price of time _ akkuza

Take a step back. Try to disentangle your brain from the bombshell of Panamagate as it unfolded in Malta. Now take a look at Prime Minister Muscat and his reaction to the whole business over the last seven weeks. In Malta Panamagate came early, probably prematurely. Konrad Mizzi got an early warning of the dangers to come when Caruana Galizia dropped some hints about the information that had come to her possession. “The lamb for Easter would come from New Zealand” was the coded message that set alarm bells ringing in Mizzi’s head. Mizzi had been handed an unexpected advantage – unlike the bigger heads that were to be shaken on the night of Sunday 3rd April he had been handed a lifeline from the quarters he’d least expect. Mizzi and Muscat had been gifted a precious amount of time to work on a defence.

Time. That’s the point here. Timing was crucial and every minute gained to work on the alibi was worth a mountain of gold. Nexia BT, Brian Tonna, Keith Schembri, Kasco, Panama, New Zealand, Adrian Hillman, more Konrad Mizzi. The news trickled out slowly as Caruana Galizi’s blog turned gatekeeper of the leaked information for a period of time – at least until the international bomb would explode thanks to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ.

This gift was a godsend for Muscat and Mizzi. We were regaled with the “declaration of assets”, the “family planning” and the “full collaboration” stories. Muscat could sit and watch and do what he does best: gauge public opinion. Better still he could shift the goalposts of assessment. It would no longer be about the existence of a structure using jurisdictions that have a notorious and shady reputation. It would become a case of whether money would be found in Panama or New Zealand. Muscat would skilfully manipulate the discussion until the question of Mizzi’s suitability as minister (and Schembri’s as Chief Advisor) would hinge only on whether any corruption could be proven.

It’s not the point really. Put simply both the Minister and the Chief of Staff should have resigned the moment it is was clear that they set up companies in dubious and shady jurisdictions. Whether there is any money to be found (and so much time lapsed till the international machine would actually be set in motion that it is doubtful whether any money would have stayed put so long) is irrelevant. The Panama Papers have shown that. Once the news was out, politicians the world over were slammed with big question marks on their head. The responsible politicians among them have already borne the consequences. And Konrad and Keith?

Konrad and Keith had the benefit of time on their side. The parameters of the discussion had already been shifted with the artful use of propaganda and party machinery. The question had already become whether or not any money would be found. Muscat had managed to shift it all to the far-fetched finding of a smoking gun. One wonders whether Konrad and Keith would have survived the onslaught had their names figured for the first time along with the rest of the ICIJ releases and not a good seven weeks before.

Which is not to say that both Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri are out of trouble. In any decent democracy they would already have been long gone. A decent Prime Minister would have distanced himself from members of his entourage who opt to create such structures in dubious jurisdiction for whatever reason and with whatever intent. He’d do it for his sake and for the sake of his party in government.

Muscat still needs to buy time. The rumblings within his own party must not be comforting. The Süddeutsche Zeitung journalists claim to have “several weeks” of news to release so the Panama Papers are not going to vanish overnight. The more politicians abroad fall thanks to these Papers the more pressure there is on Muscat and Mizzi’s “alibi” regarding the mythological hidden millions that are supposed to be hidden or absent.

Muscat needs to continue to buy time as he has done in previous scandals – notably the Manuel Mallia issue – the bonus time that he was graced with thanks to the early release of the information in Malta has run out. Now that the Panama Papers scandal is an international hot potato Muscat might find that buying time will become more costly. Distraction tactics, mud slinging on the opposition and fact twisting all have an expiration date.

He probably knows that when that time runs out he might find that the writing has been on the wall all along… that Mizzi and Schembri’s position is untenable and delaying the inevitable is disrespectful to the electorate that put Muscat into power, including those who tried their luck for the first time.

Next time they might not be too audacious.

Categories
Panamagate Politics

No flowers in Panama (I – the seeds)

filpanama_akkuza

It’s Sunday morning and the nationalist party is gearing up for what it dubs a national protest against corruption. The Sunday papers are full to the brim with opinion articles, spin and (if you look really hard) factual reports about the issue that has a name: Panamagate. Over the week the men in Castille shifted through deny, downplay, riposte and finally deflect and distract motions. Nothing seems to work, and rightly so, because the issue is national, important and immediate. Mark Anthony Falzon’s column in the Sunday Times best explains why in the small picture Konrad Mizzi’s position is untenable. Falzon’s column can be added on to an earlier post in this blog explaining why even before delving deeply into Mizzi’s doings we could conclude that he was unfit for purpose. Mizzi, not Falzon.

I did say small picture though and I was careful when I said that. Don’t get me wrong, Panamagate is a scandal of gargantuan proportions. We are still coming to terms with the ramifications of what it all really means in terms of this government’s general program. Indian frauds and Azeri business deals have only just been brought into the fray while the feeble counter-ripostes from the government side have included reminders of how ex-Nationalist ministers (Ninu Zammit in particular) held millions in accounts abroad before being granted an amnesty by Joseph Muscat’s government. So yes, of itself and within its confines Panamagate is huge and insofar as the story of this bumbling government is concerned it should be a huge blow to its overall credentials for governance.

There is a bigger picture that we should objectively be looking at. It’s a wider look at the nature and workings of our body politic as a whole – beyond Panamagate, beyond the other PL government scandals, beyond the cases of corruption of ex-PN ministers that have come to surface and might yet surface. The bigger picture should be what the whole business of running our democracy is all about and understanding how it could be improved – not for the sakes and interests of the duopoly and a bit (I’ll get to that “bit” later) but for the sakes of a young Republic that needs renewal and revival.

Sunday’s protest is supposed to be a national one against corruption in politics. J’accuse is taking this cue in this time when trust in politics and politicians to take a wider angle look at what is happening, at how we got to Panamagate and the options of where we can go from here.

Getting to Panamagate

sowing the seeds of bad governance

Corruption. It did not start with Konrad Mizzi. It will not stop with Konrad Mizzi. At the heart of corruption is the misuse of the powers that have been entrusted in the hands of those chosen to administer the state on behalf of the people. This is, in essence, why and how corruption exists. Do not only see it in monetary terms – the pilfering of funds isn’t half the full story. Corruption is the abuse of trust pure and simple. It is the use of powers that have been lent to you in order to give, grant or allow things to people who do not deserve or would not have deserved such things had they gone through the right channel. Corruption is nepotism. Corruption is legislating as a favour for an interest group. Corruption is closing one eye. Corruption is abusing of the rules in order to get your way. Corruption is the conscious fettering of one’s discretion. Corruption is the creaton of networks that favour closed groups without transparency or merit.

The structures of a democratic state are intended to counter, as far as possible, the possibilities of corruption. Furthermore, when such preventive methods fail, the same structures should be able to counter with a remedy – investigation, prosecution and more. The Maltese Constitution, sovereign in 1964 and republican in 1974, was built around the concept of a sovereign parliament as inherited from our colonial rulers. It is clear from a reading of the constitution that with all the mechanisms of checks and balances in place, with all the power afforded to the head of state, the main engine of the system is the parliament. It may be fettered by a few absolute majority clauses but there is no doubt that parliament reigns supreme. The power of the people lies in parliament. It’s not exactly “if parliament wills pigs can fly” but it’s pretty damn close.

Over the sixty odd years of sovereign existence our parliament evolved into a two-party structure with more and more importance given to the main parties concerned. Laws were written, amended and “abused” in favour of this dual perversion – comfortable with the notion that if the world’s oldest liberal democracy can live with dualism then so can we. While China and Soviet Russia could work with the one party system (factoid: China actually has thousands of parties but only one counts) we developed a perverse system in which the constitution and all laws enacted would be subservient to the needs of the duopoly’s concept of power. Even notions of Equity and Justice had to be based on the notion of par condicio. The PLPN behemoth was born. Electoral laws would be drafted to ensure that as far as is humanly possible only two types of interests would be represented in parliament and the rest of the laws requiring political distribution would follow suit – government and opposition making up the numbers.

Many moons ago this blog was not alone among a movement of people warning that not all is right under the PN government. Our main argument at the time was that the PN government had lost its sense of purpose – from the 1987 calls of Work, Justice, Liberty to the 90s reconstruction and growth , to the push to join the European Union in 2004, the nationalist’s had a clear direction in their mind. They were driven with that purpose and their role in governing the country was underpinned by that purpose. Once Malta had joined the EU that sense of purpose and rive was lost. The PN was doomed to falter from then on. It’s unwillingness to engage on social issues would not be the first petard with which it would be hoist. The PN would fail to admit that the system that fed the two-party alternation was eroding the nation’s backbone from within. The next decade from 2004 would be spent with the Gonzi government suffering the rot that would ensue. Left to their own devices politicians without a cause beyond their district duties and obligations end up doing what they know best – peddling in influence and toying with power.

It is not surprising that the John Dalli’s and the Pullicino Orlando’s of this world were born under a nationalist administration. In a panicked attempt to hold on to the reigns of power the PN turned a twisted form of populist – hoisting upon the electors a pick and mix of politicians that were anything but while failing to see where the real remedy lay: tackling the source of our ills – the magnet of corruption that was our political structure of networks, friends of friends and die-hard flag wavers.

Which is when Joseph Muscat stepped in. On paper it was all promise of transparency, meritocracy and a battle on corruption. The sovereign power of the people was supposed to revert to the Maltese- Taghna Lkoll. On paper. Yet Muscat operated within the same parameters as had the previous government. Worse still the new Labour team has shown that it has no capacity for self-restraint. The trough was thrown out in the middle of the brand new Castlile square and the nation could only stand back gobsmacked watching the pigs feast on it day after day. Meritocracy? Spare me. Transparency? Say what? Corruption? Ouch. Muscat’s finely honed electoral campaign was meant to work under the current parameters of electoral mediocrity. Those same parameters encourage the development of corrupt networks of dependency and trading in power. In a twisted chicken and egg conundrum it became evident that in order to take a big slice of the power cake, the networks of dependencies and IOUs had to be in place BEFORE even getting elected. The government promising transparency, meritocracy and an end to corruption had set the mold for a corrupt system before it was elected.

Meanwhile, calls by (admittedly small) sectors of society to elect the third party into parliament and break the power mold fell on deaf ears. Most times it was derided as madness and as a failure to understand that the rules only allow one winner and one runner-up. Critics missed the point. They still miss the point today when they speak of the “need of redemption” for what was done by third-way enthusiasts at the time. It is only ignorance of the system and a blind affiliation to the idea of alternation that can foment such ideas.

In 2016 this blog will be among the first to say that the third way is not the way to break the system and change it. It cannot be any longer. Change must perforce come from elsewhere. more about this in the next posts. Keep reading. And you might still be in time to get to Valletta for the protest.

 

 

 

Categories
Values

Untrustworthy. Unfit for purpose.

untrustworthy_akkuza

 

Matthew Vella did a good job grilling Konrad Mizzi about his “financial structure” based in New Zealand and Panama. ‘It’s a free world. Everyone can choose whatever they wish and should seek advice on what is best for them’ – that is the clip that Matthew Vella chose to put in the headline (at least on the online version of the article) and he does have a point highlighting this braggadocio premise that underlies Mizzi’s attitude with regard to the whole business.

It’s a free world indeed and Mizzi’s financial arrangements are under scrutiny because somebody somewhere leaked some crucial information about the financial set up to a journalist who packs a pair of the metaphorical and who went on and published the information. In another case also involving Konrad Mizzi, Daphne Caruana Galizia (the journalist with the metaphorical pair) was under attack in court, being pressured to uncover the sources (informants/spies/leakers) who brought her some alleged information. The importance of standing by Caruana Galizia on that particular point is brought to bear now with much more factual and pertinent information coming into play.

It’s a free world where our Prime Minister and his entourage still find it within their power to sell the lie that there is nothing wrong with a minister of the state having a financial structure that is ordinarily used for money laundering and hiding illicitly obtained funds. They think that they can get away with it because they still operate with the propaganda method that has served labour for long – it’s not what you see that counts, it’s what we tell you that there is. This blog has dubbed it the Magritte method. Also, Joseph Muscat speaks to the ignorant masses when he compares unlike with unlike – deeming the forgotten undeclared Swiss investment by Austin Gatt to be on the same lines as the Panama/New Zealand Structure set up by Konrad Mizzi. And by Keith Schembri.

It’s a free world where the aforementioned ignorant masses still do not understand the immense importance of the revelations regarding financial structures. Those who are not blinded by the ridiculous assertion that once it has been declared it is even better than the Austin Gatt situation will still defend Mizzi’s right to do whatever he wants and aspires to do because – in fact – it IS a free world and he is rich so stuff your jealousy. It will take much much explanation for the man in the street to shed his partisan blindfold and understand that in no way does Konrad Mizzi’s declared income justify the tax structure used by criminal millionaires. Such explanations tend to be boring, tedious and technical – easily shut down by  the Labour style non-sequiturs.

It’s a free world and some journalists and pundits will still insist on giving Konrad Mizzi the benefit of the doubt. In criminal parlance they are not satisfied with finding the blood and the weapon, in the absence of a body there is no murder. Unless they see a corpse then no murder has been committed. These are the ones who believe the spiel by Mizzi and Schembri that some Commissioner of Taxes or self-appointed investigation will actually manage to do what international anti-crime organisations have never done : find out what really lies in the black hole of Panama.

The thing is that we need none of all this. We do not really need proof of any real corrupt transaction taking place. The mere fact that this kind of structure exists for the benefit of a government Minister and for the benefit of the aide to the Prime Minister should be enough to get the whole castle tumbling down. The additional fact that the Prime Minister seems to be intent on protecting this set-up and giving it his blessing should mean that the Prime Minister should be falling down like Humpty Dumpty along with all his horses and all his men.

It is not just about Caesar’s wife either. Let’s get back to the Vella-Mizzi interview. Konrad Mizzi has given us another reason why he should go and why he does not deserve to stay on as a servant of the Republic. Thankfully this has nothing to do with the technicalities of offshore funds and deposits. For the second time within a week Mizzi inadvertently gave us a very good reason why he should be kicked out of government (and parliament I would add) with immediate effect… and the reason was political and emotional:

Rewind back to the first interviews when the whole Panama/New Zealand business came out. One of Mizzi’s first statements/justifications were regarding New Zealand’s status as an open democracy, stable, lacking corruption and ideal for holding a trust. Forget the suspicions of using the trust for corrupt reasons for a second. This was still a Minister of a government that sells itself ot the world as “l-aqwa fl-Ewropa” and pushes the nation as one hell of a financial centre, competing with countries like Luxembourg to attract the kind of financial investments such as trust funds. Here was a Minister of that same government that is supposed to be attracting such investments choosing to set up a trust in New Zealand. Not Malta. New Zealand. Because it’s democratic, stable, and lacks corruption. The question begged to be asked: Why not Malta then?

And now we come to the Vella – Mizzi interview. Hidden among all the faffle about his assets and properties and how he cannot trust Maltese fund managers (!) and how he is dedicated to family planning and looking at the long-term views and bla and bla and bla, Mizzi comes up with a gem of a statement: “I don’t know where I will live in the future.”

Take a deep breath.

This man had just been elected as Deputy Leader of the Malta Labour Party. During his goggle-eyed speech of acceptance he expressed his commitment to working for a better Malta. That is the same Malta that he has contributed to tying down with contractual commitments with Azeris, Saudis and Chinese. Contracts that he would like us to believe would make for a better country – a better future. You’d expect this Minister who is so determined and convinced that he is improving the state of a nation to be committed to this future. So bloody committed to commit himself to living in this paradise in the future.

Alas no. The second reason Konrad Mizzi set up a structure in which his funds will be untraceable overseas is basically that he does not know whether he will still be in Malta in the future. I don’t know about you but this smacks like a betrayal of Malta and the Maltese of the highest order. First Minister Mizzi practically tells us that he would not trust Malta for his “financial investments” – it’s probably not as democratic, stable and non-corrupt as New Zealand. Now he tells us that once he is done with Malta he will probably not live here in the future. I can’t wait for his inevitable third foray in denying his own country. In biblical terms we’d need one hell of a mega-cock to crow three times following his denials… lord knows we’re full of those.

So you see, even before we go in the technical part of Panamagate (that would lead to an even more damning condemnation), we have enough elements to show that at least insofar as Konrad Mizzi is concerned he is not only untrustworthy, he is, as he has been known to repeat many a time…  not fit for purpose.