Tag: parliament

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
Mediawatch Politics

The idiots among us

idiot_akkuza

“Quand j’entends, par exemple, madame Taubira dire qu’elle n’est pas au courant (du fond du dossier), elle nous prend pour des blaireaux. – Gilbert Collard.

One hot issue in French politics right now is that of Sarkozy’s tapped phone. It turns out that Sarkozy was being tapped while conversing with his lawyers and a huge fuss has been made about this – literally left, right and centre. Collard is a Front National representative and he was talking about France’s Justice Minister Mme Taubira who had claimed not to have known about the goings on. According to Collard, it is all a question of accountability and responsibility – Taubira’s portfolio means that police and fonctionnaires with the police and magistrates fall under her jurisdiction. “If she says that she was not aware”, Collard says, “then she is treating us like imbeciles”. Yep. “Blaireaux” means “badgers” but in street language it means idiots.

There’s much of that going around nowadays – politicians treating citizens as though they were idiots. Nothing new under the sun, only that it is becoming much more an “in your face” kind of treatment.

Last Sunday, one of Malta’s main newspapers carried a strongly worded editorial criticising Labour’s one year in government. Anyone who managed to read it would have been pleasantly surprised by the reality check being proposed on a number of fronts by the Sunday Times. A particular paragraph dealing with the impeachment proceedings against Judge Farrugia Sacco did not go down well with the person currently sitting in the institutional seat of Speaker of the House. For the benefit of the members of the public who like me prefer not to pay for the fare on offer on the online papers here is the offensive paragraph in question:

“Once that commission (note: “for the Administration of Justice”) reached a conclusion that was obviously inconvenient for the government, Dr Muscat and the Labour-appointed speaker went out of their way to ensure he (note: Judge Farrugia Sacco) would not be impeached before he reaches retirement age in the summer”. (STOM Editorial – 9 March 2014)

It so happens  that the person currently occupying the post of speaker did not take too kindly to the editorial. Free as he was to disagree with its conclusions – and point out his disagreement publicly if he so liked – he decided to take it one step further. Labour-appointed speaker Anglu Farrugia has demanded that the Sunday Times withdraw what he described as “serious allegations against him ‘as a person and as a Speaker'” and threatened to take legal action should the Times not give the withdrawal equal prominence as its allegation.

Reality check: this is the two thousand and fourteenth year of the christian era. 2014. For the second time during the Labour-led legislature, a labour-appointed public official has decided to use the parliament and its structures as a means to silence criticism. Joseph Muscat had earlier taken exception to a statement by opposition leader Simon Busuttil and transformed the parliament into a mini-jury in order to get the man to shut up (only to scuttle off to watch a football match rather than be present for the proceedings that ensued).

Heaven forbid, of course, that we insinuate in any way that members of parliament and its speaker are not within their rights and prerogatives whenever they try to defend themselves and their reputation. Having said that the zero-sum game that Farrugia is engaging with the Times is not a defence of a prerogative. It would not take too much of a genius for even the leak-recipient that is the Times to notice that the chain of events leading to the postponement of the possible impeachment smacks highly in the very least of incompetence for want of trying. It would be the duty of a vehicle of the press that notices such a lacuna in the mechanisms of our institutional representative structures and processes to point such a lacuna out. It’s a fair comment – accuse it of bias if you like (bias? the Times?) but do not gag it.

Using the “position of Speaker” in order to throw unnecessary weight around is an unfair attempt at gagging the fourth estate. Such cases have been dealt with long ago in real liberal democracies. The freedom of the press and its right to point out deficiencies in democratic representation has long been encapsulated and spelled out in the jurisprudence of the aforementioned liberal democracies. We even had our own moment of glory before the European Court of Human Rights with the famous  Demicoli vs Malta – where the Court found that the requirements of impartiality must always be preserved whenever the House felt its privilege was violated.

Incidentally, one of the two members of parliament to raise the original breach of privilege back in the eighties was the Joe Debono Grech. Another of the old-timer appointments to token but remunerated positions by this meritocratic government (we also learnt recently, among others, of Alex Sciberras Trigona’s and Joe Grima’s appointment as envoys to World Trade and Tourism Organisations). The revamped (Daily Mail inspired) MaltaToday reported yesterday that “Debono Grech refused to stay for a public consultation meeting for the Gozo minister when he learned that he was not to be placed at the head table.” Not much of a twist on the learning curve there either.

And finally, for something completely different and pythonesque, since we are on the subject of institutional disfigurement we might as well mention the news that Minister Manuel Mallia’s minions are organising government official activities in the very impartial venues of PL Clubs. Yes, that’s Kazini tal-Labour. Here’s how the Times reported the matter (my bold):

Government officials employed with the Home Affairs Ministry’s customer care unit have been detailed to attend meetings with the public organised at PL clubs located in the minister’s constituency. According to newspaper adverts titled ‘Always close to you’ (Viċin Tiegħek Dejjem), Manuel Mallia will be holding a series of meetings with the public in the coming weeks in seven localities in the districts from which he was elected last year. Without giving details of the actual place where Dr Mallia will be meeting the public, the adverts state that two days before each meeting, “people from the ministry’s customer care will be present at the respective locality’s Labour Party Club to meet the public”. (Times Online – 11th March)

What will the excuse be this time? That we are saving public money by using venues kindly provided by the Labour Party? That the Minister did not know and was not aware?

Blaireaux anyone?

 

“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” – Thomas Jefferson

Categories
Campaign 2013

This order of the house

Random thoughts on parliamentary democracy.

1. October 9th. Luxembourg’s parliament reopens after the summer recess as does Belgium’s senate. L’essentiel reports that 30% of the members have sat in parliament for over 15 years. A commentary on Belgian radio remarked that it will be a slow period of work for the Belgian lawmakers marked by a series of long delays that will hamper any new progress on important legislation. Local elections are expected to give more bargaining clout to the nationalistic Flemish movements.

2. Yesterday’s session in the Maltese parliament was overshadowed by the need for Speaker Michael Frendo to consult the Standing Orders in order to rule about a motion of adjournment related to the Opposition’s pressing need to discuss a shelved plan for the privatisation of the management of public car parks. The Hon. Franco Debono also seemed rather concerned that his motion of no confidence in Minister Austin Gatt should be given the priority that he believes it deserves.

3. Much high talk was wasted on the ether as a few political aficionados spoke of a crumbling democracy, a government addicted to power or an opposition that busied itself with causing trouble. A road of bollocks, I hasten to add because, to corrupt the words of Trapattoni “bad democracy it is when the will of the majority as expressed in parliament is not respected”. The day of the showdown has not come yet. The car park excuse is not working wonders for either government or opposition. Government loses points for the image being portrayed of a decision maker that does not involve the parts (councils) and ignores issues of subsidiarity (Mosta Council, Rabat Council and more would rightly expect more involvement). The opposition has had its eagerness for power come what may unmasked by insisting on discussing plans that have been shelved.

4. Some signs of a revision of Opposition strategy in today’s papers. Joseph Muscat distanced himself from the Debono No Confidence motion. A sly move. It could go some way in abating the growing perception that Muscat is just as power hungry as the man who is supposedly clutching desperately to the seat of power. We’re in no hurry to present such a motion – said Muscat. What he did not obviously commit to is whether his party would vote in line with Franco should such a motion see the light of day before the budget. Given that the motion is based on the spurious car park issue then the holier than thou approach could be hoist by Franco’s petard.

5. Petards and fireworks is what the current government is specialising in. J’accuse remains of the opinion that government on life support will be ultimately perceived as a weak government. The summer plans should have culminated in a Sturm und Drang announcement of an election around the time of the reconvening of parliament. The key here was initiative. By taking the initiative and redrawing the battle ground (including the erasing of Franco, JPO and any dithering backbencher such as Mugliett) the PN would have regained precious ground in the eyes of public perception. Instead by hanging on to the power and leaving gaping questions as to the fabric and workings of democratic representation among Joe Public the PN is fast losing the perception game.

6. New issues such as the lease/sale of St. Philip’s (well documented by Carmel Cacopardo on his blog) or the retaining of the title of ambassador by Richard Cachia Caruana (what the hell were they thinking? noblesse obligée?) will not help settle this dust cloud of confusion. The failure to take the initative and the misplaced trust in the magic effect of such things as the 5+5 conference might be rued later on when the campaign really hots up (will it ever?). Furthermore the PN tantrums with regard to the Broadcasting Authority decisions regarding Public Broadcasting programmes will not help sweeten their image either. Meanwhile AD continues to be consistently ignored by the paladins of the future of journalism on PBS’ main programmes.

“Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.” – P.J. O’ Rourke

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Those Lazy Parliamentarians?

For a while I too had got caught in the whole spin business about “our lazy parliamentarians who have delayed the end of summer recess unashamedly”. Having rightly sussed the nationalist ploy to survive to the start of the recess and then hopefully plot the end of Franco over the summer, I wrongly assumed that the October return to business was something extraordinary and that this year’s parliamentary break was a little OTT. Enter Fausto the nitpicker and lo and behold.. there’s no such thing as an abnormal October return to work. It turns out that parliament summer breaks normally end on or around the 1st of October.

There is, after all, nothing strange for parliamentarians to get back to school almost a month after the last school bus started its routine rounds.

For your perusal here is the list of opening sittings after summer recess for the current legilature:

In 2011 the parliamentarians brought their sun-tanned behinds back to the seats on the 3rd of October.

In 2010 they left their yachts and summer houses on the 29th of September. 

2009 marked their “earliest” return to their seats – the 28th September.

In 2008, the first post-election relative minority government and opposition sat down for work after summer on the 29th September.

There. Franco. No need for so much fuss aye?

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Malta Post-Franco (Reprise)

Discussing the Franco Debono situation over lunch yesterday, we joked that his statement of “I will not vote with Labour” (as reported by MaltaToday) meant just that. Admittedly our considerations were more in jest than anything else but we considered the possibility that Franco was using his very literal form of reasoning in the sense that “not voting with Labour” does not necessarily mean voting otherwise.

I must admit that given the information earlier that morning I too was surprised by the outcome of the final vote. Surprised to a certain extent though. While I had not seen Franco’s vote coming I was fully aware of the consequences of this vote in the sense that there would be no great collapsing of government, no tumbling down of the temples of power and that the only “victim” of this latest fit would be Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

Incidentally we had also joked that since the motion of confidence had concerned a portfolio that was no longer in CMB’s remit then technically there was nothing to resign from once the vote passed. I know, it’s no laughing matter but the way things were going laughter did seem to be the best medicine. The whole body politic has been in the thrall of Franco Debono’s voting antics for quite some time now. As we pointed out in an earlier series of posts (Malta Post Franco I-IV), Franco is doomed to be a temporal blip in political history.

Sure a record might be broken here and there – such as the forcing of a resignation of a minister (within living memory) but the long-term impact of Franco on the Maltese political landscape was always intrinsically linked with the one-seat majority that the nationalist party enjoys (ah, the cruelty of language) in parliament. The content of Franco’s agenda (or whatever screen he has put up to disguise any personal ambitions and compensation for suffering) is all watered down when seen from a long-term perspective.

In two matters Franco has been unintentionally and unwittingly useful. Firstly his protracted theatricals have served to exposed one major weakness of our representative democracy. The obsession with guaranteeing a bi-partisan approach and discarding all other models (such as one that encourages proportional representation) has meant for some time now that the JPO’s and Debonos of this world expose the stark reality of “election or bust” oriented parties without a backbone. This is a weakness that no “premio maggioranza” would solve , rather, it would only serve to entrench the two parties further in their twisted machinations.

The second useful matter concerns the Labour party. Franco’s bluff and no bluff has actually uncovered the Labour party’s brash “power or nothing” approach that discards any conventional value-driven approach while grafting the ugliest versions of the nationalist party to what it believes to be its own benefit. Valueless politics giving way to full blown marketing was already bad enough. Now we have Labour with it’s catastrophic approach. Muscat’s Labour has shot itself in the foot so many times it probably lacks any limbs.

There is a third, important conclusion that one should add. It is the ugly reflection about the “general public”. A large swathe of it – or the particularly active part of it – have proven to be ridiculously hopeful of the promises that Franco seems to have bandied about. His pet subjects were manna to the ears of the disgruntled – particularly conspiracy theories peppered with mantras about arrogance, cliques and friends of friends. His tales of hurt and suffering – culminating in the infamously comic “broken chair in Court” episode could only strike home if the audience were (how can I put it) less informed.

To conclude, the merry go round that risks being extended once Franco misses out on the latest redistribution of power has exposed huge fault lines in our appreciation of how a basic democracy should function. Separation of powers,  judicial authority, parliamentary privileges, public security and rights were all melded together in one big bouillabaisse of political convenience.

Franco’s minutes in the political playing field are now counted. We should have moved on from gazing at Franco months ago, yet we (and the press have much to blame for this) are still at the mercy of his idea of a guessing game. The real politics that will affect out lives for the coming five to ten years lie far away from Franco’s hand. Sadly, nobody seems to be bothered to find out what what those politics and policies really are or will be.

…

from Malta Post-Franco (II)

To get at Austin Gatt, Joe Saliba, Carm Mifsud Bonnici, Richard Cachia Caruana and others Franco Debono decided that the best option was to threaten to topple government. He had had enough waiting in the sidelines for his opinions and ideas to be heard and for a place in the decision making clique that counts. So he refused to play.

Categories
Politics

The Four Week Break

It was already clear from the fact that no money votes are being taken in parliament. If we needed any confirmation then this came with the long Easter break that our elected underpaid representatives have taken. The length of this year’s parliamentary Easter recess is four weeks.

In the meantime and run up to this recess we have had the entertaining news coming from the reform committees set up in parliament in order to appease the renegade rebels turned reformers. Anything from constitutional law to bird-hunting becomes fair game (excuse the pun) for these sans-pareil legislators. Our collective political system, working in the twisted ways of which only it is capable, seems to have finally come to terms with the fact that reforms are needed. At least that is the first half of the message.

The second half brings us back to the same starting point much like the proverbial crab. Because while much parleying is being partaken of in parliament, nothing much will come out of the projects unless we will be witnessing a flurry of legislative initiatives at supersonic speed – always hoping that no other renegade majoritarian decides to rock the boat.

The opposition will complain about this but it is busily concerned with misinformation about spending cuts. This in itself is a taxing (excuse the second pun) exercise in contradictions. On the one hand the opposition has turned all its guns on the €40 million worth of expenditure cuts that the government must perforce perform while on the other that same opposition lets its imagination run wild with promises of the spending kind should it ever be relieved of its duties as eternal opposer.

As for the party in government (as distinct from the government) the whole kitchen business seems to be panning out quite unsatisfactorily. One wonders how long Simon Busuttil’s bland expression will entertain the many doubting Thomases who he set out to convert. You can only squeeze out so many half-hearted mea culpas from the nationalist fold and when you combine this fact with the menu of reality bites that Simon must explain to the masses by Pentecost (in as many languages as they can understand – thank God for the Holy Spirit) then the nationalist eggs surely cannot all lie in Busuttil’s basket.

What is really interesting is the relative silence of the usually noisy nationalist pundits and spin-machine. Aside from the various ministerial projects being rolled out in a hurry like an extended red carpet the nationalist machine remains relatively subdued. Even the blogosphere has felt the punch of this (controlled? concerted?) self-gagging exercise. Which leaves the Labour clones clucking in a cacophonous circus of empty noises and barks. Next chapter: poverty and “the precariat” (something to do with poor people or Saint George Preca, or both).

We are left with a couple of figolli to enjoy at the end of this period of fasting and self-denial. It’s also a time of reflection that should lead to the huge celebration with the return of the saviour. Only this time we are really left wondering…

who will it be?