After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another?
The Solution: Bertolt Brecht
The election announced, the speculation begins. All forms of calculation are based on the ultimate constant: the rules of the game have not changed and ultimately the duocracy provides the only viable alternatives to electors. Anything else is offside.
Against all odds. The polls are unforgiving. Labour shall and will win. The question faced by those whose eyes have been opened is whether any credible opposition can be raised at this late stage. We will see different theories on the best ways to make opposition count. From the urgency of voting them out (vote PN) through the tired and illogical holding of the nose we will be presented with different reasons why voting PN is the only way to mitigate the onslaught of LabourAgain.
Even with the last minute purge of its undesirable parts the PN has failed miserably by turning up at the election as a loose collection of parts that is still committed to salvaging the system. Having been so close on numerous occasions to taking the leap into the unknown and transforming itself into a revolutionary party, the PN limits its odds to the quintessential “vote me for I am not Labour”.
We are still to see a commitment to the dismantling of the PLPN system that is necessary to rebuild the nation from scratch. It is only then that a vote for the Nationalist Party will mean anything more than simply voting in an alternative abuser of the system.
At this stage, with this kind of odds involved, the blank ballot becomes a powerful and attractive alternative. I strongly doubt we could ever reach the 83% level of blank ballot “terrorism” described in Saramago’s Seeing but the blank ballot is fast becoming the clearest form of protest vote of real opposition.
Unless a party provides a clear and unqualified commitment to a systemic overhaul the solution for those who are no longer blind can only be the blank ballot. Turn up to the polling booth and register your dissatisfaction with what is on offer by posting a blank ballot in the box.
Miegħek. Flimkien. Vot vojt.
“Casting a ballot is your irrevocable right, and no one will ever deny you that right, but just as you tell children not to play with matches, so we warn whole peoples of the dangers of playing with dynamite.”
The weeks of long knives at the PN HQ have just been put in temporary suspension as an apparent reprieve has been found. ‘Party stalwart’ Louis Galea described as the man who transformed the PN into a ‘slick political machine’ between 1977 and 1987 has been appointed as AZAD Head and given the mission to reform the PN. Here is how the Times of Malta reports the former member of the European Court of Auditors when explaining his mission :
La Cavalleria Rusticana
Dr Galea said he had several meetings with Dr Delia before Thursday’s meeting of the executive and had discussed various ideas. He would now lead a reform process which would include all those within the party and the country who wished to help so that the PN could stand on its own feet. This, he said, was in the interests not just of supporters, but the country as a whole.
Times of Malta, Louis Galea appointed head of PN Think-Tank, 5th July 2019
The reform is apparently motivated by the needs of the party to “stand on its own feet“. What comes next will blow your mind (as the click-bait peddlers are wont to proclaim nowadays): The PN needs to stand on its own feet in the interests of its supporters and of the country. Which is the kind of reasoning that normally precedes the launching of a floating device up a narrow sheltered waterway filled with excretion while inconveniently forgetting to equip said device with any means of propulsion.
Once again half of the PLPN hegemony will go through a process of renewal, regeneration and redesign much in the vein of what Inħobbkom Joseph had done with the Malta Labour Party in order to turn it into a ‘slick political machine’ (see what I did there?) that churns out the kind of electoral victories that are sure to cure any kind of “uġiegh” that any die-hard “partitarju” may have felt. And therein (among a myriad other considerations) lies the crunch… (Qui sta il busillis)
(Not) A man for all seasons
Louis Galea means well. I am sure he does. This is definitely not an attack on Louis Galea. Nor is it intended to be an attack on the current leadership (for want of a better word) of the Nationalist party. This post, like many posts before it on this blog, is an attempt to point out the real needs of the country, its residents and its political parties (strictly in that order). In order to do that we must focus on the current dramatis personae but we must also step outside the political machine that takes many givens for granted and patiently point out the emperor’s nudity for the umpteenth time.
Louis Galea was anointed by Adrian Delia in these times of trouble and overt rebellion in order to quell the forces of evil and convert them to striving for the party’s cause because unity in the party, with the party, for the party is presupposed to be the overriding panacea. We could waste time looking into the factions, the dissent, the anger, the hurt and the damaged pride of what appears to be a party on its last throes. We could. But it is beside the point.
Let us just state the obvious that this transfer of responsibility from Delia to Galea is clear evidence of the failure of the Delia mandate. Leaders are appointed to give vision. A change of leader inevitably implies a change of style and direction with the imprint he or she will give to the party as a whole. It is not just Delia that is being held to such standards… here is what we had to say on Simon Busuttil’s performance as deputy leader (and Muscat). In handing over to Galea on of the most basic of tasks he should be fulfilling as leader Delia has openly admitted his lack of grip over the party.
Galea will do what he has always done. There is no way that the veteran politician who has served the party will change his ways and adapt them to 2019 and the future. His successes in party management occurred in an era when the cold war was in full swing, the end of history had not yet begun and coincided with the period of constitutional tinkering at a national level that set the way for the PLPN Constitution – an adaptation of liberal democracy centred around the pathetic alternation in power of THE parties.
Nostalgics will look back tearfully at the age of Xogħol, Ġustizzja, Liberta’ and wish against wish that Galea will manage to bring back that golden period. What Galea brings to the table though is the iron-clad determination to restore a party to its former slick perfection. What he does not bring is the content, the values, that were advocated by that slick machine in that period of time. Sure enough the good old Fehmiet Bażiċi will be bandied around at some point but they will do so in the same manner as has been done in recent years – one that weighs the importance of policy choices on the shameful scale of positivity and popularity.
Galea’s eighties PN differed from today’s PN in one important aspect. An era kicked off in the late seventies and reached all the way to 2004 and petered out as PM Gonzi soldiered through the economic crisis. That era was one where the PN was driven by consecutive “causes” that allowed an alienation from the mantra that is “in the party, with the party, for the party”. The PN was a party with a national interest acting for the national interest. Which is what a party should always be.
A nation that was born out of constitutional struggles with its colonial masters had seen first independence and then a republican constitution in its first steps on the world stage. The Mintoffian interlude and experimentation with ad hoc socialism had led the country to a developmental stagnation. Fenech Adami’s PN took up the challenge with vigour and the steps that followed involved a transformation into a liberal democracy, an infrastructural boost coupled with the path to membership of the European Union.
Nationalist party electoral victories (and losses) in this period cannot be seen separately from the underlying causes that were being fought. No matter how slick the party machine was, the real reason for the (at times disappointingly marginal) victories was that a sufficient majority of the nation could identify with cause after cause behind which the nationalist party had thrown its weight. At the time, the early signs of backsliding of the rule of law that resulted from party abuse of the law could be sidestepped for the greater cause.
There is no denying that by the time the people voted in the EU referendum, many pro-EU votes were also a vote for change – one that would allow for the raising of standards beyond the grasp of the petty partisan politics. The EU Acquis should have done the rest. Still. The PN had served its purpose for two decades. The last few years of the Gonzi government were concentrated on steadying the ship through the economic crisis but the PN had already begun to lose its hold on the pulse of the people.
A party for all reasons
Any reform of the PN must therefore also be seen in this light. As has always been the case a party must have a reason to exist. Aside from the minutiae of everyday policy development one must also be able to identify a party with an overarching cause – of the type that marked the PN’s double-decade of success at leading the country. Call it ideology if you will, though that gets complicated in this day and age what with the modus operandi of the current political arena.
The party’s mission with such a cause would be to convince first of all the people that they must espouse it and this for their own sake. That, in itself, is not the easiest of tasks. Just consider for a moment that the ground-breaking election of 1987 that launched the era of change was won by… wait for it… a margin of 4,785 votes. The cause must transcend the party. There is no other way of going about this for real effectiveness.
As things stand the reasoning that underlies ideas of reform is pinned strongly in the heart of the current system. Here is how I described it in 2016 in a blog post entitled Il Triangolo No:
The structure of our constitutional system has been built using a language that reasons in bi-partisan terms. A bi-party rationale is written directly into the building blocks of our political system – both legally and politically. Since 1964 the constitutional and electoral elements of our political system have been consolidated in such a manner as to only make sense when two parties are contemplated – one as government and one as the opposition.
We are wired to think of this as being a situation of normality. The two political parties are constructed around such a system – we have repeated this over the last ten years in this blog – and this results in the infamous “race to mediocrity” because standards are progressively lowered when all you have to do is simply be more attractive than the alternative. The effect of this system is an erosion of what political parties is all about.
The political parties operating within this system are destined to become intellectually lazy and a vacuum of value. The intricate structure of networks and dependencies required to sustain the system negates any possibility of objective creation of value-driven politics with the latter being replaced by interest-driven mechanisms gravitating around the alternating power structure. Within the parties armies of clone “politicians” are generated repeating the same nonsense that originates at the party source. Meaningless drivel replaces debate and this is endorsed by party faithfuls with a superficial nod towards “issues”.
The whole structure is geared for parties to operate that way. Once in parliament the constitutional division of labour comes into play – posts are filled according to party requirements and even the most independent of authorities is tainted by this power struggle of sorts. Muscat’s team promised Meritocracy and we all saw what that resulted in once the votes were counted. In a way it was inevitable that this would happen because many promises needed to be fulfilled – promises that are a direct result of how the system works.
The “intellectually lazy and value vacuum” parties are what needs to be reformed. This requires a rebooting of the system. What needs to be targeted are the laws and structures that have developed into an intricate network of power-mongering and twisted all sense of representative politics. Reform of this kind goes a much longer way than merely rebooting the party and putting it back in the same fray.
Forza Nazzjonali was a last-minute attempt to mobilise the forces of opposition to corruption in this country. It is telling that the part of the PN that viewed the coalition as anathema would justify their aversion to the idea with the fact that this damaged the “party”. It is the same part of the PN that is unable to see the greater picture regarding the backsliding of the rule of law in the country. In their eyes the difference between them and Muscat is that Muscat has hit on a winning formula and has raised his party to new heights of glory. You can bet your last euro cent that had Muscat been PN they would be applauding him till the cows come home.
As things stand though, the reform of the PN does not seem to be pointed in the direction of greater causes. The reform will in all probability get mired in the usual bull concerning street leaders, committees, local councils, regional structures, partition of party fiefdoms, “listening” mechanisms and such. Nahsbu fin-nies taghna. Nisimghu il-wegghat. Partit miftuh u lest ghal bidla. Yada yada yada.
That kind of reform deserves only a slow death. It would just be a tinkering of the ladders of power that are built within our parties with the hope of getting a chance of replicating them on a national scale once in “the power” (For more on how this works see yesterday’s fresh report from the Commissioner on Standards – or if you’re lazy just watch the Yes Minister episode called Jobs for the Boys). It is the kind of reform that assumes all is ok with the laws of the land and how they are applied. Again. That reform deserves a slow and painful death.
Death becomes them
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that calling for the death of the party will attract all sorts of opprobrium from the party core. That should not matter. What matters is that the message gets across. The PN must die is really a call to rebuild from scratch. Thinking within the confines of an age-old mentality of parties wired to mirror and milk the state machine can only cause further damage. Instead the PN must rebuild as a party that owns the biggest cause at the moment : the need for a radical constitutional change that inoculates the nation against state capture.
After his failed mission at the last EU #topjobs summit Joseph Muscat flew to the Czech Republic and met PM Babis. The squares of the Czech republic have been filled with protesting citizens unhappy with Babis who is under investigation for fraud. Muscat could give a lesson or two to Babis on how to convert the baying crowds into comfortable electoral margin wins. That’s the Muscat who was not considered for an EU Top job because of his governmental track record.
The new PN should be out there leading the battle against corruption on all fronts. It should be reminding the people that this battle is for their best because the backsliding of the rule of law will ultimately have one big victim: the very people who currently blindly follow Muscat’s every turn. That new PN can only exist if the current format and mindset are ditched. This is the chance to take the lead in a wide coalition of opposition for real change. In 2020 the seeds for a new forward looking movement could be sown. The odds are stacked against that though – the system is a survivor, the system feeds on the core nostalgics and will show a strong will of self-preservation.
Never forget, and beware, that old Mediterranean adage: “if we want everything to stay the same, then everything must change”.
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.
Everybody loves the Gaffarenas. Or so it seems. They have been “in bed” with both of the main parties in one way or another. They have kept up their part of the general unspoken deal of the Maltese version of the mafia “pizzo” by making sure that donations (of different proportions) go to the two parties. Whenever they have had business in court they made sure to make use of the services of lawyers on both sides of the great divide in Liliput – the Independent is currently running a story that not only was Beppe Fenech Adami once a lawyer to the Gaffarena family but so were PL MP Joseph Sammut and PL president Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi. It’s not so much a tirade of mud as it is a tirade of non sequiturs.
This blog has gone on record as saying that the simple matter of begging for and receiving donations from the commercial sector (no matter the amount) is a dangerous game that is played by all parties – whether or not the IOU is eventually cashed later on. Unfortunately this risks to be misinterpreted thanks to the malady of “par condicio” that all parties are guilty of playing the game in the same manner. It is not the case. At all. First of all the political game requires that the message is garbled and confused by throwing together the matter of donations and legal services given to the Gaffarenas as though it was all part of the same boat.
MaltaToday, just before a visit to their offices by Joseph Muscat, had gone ballistic about links between former PN secretary General Joe Saliba and some dealings of the Gaffarena family. Again, no surprises here – even where Saliba is concerned. International politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton retire to the lecture circuit that pays millions in return. Politicians like Saliba and, Austin Gatt (he comes to mind) “retire” to businesses run by former sponsors of their parties. Where does it all put us?
The PN is right to insist that the Labour government is much more eager to allow Gaffarena to cash in on his “investments” with the PL. The proof that we have before us points strongly in that direction. Gaffarena’s petrol stations and property dealings happened under a very faulty and accommodating Labour watch. Labour’s attempt at deviating the issue onto Beppe Fenech Adami’s involvement with Gaffarena as a lawyer is pathetic to say the least. As was the botched attempt to nail Busuttil with some kind of pre-electoral deal with the same. There is no doubt that in this particular circumstance Labour’s clumsy way of playing the political power game is much more at fault than the PN’s.
Is it a defence for the PN that in its time in power it maintained a level of “decency” when dealing with the how and when to accommodate its own sponsors? Not really. The end result is the same – especially in the construction and planning business. PL took up the baton where the PN left it. Only to shed completely any mask that feigned democratic accountability and to plunge directly into undemocratic mayhem. This “mess in denial” is the same one that is reforming MEPA to blatantly accomodate the greed of the construction industry. It is the same one that explodes smoke bombs of supposed scandals in the PN past while obstinately steamrolling over public opinion in matters such as the Zonqor development. As for the latter scandal, for scandal it is, the noise is still so loud about the development in Zonqor that little or nothing more has been said about the actual “university” itself. A real social movement would not only oppose the development in Zonqor per se but would also oppose a Sadeen University of fake anywhere. Yes, anywhere.
The Gaffarena family is now a hot potato in the PLPN battles. It is becoming the scapegoat for all the deals and trading that happened in our corner of the world. Do not get me wrong. Deals with lobbyists, musical chairs in “positions of trust”, preferred traders and the like are a trademark of the democratic system as it happens in the western world. The danger in Malta is that the PL seems to be intent not only to play the game at its most blatantly obvious but also to dismantle completely the system of checks and balances that every now and then acted as a brake.
Pointing fingers at lawyers for the having offered their services in the past (so long as such services are legit) is just not on. Muscat and his clan are quite adept at surfing the wave of public ignorance. They have little care about the “collateral damage” that could be done in the process so long as the ends justifies the means in the short run. In this, as in many other matters, they are proving to be short sighted and risk being hoist by their own petard in the future.
Chapman Taylor know something that most of us don’t. Or so it seems. It’s par for the course for Muscat’s government – surprises are sprung, agreements are made without consultation and, of course, electoral promises are broken without losing the beat. Chapman Taylor of Milan jumped the gun by “mistakenly” announcing that they had been awarded the project for what is termed “the development of an unused quarry”. The announcement came complete with pictures of a yacht marina and tourist village, a stones throw away from the idyllic bay of Hondoq.
The architect’s firm has admitted that this was a mistake since the adjudication process is still ongoing. Sadly for Muscat and his band of transparent and meritocratic men this is just another in a long series of projects (we’re still debating the Jordanian Builder’s Toy University in an ODZ) that are sprung on the public as a fait accompli. This one is environmentally and politically sensitive since once again the government would be playing with the shoreline as well as giving the go ahead for a project that would have a huge impact on the environment both on and off shore.
Which brings me to the discourse regarding movements. That this project will be as vociferously opposed as the Zonqor Visa-Machine for Upmarket Arab Sons and Daughters should be taken as read. That the newly created Front Harsien ODZ will take up this baton should be inevitable. The real question is on the long-term destiny of this kind of movement. I have already hinted that the party in opposition should not be shunned or pushed away because of its history with the environment – rather – it should be obliged to commit and tie its destiny to a holistic plan that is based on preservation and enhancement of our environmental heritage.
Does that transform the environment and ODZ into a political football? It has to. It is useless bringing up old grudges and pointing fingers at the PLPN system and claiming that this has to be a political-party-neutral effort because that only means relegating this issue to a knee-jerk/NIMBY kind of issue that has to work in fits and starts every time the party in power decides to steam roller over any form of environmental obligation.
The PN is at a point of transformation. It is at the point of defining its long and short term goals. This is the time for the “movements” to strike and force the PN to become a stronger, more effective and more decisive force than what the AD has ever been. The agenda for environmental protection must become the PN’s because that is the only way it can become part of the system rather than constantly in battle with it.
Muscat’s “movement” has been uncovered as a travesty. His courting of the environmental lobby has been proven time and again to be just words for short term game. There is no space for a real environmental agenda in his plans because it jars deeply with his dealings with constructors and vendors. He has chosen to keep the Sandro Chetcuti and Jordanian investor cards closer to his chest. He still believes that his job-creation words can charm the population into submission and acceptance of hideous plans that threaten our eco-system. If not that than the false battle against the elite in mimic of his hero Mintoff should do the trick.
Movements have a temporary and transitional role in our system. They are intended to influence the parties that matter in a system that is sadly and insufferably a bi-partisan tragedy. For too long have we tried to be convinced that the third way could be an option by driving a wedge in between the parties of the status quo. While in theory it should and would work, in practice it faces a system that was scripted and written for the preservation of the bipartisan alternation notwithstanding the dangers of a race to mediocrity. The weakest link in the system is actually the citizen who reinforces it with his vote.
It is only in moments like these – of crisis (in a philosophical sense) – that movements can play a role. By taking control of the PN agenda on environment and forging it in a lasting way that can guarantee the creation of positive policies for present and future generations much more can be achieved. Obviously this does not mean relinquishing the role of opposing current projects.
The battle to preserve Zonqor and Hondoq and their surroundings has only just begun.
This Saturday vote No. Simple. Just vote No. You don’t need to be told why in truth, unless you are one of the horde of energumens who believe that “hunting is a right”. Legally we should not be here. The ‘derogation’ we are reluctantly discussing should never actually be triggered. Someone in the IVA campaign finally decided to explain this reality (a factual legal one) – the derogation’s conditions would rarely be triggered (if ever at all) in a decent country. This is no special derogation negotiated over blood, sweat and tears in some pre-accession death-wish with the aim of keeping up an “age old tradition”. All that is bollocks – bollocks that has been regurgitated by the PLPN quarters because… well… because it is a sweet lie that fits their alibi. What alibi? It’s the one where they keep trying to seem appeasing to the hunters.
Not that Muscat is hiding his hand. On the 1st of April he was photoshopped into hunting pose as some form of April Fool’s joke. He’s convinced that he can fool some of the people all of the time though. It’s obvious that he would do anything to get the Yes vote to win – and he’s more than hoping that Busuttil gets associated with a No debacle. Sadly for both the leaders of the parties that keep us firmly attached in the mire of mediocrity this vote concerns them not one bit. They should only be waiting for the result to implement it. We said this when the referendum was announced and we will repeat this now.
Why should the No vote win? Because the people of Malta should stand up and show that they disagree with the decisions of successive groups of representatives who have twisted and turned the interpretation of what should be a strict derogation in order to appease the hunters. Has Malta ever correctly applied the derogation? I strongly doubt it. Will it ever? Seriously? The only way we can ensure that our house of representatives apply the laws of the land (and that includes EU laws) properly is by going over their heads and giving them a strong “No’ when it comes to Spring Hunting.
As I said before, repealing the legal notice by referendum does not remove the derogation nor the possibility for a future parliament to re-enact legislation that allows for its use. Which is why the No vote must be clear, loud and unconditional. It is the sovereign people taking their power back into their hands and ordering those entrusted with its management to obey their will.
It’s a small step. The next day after the referendum we will still be in the thralls of a government-opposition game that treats the population like a mass of mentally deficient robots. We keep getting the government we deserve. A No vote next Saturday might be a step towards getting a better one in the future.
