Tag: PLPN

Categories
Mediawatch

Veiled Arguments

The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” metaphor is back to haunt us. Only a while back we had a Archiepiscopal warning from the pulpit about the various wolves attired in sheep’s best (and they were not referring to vêtements signé Desigual) and now we have PM Gonzi accusing the Labour Party of having a lupine nature disguised as a fluffy animal. The phrase first appears in the Matthew 7:15 (that’s the bible, not an early morning Matt):

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

What is Gonzi on about then? Well I am not sure whether this report by MaltaToday and this one by the Times of Malta were from the same event  but they make an interesting reading into the mind of the One Who Many Think Committed Hara Kiri. The PM was commenting on Cyrus Engerer’s volte-face and trying to give his spin to the issue. We’d love to see Lawrence Gonzi’s credibility ratings at the moment but even if we assumed that there are still some people who take his word as the law we can find some interesting conclusions to continue to draw.

the counter-spin: wolves, the 80s and tolerance

MaltaToday highlighted Gonzi’s weak attempt at counter-spin. He pounced onto Joseph’s Muscat silent fatwa on Adrian Vassallo’s solo run and painted a picture of 80’s style intolerance in which “In-Nazzjon” was a public taboo. It’s tiring. Nauseating even. This whole business of projecting Labour’s past onto the future milked to some success for the 2008 Taste Campaign is long past its sell-by date. Gonzi is evidently clutching at straws with this argument. It is only made worse with his stress on “tolerance” – fresh from his monumental “NO” and spitting in the face of the vox populi (see “Drawing Conclusions”). There are inklings of the dire need that Dr Gonzi has for some intelligent (new?) advice before speaking to the press when he then opts to couch his ideas in biblical metaphors : triggering the very red lights that have made him lose so much in the popularity polls. Fail.

the ideas on switching parties

The Times report is more concerned with Gonzi’s opinion on Engerer’s choice to switch parties. According to the Times:

” Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said he respected the decision of Sliema deputy mayor Cyrus Engerer to resign from the Nationalist Party and join Labour but disagreed with his reasons. Mr Engerer did not resign because of the PN’s stand on divorce but pinned his decision on one issue: Dr Gonzi’s No vote against divorce legislation in Parliament on Wednesday.”

Much is being made elsewhere about Engerer’s Damascene switch (including questions being asked about whether it was not so sudden). Dr Gonzi is here “respecting” the decision made by the young turk. Many will confuse “respecting” with “agreeing with ” or “accepting” Cyrus’ switch. Gonzi does neither. He disagrees with the motivation (His own No vote) and above all he has a problem with the assessment of principles.

anchors

It’s the last bit that is very telling. Principles. Here is how Dr Gonzi reads the latest crisis:

“I fear we are reaching a situation where people are no longer anchored to their principles.”

People and principles. Is Gonzi, like almost everyone in the political arena, missing the woods for the trees? We have written elsewhere that the biggest problem is the lack of principled backbone within the major parties – their choice to not commit. Gonzi is pointing his fingers at “people who are no longer anchored in their principles” using Engerer as an excuse. His fingers are pointed in the wrong direction. It is the parties who have abdicated from representing clear cut principles and sacrificed these principles on the altar of populist convenience.

Wolves, Pots & Kettles

The biggest demonstration of this dog-eat-dog unprincipled world was the exchange of accusations by the PM and leader of Opposition. While Gonzi was accusing Joseph of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Joseph was busy spinning the line that “Labour had never changed its position throughout the debate”. Nobody can deny that. The point is that Labour had no position to change. It had no position on divorce. That is what Gonzi should have told Cyrus Engerer – that he was joining a party that did not have the balls to take an official position on divorce.

There’s another question I need to ask Joseph. How come “Labour not changing position” is good but “Gonzi not changing position (and always standing for the NO)” becomes bad? It’s stupid, stupid, stupid all over the place. It’s like two people tossing a coin ten times and the result is 7 heads and 3 tails. Joseph is suddenly “right” because he backed heads while Gonzi is wrong because he called “tails” all along?? Meanwhile Labour chose not to call heads or tails but wins prizes for being constant in not taking a position. Is this a crazy world or not?

Engerer

Will Engerer manage to change Labour into a real progressive party? Does he have the clout? Will it matter? It won’t to the token voters who just see Labour as the new lesser evil away from GonziPN. The question is “what will it take for them to notice that MuscatPL is same, same but different?” How long till we will be discussing how MuscatPL failed to take leadership on civil society issues, or worse still how its attempts to play the populist led to a hodge podge of botched legislation? We’re kicking off with “kids’ right to maintenance till they are 23″…. quite a good start to raise unprincipled, spoilt brats whose concept of politics is waving the blue/red flag whenever duty calls….

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle – j’accuse 2011

Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Drawing conclusions

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

*The 44 consciences*

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

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

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

*Vox Dei and Gonzi’s Nay*

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

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

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

*The Birth of MuscatPL”*

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

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

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

*Chaos Theory*

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

*Luck of the Draw*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : The Summer Plank

I find the latest Facebook fad in Malta to be quite a happy coincidence. I’m talking about ‘planking’ of course – the ‘sport’ that has taken the Maltese corners of Facebook by storm with adults and kids alike ‘doing the plank’. The phenomenon shows many of the symptoms of any Maltese trend: it is a year or so late by international standards (rather early, that) and it has immediately divided public opinion between the pro and con crowds. And of course there are still those among us who lag behind, completely oblivious to the very existence of ‘planking’ and what it is all about.

Allow J’accuse to come to the rescue. The International Planking rules may be summarised as follows: To perform a plank one must lie horizontally, face down in a rigid stance with no expression whatsoever on one’s face. Legs must remain straight with toes pointed. The idea is to get yourself photographed in that position and then to tag that photo on Facebook with a phrase that indicates your planking intention. The international rules also add that potential plankers must plank safely and not expose themselves to undue risk.

I am told that the planking craze kicked off by chance in Malta when a clumsy attempt to plank over public furniture ended in a disastrous ‘fail’ (another web craze term). Be that as it may, planking has given us a very creative page on Facebook that has quietly slipped to the top of the popularity rankings in the place of the divorce-related pages. The divorce pages are suffering from the fickle attention span of the average ‘internet enthusiast’ and the sudden drought on the web as the summer sun gets people away from the internet and closer to the beach.

Plankuza

The intriguing part of the planking phenomenon is the manner in which it has instigated what I generally think to be a passive-reactive public to become very, very creative. While J’accuse urges respect for public furniture and above all respect for safety we cannot but bow to the genius of the man who ‘planked’ atop a bank ATM canopy on Spinola Hill up to Paceville. It remains one of our favourites. I tried the ‘sport’ myself in the pristine waters of Gћadira Bay (note: I was not the planker but the support that was necessary to elevate the aforementioned planker out of the water). Within seconds of the snapshot there were people around us nodding in enthusiastic acknowledgement and one particular dad set about explaining to his offspring what this ‘sport’ was all about.

Gћadira, by the way, is fast becoming a gem of a beach – at least as long as school is still in session and the boats have not yet started to choke the shores. Cleanliness, organisation and safety are witness to the efforts that have been taken to return our beaches to their natural beauty. I was joined in Gћadira by a friend who travelled there by bus. Actually it was a bus and a hitched ride because the original bus could not make it all the way up the hill to Mellieћa and broke down. Passengers were dumped in the summer sun and my friend who is a veteran visitor to the islands knew better than to wait for a Transport Malta alternative.

It’s sad really that the charming old buses will be leaving the streets. I made it a point to catch at least two rides (and a ferry crossing to Valletta) this time around, and snapped enough photos and collected enough tickets for my little personal scrapbook. On the whole, though, I do not think that the smoke-belching, unreliable monsters will be missed on the streets. If anything, the decision to switch to a new operator with new buses can only be greeted with gladness. I dare the Nationalist government to trumpet this achievement and to expect to reap some rewards of gratitude on this one. It is 2011 after all, isn’t it Emmanuel Delia? The absolute cock-up that was the saga of pedestrian Bisazza Street vs Arriva rescheduling has shown us that even when ushering in the obvious (a working bus system) there seems to be more than an inability to plan ahead.

The Planked

Who will pay for the ‘compensation’ that is due to Arriva for the rescheduling around a major route? Minister Austin Gatt told the press he had no clue what this bill would amount to. The man who seems to be trying to milk all the credit for the occasion, the aforementioned Emmanuel Delia – an unelected civil servant who will be contesting the next election on a nationalist ticket – fluffed with a million excuses and tried to finger the blame onto another Ministry’s late planning. What Delia failed to underline is that whether the bumbling is due to his hopeless planning skills or that of others, the bill is still to be footed by the citizen and nobody else.

The rescheduling has some other citizens up in arms. On my visits to Sliema I noticed many photocopied signs urging Sliema citizens to unite in protest at what is being done to their town. Tigné residents, it seems, are at the heart of this latest NIMBY uprising. Worse still they seem to have been marginalised by the rest of Sliema who are not impressed by the Tigné residents suddenly growing a civil conscience the moment they finally got to be on the receiving end of controversial decisions. But that’s us, isn’t it? The ‘I’m all right and sod you Jack’ mentality pervades across the voting spectrum which is why civil right activists like the tiny, undermanned Alternattiva Demokratika will be allowed into the home throughout a particular NIMBY campaign but will be ditched the moment the big issue of which networker to put in government comes around.

Cultured Planks

I have long bored readers with my idea that our current political set-up is an opiate of the people. The relativist race to zero-value perfection coupled with the nepotist networking that puts planning decisions in the hands of party-favoured goofs serves to neutralise healthy competition, to kill new ideas and to turn us into a nation of unreactive planks. Every now and then you do get some sparks of hope – as I did when attending the conference on Valletta 18 that was a prelude to Valletta’s bid to become European Culture Capital in seven year’s time. There is more about this in the blog but I’d like to say that it would be great if the effort to bridge the gap between the ‘culturati’ and those who currently live the culture unconsciously is actually made. The danger of the liberal arts closing themselves up in an elite group remains dangerously alive.

Speaking of liberals it seems to be the fashion these days for everyone and his mother to display liberal traits. This week I asked Bertu to fashion a cartoon that shows our society’s key players and their attitude towards fashionable liberalism. Just look at the papers over the past week and you will see both major parties falling over themselves trying to expose the liberal side of their ‘umbrella’ (or in Gonzi’s case – ‘rainbow’) movements. Judging by the reactions I have been listening to in social circles, the Maltese voter must be daydreaming his days away or planking to his heart’s content. The ‘we are liberal’ line is being swallowed – hook, line and sinker.

The Unexplained Planks

This week I was ‘accused’ of being too nationalist (particularly in an article in l-orizzont) and of being too anti-nationalist. It made me wonder whether people tend to remember only the parts of the article that they dislike. It does make sense really. Our basic instinct is to have our little electoral Jiminy Cricket conscience always at the back of our mind. He is there to yell out warnings whenever what we are reading challenges our ‘traditional’ voting trend and inclination. So as a nationalist voter you may skim through an article that criticises Joseph Muscat’s opportunist fashioning of his policies (and maybe nod in agreement) but your attention will only peak if (for the sake of example) I call your beloved leader Lawrence Gonzi a plonker (sic).

So as our parties refashion what they represent into two huge blocks of nothing, the voting population will dig its heels in the ground and still think in terms of black or white, red or blue. Their voting conscience remains as immovable and rigid as a planker in pose position. Unfortunately the tsunami of change promised post-referendum has only served to consolidate the ill-advised “umbrella movements” and their knee-jerk reactions.

To the Duchy

My week-long, wedding-related, visit comes to an end. There are a couple of people who I’d like to congratulate. There’s Pierre Mejlak and Chris at Merlin for the wonderful book and launch at Mdina. Dak li l-lejl iћallik tgћid is available online at Sierra Distributors and I would strongly recommend that you get a copy. Then there is the chef at Adira Lido in Gћadira Bay. I really have to thank him for a mixed seafood platter that was an out-of-this-world explosion of Mediterranean taste that would have been enough to make this latest visit home worthwhile. Thanks a million and see you again in August.

 

www.akkuza.com has reviewed Pierre’s latest masterpiece, sat through Valletta 18 and is now gearing for the latest collection of stories for www.re-vu.org. Happy birthday, Kika!

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Wasted

It’s honoraria now. You cannot blame Labour for enthusiastically fanning the flames of disgruntlement with Gonzi’s government. Muscat has just gotten away with convincing a huge chunk of the population that the Yes to Divorce was a victory achieved by Labour. It was not, and I am not being petty. Labour’s foot shuffling and dilly-dallying was neither here nor there. While you read last Sunday’s J’accuse, Muscat was busy performing logical acrobatics claiming that the PN could do nothing else but vote YES after the referendum while contemporaneously repeating his spineless line that Labour’s position on divorce was a “free vote”.

Right now Muscat and Labour could very well tell most of the population that they were the inventors behind sliced bread, electricity and nuclear fission − and many would believe them. That is how our politics works. The wave of change is once again there for Labour to miss. The sad, sad thing is that the very modalities of the divorce debate that we are fast forgetting should have been proof enough that a change for Labour will only be the trademark “same, same but different”.

Empty vessels

They may be using the honoraria business as the latest excuse to expose the rifts between factions within the Nationalist government. If the reports I am reading are correct, Muscat has managed to make this sound as a vote of choice between “the Prime Minister and the Maltese people”.

Funny how he gets to dictate what this vote really means. True, the honoraria business is a PR catastrophe of gargantuan proportions and the government deserves a huge beating for it. On the other hand I am angry at the wonderful opportunity this has given both parties to bury the gaping lacunae that were exposed by the divorce debate. Luckily, we still have a whole Bill to go through so we might have a few reminders coming up.

The biggest lacuna is the most important of them all − one that each and every voter would do well to remember from here to the next election. It can come across as a boring point but there is a practical, pragmatic side to it that might even appeal to the most cynical among us. If only we let loose our presumed allegiances and grooming that is. It has all to do with a simple question: Why do you vote for a particular party in national elections?

The representative

Sure, we vote for MPs in order of preference. Why do we choose them? Presumably because they represent the best bet we have (a) for governing the country and (b) for endorsing particular policies. More importantly, we vote for MPs backed by political parties (specifically the two parties who have the odds stacked in their favour for being elected to Parliament). And why do we choose one party over another (forgetting for one minute the tesserati)?

We choose a party because of the principles it represents. Or so we thought. Recently we were presented with another reason to vote for one party and not the other. Put briefly, that reason was “the lesser evil”. Our parties could go on wearing their ideological and principle mask of preference while posing in multi-faceted dresses as Umbrella Liquorice Allsorts Parties. In truth, voting for PN or PL stopped meaning something different quite some time ago. I performed a little exercise on J’accuse yesterday. I called it “The Wasted Vote”. Here it is…

The Wasted Vote

So you voted PN last election? You got Lawrence Gonzi and Austin Gatt. You got David Agius and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. You got Edwin Vassallo and Tonio Fenech. You got Tonio Borg and Karl Gouder. You got the party that is anti-divorce on paper but can wake up one morning and spring a Private Members’ Bill surprise. You’ve also got Joe Saliba to thank for those sleepless nights conferring title after title on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando − from dentist to farmer to press card bearing journalist. Don’t worry though… if you’ve got a liberal streak in you there’s always Cyrus Engerer and Frank Psaila’s plan for a “social liberal” face to save the day.

So you voted PL last election? Well, actually you voted for Alfred Sant’s MLP but we know where that one went. After the tears subsided what did you get? You got Joseph Muscat and Adrian Vassallo. You got Owen Bonnici and Marie Louise Coleiro Preca. You got Marlene Pullicino and Gino Cauchi. You got a party that wants to be liberal and progressive but fails to take a simple stand on divorce. You got the inventor of the “free vote” that means that whatever the flying flip you wanted to elect to Parliament has no point anyway − because the individuals’ conscience is paramount. So was it pro-divorce Muscat that you were thinking of or was it anti-divorce Vassallo?

Have you really ever sat down and wondered what your vote translates to once the noise of the last carcade subsides, once the last billboard of empty propaganda is removed and once the last article of the spinners of hate is condemned to the bottom of your dustbin?

Funny. Last I heard, NOT voting PL or PN would turn out to be a “wasted vote”.

Vote for nobody

It’s funny how a vote that could be “wasted” on “unelectable” Alternattiva Demokratika last time round could have elected the only party in Parliament to have a clear, unequivocal position on divorce. It’s not just divorce. There will be other future issues in which the two behemoths will shuffle their feet. Already we are seeing the mediatic reinvention of PN − with calls for a “social liberal” heart (the token push) or calls for more “pragmatism” (another way of saying yes we disagree with divorce but hey votes are votes).

There is no guarantee about what you can get with the 34+ candidates elected to Parliament on the ticket of either of the PLPN parties. Will it be a renegade PLPN politician promoting abortion? Will it be another one proposing a Private Member’s Bill banning crucifixes from classes? Can we ever know? The parties are more intent on throwing their nets as wide as possible than on seeing that they represent a clear set of commitments.

Might as well elect NOBODY in an Odyssean twist. Because NOBODY will keep election promises, NOBODY will listen to your concerns, NOBODY will have a clear policy to enact (without fear of losing votes), NOBODY cares. Maybe, if NOBODY is elected then things could get better for everyone (after all Belgium has got by for a year without a government).

Or you could do better than NOBODY. You could do the intelligent thing and ignore the idiots who are still smarting from their slip the last time round. Vote for a party that is clear on its ideals and selects candidates because they share a common goal and ideas − not for the sake of catching the vote of the LBGT/singles/hunters/economists/labourers/faux-progressives… oh you know what I mean.

I’m off to Strasbourg for the Pentecost ponte in Luxembourg. We have another (Holy) holiday on Monday. Must enjoy them for as long as they last. The Luxembourg Greens have tabled a motion in Parliament asking for the institution of a national holiday that is secular and not religious. They expressly asked for “a holiday without the Te Deum”. I wonder what our MPs’ conscience would say on that one.

 

www.akkuza.com Find out more about the Church, State and Luxembourg on our site. Happy Father’s day to all dads, in particular the Chelski maniac at home and the tennis champ.

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics

Misunderstanding Eddie

I was left fuming this morning during the Ghandi Xi Nghid program with Eddie Fenech Adami. Unlike many people who have suddenly discovered how hard it is for a party to harbour diametrically opposite ideas within its fold I was positively pissed off at Andrew (Azzopardi) and at the way he imputed certain statements to this blog.

The program was its usual entertaining self and Andrew had the right guest under the spotlight. There really was no need to claim that J’accuse had asked questions of Eddie’s involvement in the divorce debate or that we had in any way criticised his apologetic stance vis-a-vis the catcholic position. Eddie is controversial enough as it is and does not need help of misunderstood blog posts.

Let’s be clear Andrew dismissed my angry fluster with his usual jokes – and as I told him at the end there would be no hard feelings. Ghandi Xi Nghid is on a roll at the moment and can afford a slip or two in the process – especially when the star of the show provides it with a good supply of controversial statements. What frustrated me most was that the very core of what Andrew misunderstood in my blog is exaclty what I did NOT want to engage in: because I think it is useless and counterproductive.

Eddie has not changed from the Eddie of the ’80s and ’90s. His position is perfectly understandable. He is no longer the nationalist party and as we explained in the previous blog post (Understanding Eddie) he has taken a perfectly understandable stance. Understandable does not mean that we agree with his position but that we can understand where he is coming from. That is different.

Eddie, and politicians like Eddie, are arguing against “relativism”. My favourite quote of the programme has been ignored by the sensationalists. Eddie stated (my paraphrasing) “partit li jitlef il-valuri jista jisfaxxa”. That is where I understand Eddie and agree. Both the PN and the PL “jistghu jisfaxxaw”. We have had ample proof that they abdicated from a position of principle ages ago. They are henceforth speaking from a position of populist relativism. The “free vote” is the culminating point. Parliament passing the law with mathematical calculations is the corollary.

The likes of Alison Bezzina (my ears are bleeding), Moviment Tindahalx et al are unwittingly participating in the sensationalist game. (I picked their comments on facebook – am sure there are more in the same vein where they came from). Sure Eddie’s “hoping that parliament votes against the law” is sensationally appalling. But he is a retired politician! Eddie hoping for a particular outcome should be as useful to the whole assessment as Mintoff hoping for another outcome. It isn’t. But they do not realise it!

What worries me much more is that Andrew (in the programme) defaulted on the opportunity to highlight the democratic deficit that Eddie’s position actually creates. When Eddie says that moral issues are not for voting upon as parties he creates that vacuum. When Eddie says that a party without values can disband he admits the contradiction. This is why I was angry at Andrew running down the very very uselessly distracting track of the role of religion and tolerance.

This has nothing to do with tolerance and alot to do with parties being clear about what they have to offer and obliging their members to follow suit. The biggest danger in this whole mess is the vacant minefield unleashed by Labour’s Free Vote. We said it at the beginning and say it again: No to Free Vote because a Free Vote is an abdication from representative rights.

Parties need to have the balls to stick by their principles. If the PN wants to be an anti-divorcist conservative party it is free to do so. It should cut the bull about the social-liberals that need being taken care of. Who would we elect then? A Hodge-podge of indecisive conservative/liberals who would unleash their conscience on matters of state at every opportunity?

That is why we should not be spoofing Eddie and calling him a dinosaur. We should be joining him and pointing our fingers at the farces who represent us in parliament. We should EXPECT our parties to represent clear values – and not a pick and mix that represents no one but their MPs individual conscience.

Let’s not make Andrew’s mistake and get lost in the translation… stop misunderstanding Eddie and ask more questions of the fools who are really trying to take us all for a ride.

P.S. Andrew is a very nice guy. I am sure he understands my anger on this point. I must also make it clear that he offered to read a clarification in the second part of the programme and I refused because I thought that the damage had already been done. Hu hsieb Dru.

Categories
Politics Values

The Wasted Vote

So you voted PN last election? You got Lawrence Gonzi and Austin Gatt. You got David Agius and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. You got Edwin Vassallo and Tonio Fenech. You got Tonio Borg and Karl Gouder. You got the party that is anti-divorce on paper but can wake up one morning and spring a private members bill surprise. You’ve also got Joe Saliba to thank for those sleepless nights conferring profession after profession on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – from dentist to farmer to press card bearing journalist. Don’t worry though… if you’ve got a liberal streak in you there’s always Cyrus Engerer and Frank Psaila’s plan for a “social liberal” face to save the day.

So you voted PL last election? Well actually you voted for Alfred Sant’s MLP but we know where that one went. After the tears subsided what did you get? You got Joseph Muscat and Adrian Vassallo. You got Owen Bonnici and Marie Louise Coleiro. You get Marlene Pullicino and Gino Cauchi. You get a party that wants to be liberal and progressive but fails to take a simple stand on divorce. You get the inventor of the “free vote” that means that whatever the flying flip you wanted to elect in parliament has no point anyway – because the individuals’ conscience is paramount. So was it pro-divorce Muscat that you were thinking of or was it anti-divorce Vassallo?

Have you really ever sat down and wondered what your vote translates to once the noise of the last carcade subsides, once the last billboard of empty propaganda is removed and once the last article of the spinners of hate is condemned to the bottom of your dustbin?

Funny. Last I heard, not voting PL or PN would turn out to be a “wasted vote”.

“I’m sorry, but in your desperate attempts at convincing yourselves and anyone else who is listening that if XXX becomes prime minister you have nothing to do with it, you are on your own. If you had the slightest bit of political savvy or psychological nous, you would know that you are setting yourselves up as hate objects…”

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta