Tag: PLPN

Categories
Zolabytes

Sliema: Reaping what was sown

AD Chairman and Michael Briguglio has given J’accuse permission to reproduce this article in the Zolabytes section. We consider it a further contribution on the current debate on Local Councils and an insiders insight on the mechanisms operating behind LC politics. Mike blogs regularly at Mike’s Beat (see j’accuse blogroll – we’re kicking that off again slowly slowly).

Sliema is really getting what it deserves. I am sorry to say this but the last local council elections were a clear example of how, at times, factors that have little to do with political vision influence electoral results. In a few words, Sliema is now reaping what was sown. I might be biased in saying this, given that I was not elected in 2009, having been elected in 2003 and 2006. But I invite others to contradict my statements below.

Beyond the battle between the official Nationalist Party position, the Nikki Dimech faction and the strange alliances of certain Labour councillors, one has to view the whole “Sliema” issue holistically.

Given the lack of proper legislation on financing of electoral campaigns, it is no surprise that political clientelism and business interests play a key role in Maltese politics even at a local level. Indeed, if one looks at the last local election in Sliema it would be very difficult to believe that all candidates’ electoral expenses were within the allowed limits. Many residents to this day tell me it is more than obvious that local elections are not based on a democratic and just level playing field.

In the last council election, one could witness social events such as receptions, the systematic provision of transport for elderly voters, electoral promises to various constituents that have nothing to do with political vision, telephone campaigns of the “Big Brother is watching you” type and so forth. There surely was no level playing field among all candidates.

This was even evident in the character-assassination-whispering-campaigns, at times between candidates belonging to the same party.

Given that Malta has practically no legislation regarding the financing of political parties, this necessarily leads to pressure from business interests for political favours. Hence, it is imperative that contracts awarded by local councils are properly scrutinised.

It is precisely for this reason that when I was councillor I consistently proposed having a contracts manager. I was supported by PN councillor Julian Galea on this… yet a decision by the council was consistently postponed.

Having professional administrative staff is imperative for efficient local councils. Yet, the present council apparently thought otherwise as one of its first decisions was to oust executive secretary Josef Grech.

The work of Mr Grech, his staff and of certain councillors, who, in previous years, did their best to ensure that Sliema’s voice was heard and who worked as a team, was basically discarded.

As for myself, in my six years as councillor I worked as hard as possible to help improve the quality of life in Sliema. I gave priority to issues such as public consultation, sustainable development, the impact of construction on the community, waste management, pollution, public transport, swimming and animal welfare. I worked well with coun­cillors irrespective of their political affiliation and I often managed to convince both Nationalist and Labour council members on various issues.

Well, actually, in my eyes, there were “four” political parties in the council, namely, Green, Labour, the PN “Pullicino faction” and the PN “Arrigo faction”. Perhaps the most surreal experience of all was when certain PN councillors objected that the council should praise the government for the reclaiming and embellishment of St Anne Square!

I thought I would get my best result ever in 2009 but the opposite happened. I was obviously disappointed and I was about to quit politics, feeling a sense of freedom in the process… But, as philosopher Louis Althusser tells us, “the future lasts a long time” … Indeed, I changed my mind after a few weeks and ended being elected AD chairman.

Whenever I am stopped by Sliema residents who complain about all sorts of issues, I remind them of a powerful tool they still possess – the vote.

If you want change, vote for it…

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
****

Categories
Local Councils Politics

Impeachment Day (Part I)

The vote of no confidence in Sliema Mayor Nikki Dimech will be taken today. The Times reports that all six remaining Sliema Councillors need to show up in order to ensure that Joanna Gonzi replaces Nikki Dimech as Mayor of the council. The four Labour councillors are expected to abstain on the vote as directed from HQ while Dimech and Camilleri – the two ex PN councillors who resigned from the party are expected to vote against.

Article 29 of Chapter 363 (Local Councils Act)
29. (1) The Mayor or Deputy Mayor shall cease to hold their
office upon a vote of no confidence delivered by a majority of the
Councillors in office.

(2) The motion proposing a vote of no confidence in the Mayor
or Deputy Mayor shall be signed by at least one third of the
Councillors in office and shall specify the reason for such motion
and propose another Councillor to be elected as Mayor or Deputy
Mayor as the case may be.

J’accuse chooses “impeachment day” to ask a few questions of the current system. DimechGate (and the ancillary cases involving PL and PN councillors in different localities) have brought to light a few shortcomings of the dealings of political parties at local council level. J’accuse does not intend to advocate against the participation of parties in local politics but rather would like to question what the added value actually is and whether the parties are really providing a service to the various communities by bringing their partisan terms to the local table.

Condizionamento Arbitrale

In dealing with the issue we take a step away from the allegations regarding the police questioning of the current Sliema Mayor in the hope that any doubts raised and alarm bells rung are replied and seen to in the appropriate judicial forum. This is not about an extended conspiracy theory involving some hidden arm of the law directed from some party HQ. We do feel the need to say, however, that police intervention in certain matters might suffer from what in football (at least when it was trendy to bandy conspiracy theories) is referred to as “condizionamento psicologico arbitrale” – and that this does not only apply to PN intervention (vide PBO) but also to sudden trysts of fancy by the PL (vide Anglu Farrugia’s crusade on purchased votes).  This condizionamento arbitrale is a symptom but not a cause of the current ails.

Partiti Politici

The role of political parties in local councils was hotly debated from the start. The PN had no qualms in spreading its political participation at local council level. Labour on the other hand took a step back from the first elections and only entered the fray at alater stage. The very notion of a “political party” in the law applicable to Local Councils is interesting. Under Cap 363 – the Local Councils Act – a “political party ” is defined as follows:

“political party” means, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, any person or group of persons contesting the elections of a Local Council as one group bearing the same name (Article 2 – Interpretation)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unless you take into account the Kafkesque detail of the Third Schedule to the Act (entitled Local Councils (Elections) Regulations, 1993) in which the electoral fetish of us Maltese is reflected in full blasts with such minutiae as the behaviour of Directors of Retirement Homes during election time being regulated and above all – access to every step of the process – from printing to counting – for party agents being guranteedd… unless you register that, parties have little or no mention in the actual political running of councils under the letter of the law.

The most important provision in which parties make a fleeting (but very relevant) appearance is Article 25 dealing with the election of the Mayor:

25 (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of article 29, the office of Mayor in any Local Council shall be occupied by such elected Councillor who at the last local election shall have obtained the highest number of votes in the first count amongst the candidates of the political party which at such elections obtained the absolute majority of Councillors in such Council. Such Councillor shall assume the office of Mayor at the first sitting of the Council after such local election. If for any reason such Councillor refuses to occupy the office of Mayor, the Councillor with the second highest number of votes from the aforesaid political party shall assume office, and so on, until the office of Mayor is filled:

Provided that if the Mayor vacates office during the Council’s term, the office of Mayor shall be occupied by such person belonging to the same political party who had obtained the highest number of votes in the first count after the Mayor who is vacating office:

Provided further that where the law does not provide otherwise, the Mayor shall be chosen from amongst the Councillors.

Peachy innit? Bear in mind that party refers to not just PN, PL or AD but also to any other group of individuals contesting under one name: e.g. Società Filarmonika Hal-Bomba. In a hypothetical vote even if a member of a newly council of five got over half of the first count votes to get elected but the rest of the votes were share equally between another four candidates of one “party” then the new Mayor would not be the independent person who garnered most votes but rather the candidate who has most votes among those elected on the party list.

Strangely, this system does away with the simple vote among councillors to see who among them enjoys the support of the majority of councillors (whatever the colour or creed) as is done (hypothetically) for the selection of Prime Minister in parliament. So essentially a party will vie for an absolute majority of councillors in an election after which it is guaranteed that there will be no “freak vote” whereby its councillors “defect” and vote for a popular “independent” – and boo to self-determination.

The role of parties in the 80 articles of the Local Councils Act starts and stops with the determination of the Mayor. The rest of the Act (particularly the aforementioned Schedule 3) is more concerned with the hobby of thousands that is the electoral process, electoral agents, perspexes and ballot papers. So the law is not exactly illuminating with regards to the interaction between a political party and its elected members within the council.

A che prò?

So why does a councillor like Robert Musumeci “take exception” to calls for parties to get their hands out of Local Councils? What’s the big deal? How is a relative party heavyweight like Secretary General Paul Borg Olivier drawn to risking his and his party’s reputation by attempting to oblige at least one councillor to use her vote against her will in order to obtain the necessary number of votes to get an impeachment of a Mayor going?

The answers are not so easy and we need to step back in order to get a clearer picture. As I said earlier my concern is to discover how parties could be beneficial to a local council and whether they are actually inputting such benefits. The impression right now is simply that while the PLPN are eager to have a finger in every council pie they are only really heard of when distancing themselves from those who fail to perform well. Furthermore there is a distinct impression that there is no nation-wide policy that applies to local councils in similar circumstances.

Faustian reasoning may play the fool with regard to Karol Aquilina and requisitioned houses elsewhere in Malta but Karol’s position on the Siggiewi house sounds very much like a policy that could, and should, be applied elsewhere by members of the same party in the interests of the community. That this does not happen cannot be taken as proof that Aquilina’s move was opportunistic (true) but it definitely paints a picture of a haphazard one-off application that cannot in any way be attributed or equated to the home party unless similar actions are really triggered off elsewhere.

That there is no evidence of a coordinating body within the parties that is used to trigger off local-friendly programmes across different councils is a clear sign of the misuse of the party ticket. For what worth is it to aim to garner as many majorities as possible in the councils of Camillo and Peppone when there is no programme to follow through? The dangers of such wide nets simply for the number are being evidenced now as both PN and PL find themselves burdened with scandals they never bargained for. That such scandals can and will happen is normal – when a sequence of scandals related to mismanagement and mishandling of public resources occurs then we begin to question the preparation of such candidates. Worse still we question whether the culture of curried favours and political obligations is now too well dug in into our council system.

So the first question we pose in this first part is this:

1) If we accept the role of political parties (and not just PLPNAD) in Local Councils how should or could this role be defined? Is this a question for legislators to address (aihmè the PLPN legislators) or is it something that should come from within the parties?

We’ll be back with more.

Categories
Politics

Coming Soon (later today): Why Party?

Update on Thursday : apologies for delay.

Yesterday’s rentrée prevented us from extending the interesting debate sparked off by the last post. Meanwhile interesting developments in DimechGate might allow more factual light to be thrown into the miasma of different interests and allow us to comment more clearly on the rot in Local Councils and the parallel worries associated with party politics. Later today we will be posting a full post on this issue and the main theme will b “Why Party?” or what is the purpose of party participation in Local Councils. What guarantees are political parties giving voters? What is their constitutional role in the system? How much control can a party legally and effectively exert on its list of candidates? Can we rightly assume that a party is “vetting” its candidates for suitability to run for election? Can we equally assume that a party provides a support structure for its councillors that makes them more efficient purely through the economies of scale and continuity? Do our parties have anything that could be described as local policies (applied in multiple councils where possible)? Are parties using different measures and standards for their mini-politicians? Once again, what is the measure that tells us when the balance of loyalty to party vs loyalty to constituents has been broken? The constitution makes little or no mention of political parties – they have “infiltrated” the system by custom and usage – is it really that wrong for an elected person from a constituency to trump his party loyalties with those towards his constituency – especially when the so-called “party principles” are not so clear in certain cases? All that and more… later on J’accuse.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Our Lady of Good Council(s)

Coat of Arms of Sliema Local Council (Malta)
Image via Wikipedia

The rot seems to have spread – or could spread. MT reports that the police will probably arraign more councillors as they widen the probe into the running of local councils. The irony is not lost on anyone that while Local Council small fry are thrown into the burning oil for their (punishable) misdeeds and misappropriations the equivalent on a national level still goes by unnoticed, unpunished and sanctioned by almost half a century of bipartisan tradition. Which is why Lino Spiteri’s take on the issue in today’s Times opinion piece (Away from the eye of the local storms) is somewhat perplexing.

In his analysis Spiteri rightly points out to the strong grip that the two parties have developed on local council politics (Labour did so after a hesitant start) then goes on to prescribe a confusing formula (unless I have misunderstood his prescription). While on the one hand hinting at a necessary relaxation of the political parties‘ hold on council politics, Spiteri seems to accept a “reasonable degree of bi-partisanship”:

True devolution from central government and party could help a culture of involvement, a measure of direct democracy to spring up whereby the citizenry does see itself being put first because its voice is listened to and, on occasion, heeded. The system could encourage young candidates towards it so that, if elected, and if their council follows a reasonable degree of bi-partisanship, they can gain some experience of bureaucratic administration, before they venture into the broader field of national politics.

We beg to differ. First of all the problem is not party involvement itself but rather the manner in which party involvement is perpetrated (yes, criminally so). The party involvement in Local Councils is simply to keep tabs and control on the extended networking created by the supposed devolution. There is no “local” conscience emanating from the PL and PN (ironically so when you consider how “local” our “national” politics are) and they have proven unable to impart any school of thought to budding politicians. This could also be a direct result of the inability of both dinosaurs to absorb ideas from the groundroots and champion them as their own.

Bottom-up politics has never been the forte of the PLPN fold. Candidates are enrolled in order to add to he number and provide punch to the “good vs evil”/bipartisan mentality on which the PLPN thrives. There is little time for a localisation of policy, let alone government and the good success stories in various localties (San Lawrenz and Nadur in Gozo comes to mind) are in spite of and not thanks to PLPN bumbling dictats. Just look at the Siggiewi farce with wannabe star politicans trying to impress  (that’s you Carol Aquilina)…

Mater Boni Consilii

Mike Briguglio wrote an interesting piece in the MT about the Sliema council (Unsurprising Sliema) . We tend to forget that the new Sliema council embroiled in all its troubles is the first post-AD representative council. I am in no way saying that AD could possibly have provided better council support than its behemoth counterparts but just look at the difference between what a multi-party council and the balbugliata that a PLPN bi-partisan council has to offer.

It is very surprising therefore that someone like Lino Spiteri would advocate a better honing of bipartisan skills at Local Council level as some sort of panacea for the current ills. I rather prefer the first part of the formula where parties relax (or revise) their relations with local councils. As a first suggestion I would suggest proper screening of candidates based on what proposals they have for the running of the council and what they would offer as guarantees of good management.

Local councils need just what national politics need. Injection of new political blood thinking outside the bipartisan box that has gotten us used to the idea that networking and bungs and funds is all that politics is good for.

Maybe we should ask our Lady of Good Council(s).

See also: Claire Bonello (Some parties do have them)

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch

Heidelberg

Heidelberg Castel and Bridge, Germany.
Image via Wikipedia

If you read this week’s article in the Independent you may have noticed that I am out and about in the Rhineland-Palatinate. We’ve moved down to the Neckar Valley now and are in the historic town of Heidelberg home of science and reason. The clement weather seems to be about to abandon us as we return to the usual summer fare of rain and heat. Seen from here the Maltese news seems to be dominated by DimechGate. For us this provides an interesting petri dish to examine the allegiances and editorial lines of different newspapers. In the running absence of J’accuse we can only advise readers to handle all information with double care. Todays press release by PN continues to murk the waters (or clear the air – depending on your perspective). Did Gonzi approve the removal of Dimech from PN or is his approval implied by administrative decision? Did Dimech really warn PBO by email of his impending police interrogation? Did he warn him when it woud end? Meanwhile the bloggers of muck born out of Plategate have raked up one more PN councillor in trouble. It seems he purchased a laptop for private use using government funds… police interrogations, swift PN ostracisation beckons.

I’m off to see the Schloss in the rain. Auf wiedersiehen.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics

Return of the JS List

The logo of KPMG.
Image via Wikipedia

Seven months after its original mention in Parliament, Evarist Bartolo has once again brought to the fore the enigmatic “JS List”. Unlike seven months ago we no longer need to speculate as to the meaning of “JS” in the list (our speculations were wrong anyway) since Varist has referred us all to Joe Stellini, the PN’s former treasury. The sleuths at Malta Today (god bless their hard working souls so close to the ferragosto weekend) have followed up on a series of name dropping statements by the former education minister.

I may be tired and packing for a ten day trip along the Rhine that kicks off tomorrow does not augur well for deciphering Evarist Bartolo’s version of the Lost Symbol but if I am not mistaken he is insinuating that huge companies in Tokyo and Copenhagen had more than a hand in the assignation of the BWSC contract (remember that hot potatoe). The name dropping is not on the scale of ENRON style scandal but by Maltese standards it is big. There is an alleged web of intertwined interests that lead to linking the tenderor and the tenderee on the energy contract. There’s more. Bartolo does not shy back from implying that KPMG auditor to many of the parties involved served as a bridge between all the parties and government. And all this to lead to where? it’s not clear Who, What, When, Why or How but the conclusion is that:

“The PN has a system of fundraising where companies win government contracts and donate money to the PN. They are all part of the PN’s JS list,” Bartolo said, referring to the so called list named after former PN treasurer Joe Stellini.

Which is one hell of a whopper. From DimechGate to JS-Gate. Only, as I have been lamenting all the while, we need more tangible proof. We need cases before the Public Services Commission. It’s not a problem that the allegations surface on a newspaper – the newspaper is only attempting to perform its duty as part of the fourth estate – but there must be a follow up using the full strength of our democratic institutions. In a way there was never a shadow of doubt that contractors in various markets benefited from their contacts with the PN and that they performed services or investments in return. We just needed someone to get talking about them as a first step to something more direct being done about it. We do not have a magistratura in Malta as they do in Italy so do not expect a flurry of avvisi di garanzia very soon.

The “mani pulite” that began with Dimech Gate might (and I stress the might) be about to widen up to something big. The biggest problem remains the prevailing culture that will probably read to a shrug of the shoulders and a “no shit sherlock” approach. In the land of the blind the parties supported by major contractors are Kings.

Enhanced by Zemanta