Tag: PLPN

Categories
Politics Rubriques

Democracy on Hold

The Banana Republic Files. In today’s Times we find the report that “At the start of yesterday evening’s sitting of Parliament, the Speaker gave a written answer to a question by Nationalist MP Franco Debono on progress in talks on the financing of political parties, which he considered urgent.”

Well, thanks to Labour’s recent walk out and tantrum this is the current situation: “The House Select Committee on the Strengthening of Democracy had advanced its discussions on the topic. A period of public consultation on the electoral process and system had expired on December 18, 2009. The Speaker expressed the hope that the current situation, wherein the select committee was not meeting, would be temporary and the committee would soon be able to continue its work.”

Notwithstanding all the Speaker’s high hopes the bottom line is: democracy is on hold.

Earlier this week the Green Party filed a judicial protest over the electoral law. The legal challenge to article 52 of the Constitution was filed in Court as another direct result of the Labour abandoning of the process for “Strengthening of Democracy”.

No way forward for rules on party funding. No way forward on electoral reform. The future is dull. The future is a Banana Republic.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Friends

I am happy to say that I have a lot of friends who vote Nationalist (or Labour). I am not, if I may add, particularly ashamed to be seen with them. There. I’ve said it. I’ve come out and said it. It was killing me really, having to keep this secret to myself all this time, but now that I’ve come out and relieved myself of this bit of info burdening my conscience I feel much better.

If my declaration does not sound ridiculous enough, then what would you think if I felt the need to specify that “Actually I have some friends who are black”? You’d think me to be some weirdo living in some pre-Rosa Parks world of racial segregation. Incidentally, this is the 50th anniversary of the publication of that magnificent book by Harper Lee To Kill a Mockingbird – published only five years after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a bus. I owe Harper Lee much of the inspiration for taking the legal career path, thanks to her unflinching Atticus Finch. Ironically, Harper Lee lives a very segregated life in Monroeville, Alabama (the real Maycomb from the story), conceding few interviews and having written pretty much nowt since the book that was voted into the top 10 must-reads of a lifetime (beating the Bible in the process).

It is very probable that the Mockingbird is a fictionalised autobiography of Harper Lee and that the character Scout in the book is actually Lee herself. Her best friend in the book, named Dill, is thought to be Harper Lee’s childhood friend Truman Capote. Though the friendship drifted apart in later years, neither of them was ever heard to say that they were ashamed of knowing one another.

Gays in the village

You know where I am coming from with all this “I have X friends” business – and no I do not mean Facebook. I am obviously referring to Prof. Anthony Zammit’s remark during the proceedings before the House Social Affairs Committee  (HSAC) at the temple of conservatism and bigotry. The subject was “the situation of homosexuals and transgender individuals” in Malta, and the information that we have at hand comes with the courtesy of a very “xarabankified” Times as one of my readers described it. For it is important to bear in mind that, in fulfilling its reporting duty, the Strickland House product seems to have shifted towards a more “provocative” approach in the presentation of its material – in some cases denaturing the very subject being reported.

It was thusly that The Times’ David Schembri kicked off with a very titillating title What Happens in the Bedroom is the Government’s Business only to fall foul of the timesofmalta.com inquisition and retract to a more moderate Parliament discusses gay rights (technical geeks did notice that the permalink (article’s web address) remained the same though – baby steps for The Times tech). So yes, as in Malawi, gay rights are still an issue for Malta’s democratic institutions to discuss.

What makes an individual (you’ve got to love the stressed use of the term ‘individual’ in the title on the HSAC’s agenda) gay? What is a gay couple? And what roles do they perform in the household? These are some of the crucial questions that seem to be automatically raised in this committee that feels and acts very much like some Victorian committee questioning Darwin’s preposterous assertions on apes, men and the like.

Only that here, thanks to a mixture of confused (and I may add unfair) reporting and clueless honourable gentlemen, we were not discussing the evolutionary merits of the opposable thumb but rather issues of a more personal nature of thousands of ‘individuals’ who inhabit the islands of Malta in the 21st century. We needn’t go so far as examining the red-hot issue of “gay adoption” that inevitably sparks fires and heats debates even in the most liberal of nations. We are talking of basic rights and liberties – such as the right to marry (and I speak of the civil law right for people not giving two hoots about sacraments humanly concocted in some Diet or Council in Trent).

Queer folk

The news from the HSAC was not promising though. There seemed to be much banter about whether it was the government’s business to have an eye in every bedroom. Edwin Vassallo’s assertion that “Yes it was” because we bear the consequences of such things as “teenage pregnancies and single parenthoods” looked slightly out of place in a forum discussing couples whose ability to reproduce among themselves can best be described as impossible. So unless some new religion is in the making, complete with dogma of “impossible conception”, something was definitely wrong with the perspective of the lawmakers in the House. Sure The Times correspondent peppered his “report” with anecdotes about MGRM’s ideas on “creative ways to have children” but surely this was not the original point of the agenda?

It then moved to the slightly queer (sorry) when Honourable Conservative Member Beppe Fenech Adami resorted to ballistic logic (in the sense that he approached the subject with the same level of convincing logic as a suicide terrorist strapped with explosives): What roles for gay partners? Who’s the man and who’s the woman in a relationship? Given that it is already hard to determine such “roles” in the post-nuclear family – we’ve all heard the one about the one who wears the trousers – the questions were as anachronistic as they were offensive. As BFA proceeded to prove that, since switching roles is not done in his domus, it couldn’t work anywhere else, the gods of logic threw a tantrum and collectively resigned.

At which point you can picture Prof. Anthony Zammit making his dramatic entry armed with a Damocletian sword and delivering the coup de grace to a discussion that never really stood on tenable grounds. “I have gay friends and I am not ashamed to be seen with them in public”. Ta-da indeed. I must confess that I do not know much about Prof. Zammit beyond what I read in the papers, but even had the pinker corners of the web not led to my discovery that he had more than a passing interest in the discussion, the kind of statement he came up with is flabbergastingly ridiculous. The only conclusion we could draw from the “xarabankified” report was that our current crop of representatives is far from representing a large crop of the voting population.

bert4j_100606 copy
Friends of friends

There’s that phrase again. Programmes on TV this week were rather amusing. Lou (of Bondiplus of Where’s Everybody?) got spanked on the backside by the BA for his Lowell programme, so Peppi (of Xarabank of Where’s Everybody?) set up a programme discussing freedom of expression and Lou’s spanking. Guests on the programme? Another ta-da moment. Lou Bondi and the ubiquitous media guru Joe Borg Father. I spotted WE’s Norman Vella on Facebook claiming that “In this programme Lou Bondi will not be the only guest. He will face people who publicly expressed themselves against his programme with Norman Lowell”. Incidentally, he was replying to a comment by Borg Cardona who had just implied that the Xarabank programme had an incestuous element in it.

The criteria used by the Xarabank crew reminds me of certain Times’ editorials (or of a conversation between Lou and Fr Joe) where they seem to assume that they are the only people to have a relevant opinion or to have actually expressed an opinion on any given subject. All three – Xarabank, Bondiplus and The Times – have become an institutionalised form of their relative medias and it is in that spirit that they are criticised. Frankly, all three could hold whatever opinion they like but their constant editorial position that obliterates any opinion they consider irrelevant (for irrelevant read uncomfortable to deal with) is worrying and stinks of a systematic effort to retain the stranglehold that they have built over a large chunk of the fourth estate.

I am not too sure that the credibility of all three is the same as they enjoyed a while back, even among the more conservative of elements. Having long abdicated one of the primary journalistic duties of proper investigation, they are now lost in a navel-gazing world of their own and they have constantly proved unable to deal with the wider democratisation of the media. While their voices might still be strong enough to be heard, and while they can still afford to ignore the disparate contradictory elements, they are noticing that their grasp is weakening and their efforts to remedy the situation is only leading them to descend into the comically absurd. So yes. We have Lou as a guest on Peppi’s show discussing how Lou and Peppi’s company should be allowed freedom of expression. Jolly good, I say.

Friendly fire

Finally, a few notes on friendly fire. Joseph Muscat was on Myriam Dalli’s TX this week. TX is a programme on Labour’s One TV (did I mention that we STILL have party-owned TVs in 21st century Malta?), so such notions as bias and doctored questions are only to be expected as annoying intervals in between shots of that Mediterranean beauty that is the programme presenter. The other person on the show glared at the camera and warned of the problems of corruption in the country while standing fast behind such weird notions as carte blanche for whistleblowers and promising the people €50 million (take from Peter give back to Peter) for the “unjust tax on vehicles”. Rather than traipsing uselessly with the kangaroos, Joe might want to polish up his knowledge of recent (very recent) ECJ jurisprudence before harping on about the latter subject. (I have friends who studied European Law and I am not ashamed to be seen with them).

Two notes on GonziPN and friends. Well done for the WiFi spots around the country. That is a bit more tangible than all the words about Vision 2015. Surely you should warn interested citizens that “free public WiFi” is not eternal. As in all similar European projects, expect a shift to paid services in the near future – whether big brother tells you or not. Also GonziPN’s little tryst with “non-politicians” at Vision2015+ felt like a very manufactured and simulated business among friends. Funny that name – Vision 2015+. A government plan gets a “+” tagged onto it and it becomes a party meet. A bit like programmes getting a “+” on their name on national TV. All they needed were Lou and Peppi at Vision 2015+ … but wait… they were there. So it’s OK, innit?

www.akkuza.com (j’accuse) has 301 friends on its Facebook page. Would you be ashamed to be seen as one of them?

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Paragon of Democracy

Lights are out or returning back on this morning in Malta. It’s long past being a funny situation – the power station business that is – and the blackout will ironically throw more fuel into the incandescent fire that is every discussion about power stations, government contracts and governmental mismanagement.

While Malta floundered around in the dark UK Deputy PM Nick Clegg was busy reassuring his voters that the forthcoming government programme will include “the “biggest shake-up of our democracy” in 178 years”. This includes fixed-term parliaments, a fully elected House of Lords and a referendum on electoral reform.

The Liberal leader is in charge of the reform plans and has stated that he wants to “transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state”. Centralised states were on the mind of Clegg throughout his presentation and at one point he stated:

Britain was once the cradle of modern democracy. We are now, on some measures, the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta.

Now that’s a bugger innit? The contrast being made is obvious. Britain has relinquished its past as a “cradle of modern democracy” and having done so has approached – what? – Malta. Ouch. That hurts. It’s painful. But there must be a reason why Nick’s first thought when thinking of a decentralised (and consequentially distant from being a cradle of modern democracy) country leaps to Malta.

House of Lords Chamber
Image by UK Parliament via Flickr

My bet is that if any repercussions will be had in Malta all blame will fall squarely on the nutjobs at the Alleanza Liberali who have carried the “Liberal” name for quite some time now – with dire consequences on any chances that name might have if taken up by normal minded people. There might even be a photo of Nick with John Zammit (who is currently busy working on www.freewebs.com/mintoffjani) as part of his Mintoffjan/Liberal project.

It would be too easy though to blame it on the nutjobs though. Nick Clegg, deputy PM of one of the largest political realities in Europe does not think highly of our political system – were it just a voice out of the blue it would be something we could easily ignore. Instead, Clegg is simply confirming what this forum has said for ages – the PLPN duopoly has much to answer for in this respect.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Politics

The Hardest Word

It all boils down to when you say it and how you say it then. As the poet said “It’s a sad sad situation, and it’s getting more absurd”. What began as a political issue on the pros and cons of a power station contract ended up as the battle of the apologies (or absence thereof). Joseph Muscat has trumped Lawrence Gonzi this time.

Both parties had been perceived to have committed a “wrong”. A foul. Apparently once you say sorry it’s all over. We have been spared the flurry of libels this time – instead we have the latest stance of concocted or real “indignation”.

Mizzi’s gaffe about Mario Galea and his condition was unpardonable. His was a heavy handed invasion of the private in an attempt to gain questionable political mileage. There are no two ways to go about it. An apology on that point can never come too soon – and need not even be asked for. The shame and guilt should suffice to bring the apology forward. We cannot wonder therefore at the gambit of Muscat’s Politically Contrite image. It has to work because it’s the bloomin’ obvious. What’s maravilious about it is that we had to wait till Monday morning.

We did not get one but two apologies. There was the private apology AND the public apology. We can only assume that one was the sincere “I’m sorry” from man to man while the other is the PR apology – a public act of contrition that includes an admission and an example: it is just as sincere but also reminds the public that these “role models” are admitting the error of their ways – do not copy this at home.

Now here is Lawrence’s quandary. The battle of apologies is a hand forced upon him in many ways. But when Tonio stood up late on a Thursday night to make certain claims about Justyne Caruana’s hushed vote in parliament he should have seen that coming. Forget the rubbish about pregnancy or non-pregancy – stuff for hysterical feminists and troglodyte chauvinists alike – the circumstantial evidence points to more than a hint of fabrication from the governmental benches.

The quandary is here. Were Lawrence to apologise contritely in a manner that should appease the baying crowds and disdained populace still coming to terms with the possibility of a “lying minister” then this would be an admission of guilt. The PN spin has until now waved the flimsy alibi of engineered soundbites and been supported by the usual suspects – it has not yet conceded the point. We all know how impossible it is to apologise for something before you admit to having done it.

That is the quandary for Lawrence. That is why he risks losing more plus points (not of the Bondi kind) among the voters. The General Council may be a placebo of pats on backs among friends but out in the street confidence in a government that cannot admit when it has gone too far is prone to wane.

For Lawrence, sorry seems  to be the hardest word.ù

***

ADDENDUM

Lino Spiteri pens a brilliant article in today’s Times about the consequences of Labour’s withdrawal from the committee responsible for electoral reform: Labour allows democracy veto.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Zolabytes

Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly

Alternattiva Chairperson Mike Briguglio has kindly given J’accuse permission to reproduce this article. Thanks to Mike we have to rewrite most of our Sunday contribution (can’t have too much repetition going around) – but sometimes it is reassuring that J’accuse is not the only person to see the turn of events from a certain angle. So here is the zolabyte by AD Chairperson Mike Briguglio:

Symbol of a stagnated duopoly  by Michael Briguglio

The recent farce in Parliament regarding the vote on the Delimara issue serves merely as a reminder of the sad situation of Maltese politics. A human error by a Nationalist MP was not accepted by the Labour opposition but, in return, the Nationalists created a story on how a Labour MP voted. To make matters worse, the Labour Party retaliated by saying it will quit the parliamentary select committee.

How sad! MPs are being paid by the taxpayer and they resort to such immature and irresponsible behaviour, wasting everybody’s time in the process. Yet, MPs forget their differences in other instances, such as when they agreed to raise their own pensions! They also conveniently agree to exclude themselves from Malta’s Data Protection Act, thus enabling parties to get personal information on Maltese citizens. Not to mention, of course, Malta’s unique electoral system, which has been devised to maintain two-party dominance, and Malta’s very own party financing system, which is nothing other than “money laundering” in disguise, to the advantage of powerful political and business interests.

Parliament has become a symbol of a stagnated duopoly, which, unfortunately, is made legitimate by voting patterns in Malta. Yet, what are the PN and the PL really offering?

The Nationalist government has its strengths and weaknesses. Despite its seeming unpopularity, in some way or another it manages to present itself as a cohesive bloc, both among its parliamentarians as well as among its voters. Indeed, it seems to be the case that some disillusioned Nationalists do not vote in European or local elections to give a message to their party in time for the general election, or else, vote for a “rebel” candidate in the party’s ranks.

The political direction adopted by the PN unites traditional values with consumerist practices and support of big business interests while maintaining some form of welfare in place. I do not endorse this direction but recognise that, in this way, the PN has, so far, succeeded in creating a durable power structure based on the articulation of two main identities – the Catholic and the consumerist – winning support across class lines and among different social groups.

Of course, this entails contradictions, which are commonly found in Christian Democratic parties. Like a pendulum, Nationalist politics can shift from one that fosters a social market to another that moves towards the New Right and neo-liberal economics.

In recent years, liberalisation, privatisation and over-development of land have left their social and ecological impacts on the Maltese islands.

The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights.

Labour does not fare any better. With all the defects of Alfred Sant, the previous Labour leader did manage to make some ground-breaking feats within the party, such as cleansing it from its violent elements and projecting the image of the meritocratic citizen. Of course, Dr Sant’s Labour made a mess in its EU campaign and in its management of internal conflicts. Ultimately, however, Dr Sant’s project had already imploded in 1998 as it tried to create politics that pleases everyone.

Under Joseph Muscat, we seem to be heading back to 1996 “pleasing everyone approach” in terms of electoral strategy. Labour is resorting to catch-all strategies with the intention of appealing to everyone. Yet, as Peter Mayo put it in a recent seminar on Gramsci, Labour may well be embarking on the road of “misplaced alliances”.

Indeed, it is my conviction that, ultimately, Labour’s catch-all antics will backfire if Labour wins the next election and is in government alone. What will Labour do with regard to its simultaneous promises to hunters, trappers and environmentalists? How will Labour proceed with its newly-found environmentalist populism when the same party faces big business developers that it never criticises?

How will Labour introduce divorce if it knows that a parliamentary free-vote will have the opposite result? How will it introduce gay rights when it welcomes ultra-conservatives who make shameful parliamentary questions in its ranks?

How will Labour finance the public services it wants to defend when it is clamouring for tax cuts? How will it reconcile social justice with its rhetoric to suspend the Geneva Convention with regard to illegal immigration?

In short, how will Labour reconcile its “moderate” and “progressive” elements?

Winning an election is one thing, producing progressive social change is another. Yet, at the end of the day, does Malta have a critical mass of voters and political constituencies that really want such social change? Or is amoral familism – as depicted by Jeremy Boissevain – the most powerful value in Maltese politics? And does the public get what it wants or does it want what it gets, especially in a system where the two-party duopoly is controlling much of the public sphere and Maltese politics?

Michael Briguglio is the Chairperson of Alternattiva Demokratika and blogs at Mike’s Beat.

*****
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
Articles

Well Hung

Why Cameron would love to be Maltese

I cannot help wondering how David Cameron must wish that he was a Maltese politician. Rather than sitting at the negotiating table with that pesky Nick Clegg (the tiddler that he is) he’d be sitting firmly, decisively and stably at the head of some carcade on Tower Road, Sliema, celebrating his relative majority victory – the constitutional provisions written for the “Big Two” would have done the rest.

How silly of the Brits not to have thought of the advanced electoral systems that have been refined through the ages by the PLPN. Cameron would not be fretting over conjuring some “big, open and comprehensive” offer to lure Nick into his coalition government. He would be sitting happily at the head of a fictitiously constructed majority of seats – purposely engineered to compensate for any defects resulting from the expression of the will of the people.

Of course, the above scenario would perforce include an electoral system that would preclude any of the Lib Dems obtaining a seat in the first place – and Dave’s your uncle. Poor Dave. He cannot enjoy the automatic coronation for relative majorities proffered to the anointed ones under the Maltese Constitution: instead he will have to sweat it out to build a government that really represents a majority of the elected parties. A coalition between Tories and Lib Dems (18 million votes) just makes it into a decent 59 per cent of the electorate.

Numerologies

Let’s face it: the UK election results were disappointing for the movement of reform that was promised under Cleggmania. The Lib Dems actually obtained five fewer seats than last time around but, and that is a big but, let us look at the numbers that count. Out of 30 million voters, 11 million chose Tory, nine million chose Labour and seven million opted for the Lib Dems. A close call, no?

Let us translate those figures into percentages of the voting population. The Tories had 36 per cent of the votes, Labour 29 per cent and the Lib Dems 23 per cent. No absolute majority. No biggie here. Vote-wise, a Lib-Lab coalition (52 per cent) forms a parliamentary majority as much as a Tory-Lib Dem coalition (59 per cent) would.

The situation goes awry when we see the number of seats that each party won in Parliament expressed as a percentage. The Tories got 47 per cent of the seats (with 36 per cent of the vote), Brown’s Labour got 39 per cent of the seats (with 29 per cent of the vote) and the Liberals? Ah, the Liberals’ nine million votes (23 per cent of the voting population) got… drum roll please…. nine per cent of the seats in Parliament. Nine per cent. You read it right.

So, disappointing as the result may be, it is not for the reasons most people have come to expect. You see the result is NOT disappointing because now, more than ever, it is an eye-opener of the blatant distortive effect that an electoral system plotted out to ensure bipartisan “stability” has on effective parliamentary representation. An electoral law that serves to dumb down representation in order to preserve stability has this twisted effect on democratic rationality: there is none.

Election Night
Image by Patrick Rasenberg via Flickr

Clegg’s Law

It might not be about to replace Sod’s Law, but Clegg’s Law is a firm candidate for the prizes of Phyrric Victory, Lose-lose Situation of the Year and Sacrificial Lamb on the Altar of Democracy rolled into one. Clegg, you see, is in a dilemma. He is exactly at the point where all the naysayers of proportional representation want him to be: the much demonised and warned-against “kingmaker”.

Before the election Clegg made two semi-commitments regarding possible coalition governments. The first was that he believed (erroneously, according to J’accuse) that the party with the relative majority of votes had some sort of moral right to govern. The second was that no matter who he formed a coalition with, Gordon Brown would no longer be Prime Minister (again, with the benefit of hindsight a premature claim). As things stand, these conditions would point to a coalition government with the Bullingdon Babyface.

It’s not so easy though. Following the early results, the Lib Dems put their kingmaker position up to auction. The initial bid had to conform to a number of conditions, but most important of all was the eternally elusive question of voting reform. Because, you see, the Lib Dems had to wear two hats in these elections. First they wore the hat of the normal party, with policies to iron out, programmes to put into effect and plans for government – coalition or otherwise. Secondly though, they also had to wear the hat of pioneers of change – the hat of the only party insisting openly on a clear reform of the rules of the game.

The kingmaker has no crown

It is this dilemma that risks turning Clegg’s brave stand into a schizophrenic disaster. The Lib Dem’s bipolar situation raises their stakes tenfold. They have a duty to the electorate – a mandate obtained both via policy promises (Hat number 1) and reform promises (Hat number 2). Sitting at the coalition table with someone like Cameron means negotiating a compromise plan. Cameron knows that. His “openness” has involved, until now, no offer for electoral reform.

Clegg can stand firm on electoral reform – making it a sine qua non of the negotiations, thus risking being labelled a stirrer of instability. This would not only throw mud on Clegg’s face but also on future possibilities of stronger electoral performances of the Lib Dems as a party. In the eyes of the electorate, Cameron’s refusal to work for a fairer representative system will be eclipsed by Clegg’s breaking down of a possible stronger stable government. The kingmaker shamed – every naysayer’s dream.

Then there is Brown. Rather than bow out gracefully, he has (rightly, again in our opinion) pointed out that, should Cameron fail to entice Clegg with his all or nothing approach, then he is willing to provide the second option for a coalition. Clegg is still bound by his “governing without Brown” promise and Brown knows that. Which is probably why he has dangled the electoral reform carrot in front of him. Brown accepts a fast track for a referendum on electoral reform. With Brown, Clegg would get a fair chance to discuss reform (note, though, that the referendum might not succeed).

Constitutionally, there would be nothing wrong should Clegg opt for a Lib-Lab coalition. Cameron’s questionable moral authority to govern simply because of his relative majority of votes can be put even further into representative perspective when we look at it geographically. Do you know how many seats the Conservatives won in Scotland? One out of 59: Dumfriesshire. They only did slightly better in Wales, wining eight out of 40 seats. The best bet for a strong Tory government would probably be an Independent England. Otherwise, they have about as much moral authority to govern certain parts of the UK as Edward Longshanks.

Democracy in the 21st

So Clegg is in a right fix. Stable and moral government under current rules means playing along with the game and forgetting about electoral reform. A Labour coalition might open a long shot for the referendum, but what does that say for the chances of the referendum actually succeeding after the predictable vilification Clegg will suffer for not having chosen the horse with the highest feelings of legitimacy?

Clegg’s fix is the fix of every other party that will try to break a bipartisan mentality, and I have begun to strongly believe that the solution for change is not to wait for the incumbents (PLPN, Labservatives) to cash in on their feeble promises of reform – but to educate, educate and educate the electorate. It is after all the electorate that needs to understand that the current status quo only results in electing two versions of the same, the same but different politics intent on performing in the inevitable race to mediocrity.

Joseph 2010 tries Eddie 1981

That was the verdict after a tearful (is that true?) Joseph Muscat led his angered troops out of what passes as our temple of representative democracy following a heated vote and ruling by newbie speaker Frendo. Labour stormed out of Parliament in a collective tantrum after Frendo opted to re-listen to votes in order to understand whether allegations by members from the government benches would be substantiated – and whether MP for Gozo Justyne Caruana had also erred in her vote.

’Coz Mario did it first, you know. He was tired, miskin. Exhausting, this government business. He said “yes” instead of “no” and then it was too late. The House of Representatives (of what?) descended into absolute chaos as bullies started a yelling competition while Tonio Borg tried to make a point of order. Our representative relative majority government and relatively incapable Opposition went about representing us as well as they could.

Prior to the voting debacle, grown-up men on the government benches defended the Power Station contract and agreements blindly and ignored the big questions that had been raised in the Auditor General’s report. Then grown-up men from the Opposition benches had a parallel discussion with presumably a different interlocutor. It was evident from the discussion that all sides were intent on speaking and no one was listening. Our young journalist of an Opposition leader rued the opportunity to have the debate screened live on public TV so he could preen and crow in a show paid for by our taxes.

At the bottom of the power station contract issues lie the problems of transparency, of political party funding, of reforming our system of representation in order to create a wider gap between private interests and partisan politics. None of this was discussed, except for when the renegade Franco Debono reminded the House of the need for a law on party funding. His calls were soon drowned by the ruckus and by what has been described farcically as an “attakk fahxi” on Justyne Caruana – Malta’s new version of Burma’s Aun San Suu Kyi.

bert4j_100509

Well Hung

It’s pretty clear that if the UK electorate did not vote strongly enough to force through the necessary electoral reform, it will be a hundred times more difficult to get that kind of message through to this masochistic electorate of ours. Our PLPN farce that has once again descended to incredible levels of mediocrity this week will hang on for another mandate. Whether we have the not so smooth operators of PN or the bungling drama queens of Labour in government after the next election, J’accuse is still of the same opinion as it has been in recent times – the greatest losers are the voters, hung parliament or not.

Malta’s number one political blog and mediawatch still has the same address: www.akkuza.com – blogging so you don’t have to.

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s Malta Independent on Sunday.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]