Tag: PLPN

Categories
Politics

That last interview

If I did not have the habit of scrolling through the news on my phone while still in bed I would not have noticed that the Times was already half way through an interview with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando by 7.30 am (corrigendum – One TV was, the Times was reporting). If that is not a sign that time is running out on this man’s relevance to the local scenario then I do not know what is.

The only reason his words are being rushed to “online” print as he speaks (rather than being kept for some yawn-inducing suspense until Sunday) is that the level of interest into what JPO has to say will probably be close to zilch by the time a particular meeting is over tonight.

The dentist has not changed one iota from March 2008 when his antics and shenanigans were intended to outwit Alfred Sant’s Labour in a battle of “con the people”. He may have switched allegiance insofar as the inspirations of spin are concerned but the final outcome is (ever so wrapped in poetic justice) same, same but different.

There is a simple logical premiss to be made behind all this. IF JPO really believes whatever he says he is believing then the only step available to him right now is to take his estranged self outside the body politic that is the Nationalist party. He obviously knows as much as everybody else that the only reason that he was not expelled from the party last week was  a matter of convenience – the PN is waiting for him to step out or at worst to be the cause of the premature end of government.

The hemlock had been served but rather than swallow it JPO “fights” on, probably believing that he is some kind of Samson about to bring the whole edifice tumbling down. His is a dirty game. There are no two ways about it. It is a game where values and principles are so far off track that they could be mistaken for whores at a harem.

His final grand “j’accuse” (not that he is worthy of such words) is a mass of conjecture that is being propped up (or isn’t) by a mixture of Labourite wannabe smartarses whose relationship with the truth is one of selective convenience. Worse than that it is more often than not a lack of truth based on a series of implications, insinuations and winks that can only shame the messenger and not the accused. The constant media harangue against the persona of Richard Cachia Caruana ever since the Labour Wikileaks fiasco has only produced a series of unfounded “impressions” and another series of allegations that have been swiftly denied.

The worst part (for JPO) is that the whole business on the agenda now has nothing to do with crude politics. This is far from a party split based on ideological dissent. It is personal. Very personal. Neither does JPO mention, for one second, any issue of governmental mismanagement – you know, of the kind Labour harps so much about. The main crux of his allegation now is some kind of collusion between RCC and Labour in 1996.

JPO knows that his is a lost cause. Hence his preparing the ground with such phrases as “fighting a lost battle”. Funnier still were such excuses as “if I see X and Y at the door I will simply walk out”.

Walk out he should have. Ages ago. Frankly he should never have walked in. When others preferred to waste their spin on alternattiva demokratika candidates remonstrating at Mistra in 2008 they should have focused on the man in sunglasses sitting on the rubble wall or sporting a china tea cup. They might have avoided this raging bull entering their china shop.

Now it’s up to them to pick up the broken pieces. Meanwhile the signs are even clearer that we will not have to wait for a long time for elections to be announced after the summer recess ends.

The lesson for the intelligent voter (if one was still needed) is that voting is not simply a matter of putting a number next to a party endorsed individual. (If you don’t believe me ask Franco on his new blog). You have to really ask yourself – who is this guy/lass I am voting for. After all we now  have a confirmation that the PLPN cannot be trusted when it comes to party endorsements.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Malta Post-Franco (Reprise)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

from Malta Post-Franco (II)

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

Categories
Politics

PM.pn – auctioning off the prime minister

I’m afraid that I may be a little late on this one since I was still lounging by the pool when this “initiative” made the headlines. To be quite honest when I first heard of it I thought it was a joke – a funny “tickle me under the arms” affair that goes by the name of satire these days. Could it be that the lads at Bis-Serjetà pulled off another “The Onion” inspired headline?  Sadly my first hunch was wrong and the Partit Nazzjonalista was really offering its followers a chance to “become PM for a day” (and win an iPad 3 to boot).  Here is how the Independent reported the possible winnings (PN launches “Be PM for a day”):

The winner of this contest will be handed the opportunity to propose one particular idea or project, as well as naming his or her own members of Cabinet and members of parliament from their acquaintances. The winner will spend a whole day with the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 19 June during which he or she will get to meet the press, tour the corridors of Castille, and discuss policy ideas with Dr Gonzi.

Now this idea of “reaching out” to the public by one of our two political parties smacks of “wrong” in so many ways that I risk missing out on some of them if I do not turn them into a “list”. In these days when marketing and snazzy websites might trump content many people might think that this move is actually “good”, we beg to differ and here is why:

1. PN (a party) – PM (a head of government)

The first and most obvious objection to this crass exercise of X Factor meets Castille is the fact that a party initiative, kicking off from a party website is auctioning off the role of a government position. Not just any government position but THE BIG KAHUNA. It’s the PM seat for chrissakes and they are not even playing make believe. For it would be one thing if the winner would “fake” being Prime Minister and play along in a sort of re-enactment with his friends and the press… you know a sort of King Carnival but for politics. But it’s another thing when our Prime Minister is actually part and parcel of the prize. Which brings me to point two…

2. Does not PM Gonzi have better things to do?

After all what with all these ridiculous motions by the opposition, an economy to hold steady and a government with that perilous one seat majority you would expect a Prime Minister to spend his time in better ways than prancing around with a make believe duplicate addressing press releases about fancy projects from the citizen. What does he expect them to come up with? Something fantastical? A tunnel to Gozo perhaps?

3. The Miseducation of Joe Citizen

Once we’re on this play acting business, even if we were prepared to play along with the party game then there is the not too irrelevant business of education. If we really are trying to get something out of this exercise how about not drumming home the idea that the PM is such a powerful man that he names “his or her own members of Cabinet and members of parliament from their acquaintances”. I mean for crying out loud do they not even stop and read what they propose? A PM choosing members of parliament? From their acquaintances? What shall we call it? “Il-parlament tal-ħbieb (tal=ħbieb) tal-Prim Ministru”? A prime minister does not choose members of parliament – the people do. That’s lesson number one in basic democratic skills innit?

4. Tour the corridors of Castille and discuss policy

Seriously. I was under the impression that Castille had its open days during the nuits blanches that are thrown every now and then. Anybody could get to walk into Castille and shake Dr Gonzi’s hand. As for policy – this is running a bit thin isn’t it? I mean is this the best “listening” the PN can do?

The “Be a PM for a day” is an exercise that would be more fitting in Azerbaijan than in Malta. Yet it is happening and the danger is that it is actually being taken seriously by the fourth estate and the voters who are meant to be more demanding on our politicians and their parties. What next? Shall we bring Simon Cowell in to evaluate the contestants? After all guys like Christian Peregin might have a conflict of interest selecting the winner while also interviewing them on the day they got to play PM.

Strength and resilience. Lord knows that we’re going to need much of those till election time.

 

Categories
Politics

Donor Issues

David Cameron is in trouble. He has admitted to hosting dinners for major Tory donors at his private flat at Downing Street  – against payment. Tory Chief fundraiser Peter Cruddas has had to resign in the wake of a scandal after he was filmed by undercover Sunday Times reporters “claiming that he could secure them an audience with the Prime Minister or Chancellor”. Access on offer depended on the size of the donations and he implied that the wish lists by donors could end up being considered in the “policy committee at No 10”.

This morning’s Tory position is that the party will refuse to name any donors who have already taken advantage of this “scheme”. The excuse being put out is that if there were any such dinners they were hosted within the private area of the PM’s flat in Downing Street and therefore the details pertaining to such events would also be private. Which is a load of bollocks. Put simply, if a donor paid anything up to £250,000 it was not to ogle at David and Samantha’s dinner set or sample their culinary intrepidity but rather because of the more appetizing possibilities of influencing public policy. Also David and Samantha do not live in Downing Street because one day they found a good bargain on the property market. They live in Downing Street because the British Prime Minister lives in a flat next door to his office. A flat funded by taxpayer’s money. Private my backside.

The problem here lies not with the idea of parties going round begging for money to keep their circus alive but obviously with the manner with which such monetary collection is performed. Back home Labour politicians have gone all misty eyed at the generosity apparently demonstrated by the man in the street as the PL managed to get its supporters to cough up a little less than the price of a “private dinner” at Downing Street in the course of a one day fund raising event. Evarist Bartolo went on that most public of records (facebook) to declaim that “one euro from a family is better than a million euros obtained from a contractor found on the Yellow Pages”.

Franco Debono has brought the issue of party fundraising to the forefront of Maltese politics, much to the chagrin of both behemoths in parliament who had opiated the population into a reluctant acceptance of the modus operandi. How though will we ever regulate party donations? Will not some rulebook thrown at the very custodians of our political framework fail spectacularly as the PLPN will proceed with their regular charades of “fund raising” where the anonymous benefactor (and purchaser of influence) mingles with the happy one euro families?

So what solution? Should we look across the Atlantic where dinners are openly thrown on a regular basis in order to support candidates? It’s not tombola parties or seven church visits with your local MP – that not so  subtle excuse to justify electoral expenses. It’s more like gala dinners with €1,000 tickets per guest where the creme de la creme of societies lobbyists mingle with politicians and openly flirt with their affiliation. Yes, capitalist money has votes as much as your emancipated self. It either operates in the back corridors as your latest Cruddas auctions off the nation’s public policy to the highest bidder or operates in the open – where you can see who backs who and eventually might even choose to vote for the polticians who are clear about the allegiances who have curried their favour.

The fine link between the lobbyist’s influence and the politician’s decision will never be broken. What could be done is lift the veil of anonymity thus making the pacts clear and the giving the voter a clearer picture of the wider frame of the political horse-trading going on.

Will it work? Hang on to your money. I’m not taking any bets. Or donations.

 

Categories
Local Councils Politics

The Julian Galea Electors

Julian Galea is the only PN candidate in Sliema to have survived the mess from the previous council. On any other day he would have been hailed as a resilient survivor instead, like an ugly wart, he has become the latest manifestation of the obsessive symptoms of Maltese electoral practices. Galea’s infamy began when he was unlucky enough to be entrapped into a recording of vile pronouncements expounding quite succinctly his base intolerance for anything Labour (Apparently, if you believe Galea this happened two years ago in a meeting between PN candidates – bravu Cirillu). It was too late to withdraw him from the electoral lists (even death is not strong enough to nullify a candidate’s listing once the nominations are closed).

We all know where it went from there. It’s not like no one had heard about Julian Galea’s insipid pronouncements – Labour made it quite a point to have them broadcast all over the place. Armed with the knowledge of Galea’s behaviour any voter in his right mind would have desisted from even mistakenly marking the little square on the ballot beside the candidate’s disgraced name if only to spare him the ignominy of having to remaining in the public eye for an extended period of time.

Julian Galea was – how shall I put it kindly – not just not presentable but also supposedly unelectable. The only persons you’d expect would put their mark near his name in the hope of his getting elected to the Sliema council would be scheming Labourites hoping to capitalise on his glaring presence. Yet….

Julian Galea got 233 votes. Two centuries and a third. He “only” lost 60 votes from his previous tally in 2009. True he got elected on the 17th count when he had still not reached the quota of 517 having obtained 376 votes in all (inheriting 143 from other candidates). What would have been a miserable performance must be seen from another perspective though.  Who were those 233 souls who still rallied for Julian and his phobias?

Forget the noise from the pundits trying to desperately fit the Local Council shoe onto the twin ugly sisters’ General Election feet. This has nothing to do with labour/nationalist swings. It has nothing to do with the supposed “changing of Malta’s political demography”. Here you had the plain and simple reality of what makes up the bulk of Maltese politics.

On the eve of the elections we tried to warn you in “The Ugly Dress Rehearsal“. J’accuse described what the voter should be looking at in the candidates:

It should be obvious to anyone who stops to think for a moment that the ultimate consideration therefore when casting one’s vote is the competence and potential of the candidate. To summarise it more succinctly: It is not WHO is behind the candidate but rather WHO HE IS and WHAT HE STANDS FOR. 

Did the voters do any of that? Do the results of the Local Council Elections show us a discerning voter who is involved in large scale swings and confidence issues and is busy sending “messages” to this or that party? Not really no. You might enjoy the charade of conflicting interpretations that the PLPN circus is likely to feed you over the next coming weeks. You might love the myriad interpretations: “PN must listen. Labour has gained inroads in the North. Time for change.” Lahdidah.

In reality what happened is much simpler. Occam’s razor again. It rained. Heavily. Most people had had enough of the circus (except maybe Silvio Zammit). They just could not be bothered. Who bothered to go out to vote? The die-hards. They are the people who wouldn’t miss a trip to the ballot if they were dying. It’s ingrained. Their vote is tattooed on their brain. And then in Local Councils there are what we can assume to be the core of voters for each candidate. Families, neighbours, close friends who feel obliged to get their man in.

That is how Julian Galea, no matter what he says or does will keep getting at least around 250 votes every time he contests the Local Council elections. It is anything but an assessment of his capacity to convince voters to vote for him. If you want a litmus test for that just look at AD’s darling Mike Briguglio. In 2009 Mike got 457 votes and was not elected (Edward Cuschieri – PN – got elected on the 10th count in that election even though his first preference votes numbered 222). This time round his tally was 485 votes. Not much of a shift was there? That 28 vote increase transformed AD’s failure into success. Or at least we would like to think so.

Another way of reading the results – and by this I mean most of the results is that they are about as prophetic and indicative as tea leaves at the bottom of a teacup. Voters have neither swung nor used their votes to express any particular concern. Even less should we be worrying about those who did not bother to turn up.  Protest vote my foot. At this rate the only conclusion that I am willing to draw about these absentees is that they saw nothing available to make the trip to the ballot box worth it. More than a protest vote it is a lazily calculated snub at what  is on offer on the menu. I’m guessing there will be much less of these when the General Elections come along.

So there you have it. What have the LC Elections in 2012 taught us about your average voter? That he still remains that – average. The intelligent voter stayed at home this time round. He is still out there however.

 

Will the parties take note?

 

Categories
Local Councils Politics

The Ugly Dress Rehearsal

They’re electing representatives of the people in a number of councils tomorrow. From Zebbug (Gozo) to Sliema (Malta) the voters who will bother to take a stroll to the polling booth will be electing a group of people who are supposedly best placed to manage the needs of their locality. That is the principle behind the process of administrative devolution that began in 1993 with the setting up of the local council system.  It’s almost twenty years now and the Kunsilli are ingrained in our political system of representation – for good or for bad – and ever since Labour’s rethink about participation in local politics they have also been a microcosm of our wider political field.

Ever since the times of Cicero, electoral campaigns for the municipium  were a hotly contested affair. As the wikipedia article will tell you the ultimate right for a citizen is the right to vote (civitas optimo iure) – something to be treasured above all. Ugly electoral campaigns are also not something new and notions of slander, corruption and dirty politics on the eve of elections were not exactly invented by the PLPN crowd. Nothing new under the sun there. So what to expect from tomorrow’s vote?

Well, the result per se, should technically not have a meaning beyond enabling us to understand whether our cives have become more intelligent with the use of their ultimate power. At the end of the day the municipal council that is elected in each locality will have an effect on the lives of its citizens via the decisions it takes. It should be obvious to anyone who stops to think for a moment that the ultimate consideration therefore when casting one’s vote is the competence and potential of the candidate. To summarise it more succinctly: It is not WHO is behind the candidate but rather WHO HE IS and WHAT HE STANDS FOR. 

And that is where we start to get complicated. Down on the ground, where it counts, I have no reason to suspect that every candidate contesting the elections and committing his or her time for a few years of civic duty has plans and ideas for the running of his locality. Even better I am sure that in the absolute majority of cases the interest is borne by a love of the locality and a desire to improve it or bring out the best in it. That is after all what the council election is about. All this happens behind the elaborate facade that is the involvement of the major political parties and it is not helped by the fact that this set of elections is the last official public scrutiny before the next general elections.

So we get the ugly dress rehearsal. Once again signs will be read where there are none. For the umpteenth time Labour will make a song and dance about winning local elections when in opposition. It’s not like we have not already been there. It is an exercise in collective dis-education.  Why? Because your criteria when voting for local representatives should be the competence of the candidates and not whether you are exercising your vote to send a message to the Prime Minister. If you are stupid enough to waste the great prerogative that you have to choose the best local representatives because you’d rather be sending some message to the PN government then your idea of how democracy works is seriously flawed.

Labour could not help itself though. Thanks to Franco Debono’s antics it was duped into campaign mode at what turns out to be a very early stage and is now desperately trying to keep the election mode going as much as possible. That is why although we are speaking about local councils and performance the national media is full of arrows and stabs aimed at the heart of “GonziPN”. And then there was the whole RecordingsGate. First Joanna Gonzi then Julian Galea then Gonzi again were caught on tape – unsurprisingly all the candidates were from Cyrus Engerer’s Sliema council. The public heard PN candidates utter the obvious – our inbred tribal hatred was suddenly there for all to see. The PN countered with a few clips of its own – giving the usual suspects pride of place in its counter-information exercise.

The relevance this had for Local Council politics was that it reinforced the idea that PLPN still do not bother to screen candidates to check their suitability for public office. Did we need the recordings to find that out? There is a paucity of political potential already as it is and the recordings only threw the truth into everybody’s face. From Mosta to Sliema the signs of an illness in our system were already evident. As for dress rehearsals for an election we saw the two behemoths unashamedly re-engage in slander and mud-slinging politics where content is relegated to the footnotes of a manifesto. There it was – a race to uncover the sleaziest candidate, long-forgotten criminal records unveiled and more. What should have been a legitimate exercise of democratic checks-and-balances became a witch-hunt.

Then came Muscat’s Iron Lady performance. As others have pointed out it was obvious were Muscat got his Assisian inspiration from. The Labour leader would have fared much better had he memorised another great line from the movie: It used to be about trying to do something, now it’s all about trying to be someone. And that really hits the nail on the head. With the politics of taste that were inaugurated early this century substance makes way for charades, for strutting and for many words that cannot be backed by thoughts and ideas. Values have been thrown out of the window and marketing and imagery is all the vogue.

With our politicians busy playing along the weary scripts and jumping from one pleasant bandwagon to the next in the hope of boosting their already bloated caricatures on this stage we have only a huge dramatic performance to look forward to come next national elections. For now we have been regaled with some very ugly scenes that made for a horrible dress rehearsal. 

But let us not forget that there cannot be a play or a charade without an audience. It brings me back to the intelligent use of the vote. It’s not, as many may think, simply an appeal to vote for alternattiva demokratika. It’s a much wider appeal for the citizen to finally live up to this immense responsibility and make the right choices. Look through the candidates. Look at them beyond the colours they represent and seriously ask yourself what you can see them doing six months down the line that can improve the state of your community. Accept any other criterion beyond that and you are making a fool of yourself. 

And as a fool, you might as well join the other pagliacci on stage….

Vesti la giubba,
e la faccia infarina.
La gente paga, e rider vuole qua.
E se Arlecchin t’invola Colombina,
ridi, Pagliaccio, e ognun applaudirà!
Tramuta in lazzi lo spasmo ed il pianto
in una smorfia il singhiozzo e ‘l dolor, Ah!

Ridi, Pagliaccio,
sul tuo amore infranto!
Ridi del duol, che t’avvelena il cor!