Tag: PLPN

Categories
Local Councils Politics

Hate crimes, Nationalist Candidates and PLPN Emos

The latest smart cookie from the constellation of Local Council Candidates has hit the news. This time it is Julian Galea – nationalist candidate for the Sliema Council – who has been lucky enough to have been caught on “secret tape” declaiming among other things his “phobia of Labourites” and boasting how his Labour-leaning employees earn less than Nationalist employees. This exposé could not come at a better time in order to expose the ridiculous idea behind “hate crimes”. You had Maltastar.com headlining this bit of news with a large sign saying “Stop Hating”.

It’s the DNA business all over again. One candidate or politician is caught expressing the thoughts that go through the heads of most fanatics of one of the two tribes any given day and suddenly we are all Padre Pios and discover our inner emos that are silently indignated by this offensive behaviour. How bloody typical.

Which is not in any way justifying what Julian Galea said. Julian Galea is your typical “anything goes” candidate like the Alexis Callouses (sic) of this world. He is a symptom of the abject inability of a party to shed its temptation to field as many candidates as possible without a proper screening. His “phobia” bullshit does not merit to be classified as a crime although we have a draft law that potentially will make it so. Incidentally with regards to the possibility of different pay for different political creeds we ALREADY have a law against that so no need for another one (and EU law enthusiasts will remember Defrenne vs Sabena). I vaguely suspect that he meant that Labourites are not high achievers and therefore end up on the lower end of the pay scale not that he pays on the basis of political allegiance – still, this does not make his talk any better or more palatable.

I too have a phobia. I have a phobia for stupid. It is a low threshold of tolerance and people like Julian Galea make my blood boil. So do the media manipulators who are now desperately trying to link his employment policy to GonziPN. Because it’s obvious isn’t it… if Julian Galea (I hadn’t heard of this geezer till today) thinks so then the PN must be endorsing this policy. But that is our politics. It has been for the past fifteen years now. Candidates not worth the poster their face is printed on, media frenzies of shit-stirring emptiness and a misguided appeal to values of convenience.

We are all emos now. It’s in our DNA.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Franco Bonaparte?

Last time that I hinted at a link between Franco Debono and a historical figure I was told off in private by one of the blog’s more finicky readers. Well, mea culpa if Franco does not quite fit the “Generalissimo” label but the Rebel MP has now taken to quoting another general for his purposes. The Times asked for Debono’s comments in the light of this mornings Leadership Debate being hosted by that same paper and Franco was happy to oblige. The crucial statement is as apocryphal as modern day PLPN politicians can get – leaving as much leeway for interpretation as Saint John’s Apocalyptic scriptures:

The crisis will only be over when the oligarchy is dismantled, the elitist rule of ‘planet clique’ comes down to earth and democracy is strengthened. Even certain quarters of the business community have been complaining for some time about this clique mentality.

Whatever happened to the four riders of the apocalypse and how exactly will “planet clique” come down to earth? Is this a new religion? More specifically has Franco been reduced to speaking in riddles in order to be able to keep us hanging on to his every word? Joseph’s Labour still pin their hopes on stability but in truth they don’t care whether Franco goes this way or that. Joseph’s reading is clear: there is stability whatever the PM says (or does). Muscat has bought himself a joker by claiming that if Franco turns back to the fold of government (what Labour are calling a U-turn even though he never actually voted against government) he will have been “bought” so his opinion does not count.

The nationalist party is in denial too. It doesn’t care whichever way about this minor hiccup in Malta’s political history. It is buying its time till the leadership “election” to fill the vacancy that does not exist. That way we get to ignore Franco at least till the resounding “Gonzi, Gonzi, Gonzi” echoes in the halls of Dar Centrali once the result is out. Then Franco will be given the choice to either follow or get the fuck out. Simples. Next we will have the Local Council elections dragging on to Sliema’s 10th March date which will give us the opportunity to mentally masturbate about figures that have absolutely no bearing on a future national election result. As a a people we are amused and easily distracted by these controversies.

Back to Franco. He makes an interesting assertion in his Times interview.

Dr Debono, a prominent criminal lawyer who has been campaigning for Constitutional reforms, said that after the French revolution one of Napoleon’s greatest conquests was not military in nature. It was the establishment of meritocracy where careers were open to talent. It was the call to dismantle privileges enjoyed by the nobility and the oligarchy. Meritocracy was even more important in a small country like Malta, he said. These are the foundation of our European culture and identity.

I wish the Times would cut the crap of the “prominent criminal lawyer” bit. Franco has been practising criminal law as long as I have been practising European Law – and I’ve spent seven of those years at the European Court of Justice. Should that make me a prominent European lawyer? The only prominence Franco gets – irrespective of his qualities as a lawyer – is the limelight currently afforded to him by circumstance, failing that he’s about as prominent a criminal lawyer as any other recent graduate from the law course (yes… barely 12 years is recent).

Emperor Napoleon the Meritocratic

As for the reference to Napoleon’s meritocratic destruction of the nobility… really Franco? Your knowledge of history borders on the criminal. It took Napoleon Bonaparte a few years to decide that the Republic was not such a good idea after all and to Crown himself Emperor  (in May 1804 before a hapless Pope Pius VII). Oh he did get the senate to vote a law to that effect… it stated in a very PLPN style:

“The government of the Republic is vested in an Emperor, who takes the title of Emperor of the French.”

There you go. Napoleon then proceed to meritocratically install his family all across Europe in the main royal households. Here’s a wikipedia refresher point about the House of Napoleon:

Throughout its history, the dynasty, as well as being Emperors of the French, held various other titles and territories including; their ancestral nation theKingdom of Italy, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Westphalia, Kingdom of Holland and the Kingdom of Naples. The dynasty was in a position of power for around a decade until the Napoleonic Wars began to take their toll. Making very powerful enemies such as Austria, United Kingdom, Russia andPrussia, as well as royalist (particularly Bourbon) restorational movements in France, Spain, the Two Sicilies and Sardinia, the dynasty eventually collapsed under its own weight.

Not looking so anti-clique now are they Franco? What can we say…

THE CLIQUE SHOULD DIE, LONG LIVE THE CLIQUE

 

Categories
Politics

Malta Post-Franco (II) – Franco

There could be no other place to begin than with the main protagonist. Franco Debono kept the whole nation waiting with bated breath for the unfolding of whatever his plan might be. Notwithstanding his declared agenda it was hard to second guess where he may be going with it – especially since the timing of most of his decisions seemed to be misjudged and more importantly because whatever plans he had were constantly outshone by his ego.

It could be that in order to fight the establishment you do need balls the size of Mosta dome and it is also a fact that in Malta short of renting an applaud-me crowd of hacks and elves you end up having to blow your own trumpet. It could be all that and more but there seemed to be more than one point where Franco Debono seemed to have lost the plot.

To be fair most of the contents of Franco Debono’s list of grievances survive the test of political sanity. They are far from being a Norman Lowell style list of anachronistic or loony policies. Taken individually some of the minor points (cassette tapes in court) tend to remove  the shine from a plan that includes wholistic institutional reform and a strong direct challenge to the PLPN lifeline of unregulated party financing. Franco Debono has done more for the cause of highlighting the problems of our duopolistic rush to mediocrity than anyone else in the last twenty years. So what  went wrong?

Well beyond the egomaniacal self-aggrandisement and the scattered presentation of the grievances, Franco Debono’s biggest problem was one: timing. It is always a pertinent question to ask when analysing the news: Why Now? Why indeed did Franco rock the boat when he did? Franco’s edginess became pronounced following the divorce vote in parliament – Dr Gonzi’s vote against the popular vote seems to have done the trick. The problem is that judging by what Franco has to say nowadays there is no real correlation between the divorce vote and the problems he highlights.

From day one, this government has always been at risk of being at the mercy of a one-seat renegade. As I pointed out early after last election, GonziPN might have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat but this was done at a the expense of stability. It was not just the one seat-majority but also the pick’n’mix of candidates that were virtually an undeclared coalition of disparate ideas and agendas patched together simply to garner votes.

So why does Franco wait till the dying moments of this legislature before dropping the big bomb? The urgency of institutional reform and of electoral reform did not occur overnight. The question of “cliques” running our political parties – a direct consequence of their internal systems adapting to the parallel mechanisms of power on a national scale – were also there from Day 1. So why now?

The outcome of last Thursday’s vote might point to a compromise having been reached. Did Franco get a promise that the legislation he wants will be passed through parliament? That’s highly unlikely. You do not prepare a “wholistic change” to constitutional structures in six months. Even the much taunted Party Financing bill risks running into a 3/4 majority parliament wall should it attempt to introduce crimes for violations of electoral law.

So if that was not the compromise what was? The hunch we have is that Franco is attempting to change the power hierarchies of the nationalist party by threatening the stability of government. The hints are there – his calls for PM Gonzi’s resignation are qualified with additional calls that he should change his ring of advisors and that a number of ministers’ heads should roll. Ironically Debono sees the strongest justification for filling the party hierarchies (and Ministries) as being popular support : universal suffrage.

So Debono’s timing for the party financing and reform laws blew the wind out of his sails as to whether or not he is the great champion of reform. Instead the timing of his abstention and all that surrounds it points to the real battle he seems to be engaging: an internal one within the PN hierarchy. Either Don Quixote has chosen the wrong windmill to battle or he has identified the wrong priority.

Again Debono stands as living proof of the wrong perception that PLPN politics has of our nation’s constitutional construct. Oftentimes we use the word “arrogant” to describe politicians. Well the arrogance of PLPN political thought lies in the fact that to them the constitutional institutions and the rules governing them are there to serve the party and its need to fit in a duopolistic system of alternation.

Which is what leads a backbencher who is suddenly thrust into a chair of dizzying slim-majority power in parliament to take on the whole system with the simple aim of improving his stance within the Nationalist party hierarchy.

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.

The honourable aims of reforming and improving our constitutional and institutional framework, of changing our electoral laws and rules of party financing became a club to be wielded clumsily in the hands of a very angry backbencher who believed that he had been overlooked one time too many.

What next for Debono? It remains to be seen whether the nationalist party will play out their part of the deal that won them a temporary respite from the Debono tsunami. His role within the party is imperiled if he fails to obtain the right to present himself as a candidate for the next election. Technically his career should be over: “sacrificed” as he likes to put it, for the greater good. Ironically he might be a magnet for the kind of voter that liked his shit-stirring antics and who would rather vote a maverick than vote labour. That kind of voter believed Franco’s promises of reform and is the kind who would have loved Franco’s swan song in parliament.

Debono’s fate is intrinsically tied to the decisions that the party that he claims he loves will take in the near future. If the PN once again will be in the business of assembling a rag-tag group of disparate candidates then he might be in on the off-chance that his Champion of the Disgruntled image wins him a few number 1s. It will be a hard struggle though and until the next elections Debono might still have the last word in precipitating a Nationalist party decision to go to the polls.

The Age of the Generalissimo is, in all probability, almost over.

 

Categories
Politics

Malta post-Franco (I)

Don’t feel guilty if you are still reeling from yesterday’s anti-climax in Parliament. Everybody (and I mean everybody) had different expectations and most of them were based on short-term assessments that were themselves based on a mixture of emotion, curiosity and differing levels of partisan intrigue. Insofar as the live unrolling of events was concerned you could not have written a better script. Christian Peregin of the Times could report every step as is without the need to colour the news. Classics abounded – Herrera’s Twistees, Franco’s phone, the MP’s reading the step-by-step account from the Times, the whips’ frenetic calls, the packed strangers gallery. This year’s Panto was not at the Manoel or Ta’ Qali… it was wired straight to your TV set, radio or computer.

Not many of us yelled “Look behind you” during the actual debate but we did get the full panto “booing and clapping” shortly after the session finished (see video) and the outcome was clear. The biggest surprise for J’accuse was that many people were surprised at the outcome. That there were many (many) men in the street still crossing their fingers rooting for Franco to vote in favour of the confidence motion was acceptable. That it became increasingly evident that the Labour party actually had hoped for this to happen exposed new levels of naivety within the party’s strategists.

There were less sighs of relief from the Nationalist party end but this was probably more due to the fact that they were fully aware of some sort of deal with Debono that had avoided the worst. The nationalist party would live to govern another few days but the exercise of damage limitation had not avoided multiple bruising and the attempt to portray any sense of triumphalism that Joseph’s side had been “defeated” would only expose a shallowness and falsity that aggravated matters further. The cracks had just got wider and hell did they know it.

That was the day that was. In the next few posts (later this afternoon) J’accuse will take an in-depth look at all the participants and try to analyse what this means in the long and short term.

In the first part we will look at the parties and take stock of their current position: Did Franco abstain because of his reluctance to gift Joseph Muscat with what he wanted or was a carrot dangled before him? How far into election mode are we? The parties were evidently unprepared for election mode – will the race without a warm up be advantageous to any of them? Will the No Confidence Saga leave any dents in any of the parties’ armour? Can Alternattiva Demokratika ride the wave of evident disgruntlement at the PLPN methodology? Will this election  lead to another Victory by Default?

The next part will focus on voters and their reasoning. Is the voter prepared to make his vote count? What are his criteria? Will the voter consider the possibility of breaking 50 years of PLPN duopoly? Can he? Are the signs of “two-tribes” politics subsiding or are they being reinforced with the new digital pepper added on?

All this and more in J’accuse’s “Malta Post-Franco” analysis starting today.

If you have not subscribed to our email updates then this is probably the best time to do so. Enter your email address (right column subscription box) and you will receive an email update every time a new post has been added to J'accuse. Also do not forget to check out the other blogs in our Akkuza Soapbox (also right column) who are also actively commenting on the current political situation as it unravels. 
Categories
Politics

When Daphne was right

Following the speculation in the media about possible alternative electoral methods the discussion has returned to focus on the “premio maggioranza” – the compensation of seats for the party winning a majority (even relative) of votes in an election. The “stability” excuse gets politicians thinking of mechanisms to make it less possible for a renegade “Franco” to shake the boat. It is indeed incredible how they cannot see the flaw in the premisses of their argument. First of all stability should not be the be all and end all. The cause of the current instability can be found in our constitutional articles – the famous “enjoys the support of the majority of the members”. The reason the Gonzi’s PN or Sant’s MLP had a one seat majority was because they did not get enough votes to justify more seats (don’t mention gerrymandering – it’s a case of PLPN games anyway- if that’s the problem just abolish districts).

Before I go on, remember that the “suggestion” is still that – a suggestion. None of the parties have been stupid enough to take a position official or semi-official. The Times carried an article with interviews with Joe Brincat and Ranier Fsadni  – that’s all. Still this question of “premio maggioranza” needs to be tackled once and for all. It’s nonsense. If something like an automatic three-seat margin is accepted then we might as well (as someone suggested) give 34 votes to the PM and 31 to the leader of the Opposition and then just vanish till the next election. Dynamic democracy needs a better definition and interpretation of the transfer of power from voter to representatives. It is by nature a transfer that remains dynamic and allows for scrutiny of the different branches of government that should be acting as trustees of the voter’s power.

Which brings me to this article from the past. From January 2008. The theme was the other side of the coin: the Wasted Vote. It is also another victim of a system envisaged to reward two parties excessively and to the exclusion of the rest. In this article I was replying to an article by Daphne Caruana Galizia on the Independent.

***

(Alas) Daphne’s Right

Posted on January 29, 2008

What follows is a letter that was NOT sent to the Malta Independent on Sunday for a number of reasons. It is a reply to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article entitled “Settle down and read this, please“.

It has become a weird habit of politicians to apologise to editors for the space they use up in the letters pages whenever they write in with their contribution. Now I am neither a politician nor am I the apologetic type but I do feel a tinge of guilt that the subject matter of this letter requires more space than is the norm for a letter to the editor which in most circumstances should be short and to the point.

In her article last Sunday, columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia berated the “tiresome lawyer” Claire Bonello for ‘relentlessly whining’ against all that is Nationalist as well as for not declaring her bias towards Alternattiva Demokratika. There is much to be said about the necessity of declaring a bias that is obvious for all to see but that is not why I put fingers to keyboard to contribute to this discussion. What really interests me is the issue of “basic electoral mathematics” so ably brought up by Daphne – the matter of wasted votes.

It is a uniquely magical effect of this country’s electoral laws that give us a situation where – and Claire will surely pardon me for adapting her poster – you “Vote Harry, Get Freddie”. Daphne is right. So right on the issue of these peddling Alternattiva vote-catchers who prey on the arithmetically challenged chatterers of the Sliema Bourgeoisie. Surely they are aware that the votes they crave for their leader will be flushed down the electoral toilet. A vote for Alternattiva is the electoral equivalent of Professor Refalo’s negative marking in the Constitutional law exams for first year law students. You don’t just waste your vote, it’s also less votes for PN and hey presto one more feather in Freddie’s cap.

How funny that I should mention Constitutional law. That very constitution against which the laws of the land should be tested – the kelsenian grundnorm that guarantees that we live in a democratic country and not in a Banana Republic. Daphne is right. The current electoral formula does not allow you to focus on the party you want in power. It does not allow you to say “Hey. I don’t like the nationalists. I not even vote for the MLP when I’m dead lest my vote be counted with that of the living. Then why not vote for AD?”

Why not indeed. It seems that when you think that way you choose to ignore the ominous presence of a potentially disastrous party ready to pounce on Castille. Daphne believes that asking people to vote AD means ignoring the existence of MLP. Something like the child wishing the monster away and hoping the adults will deal with it. Which could be true. Only there is a bit of twisted logic in that too. It may be a step up from basic arithmetic but I am sure Daphne could bear with me as I explain.

You see the problem is that, as the European Parliament elections proved, given the chance 20,000 or so individuals would vote for a different kind of politician. Let me be clear about this. It does not necessarily have to be Alternattiva. My interest is the breaking of the stranglehold of bipartisan politics – and Alternattiva is currently the only plausible alternative I can think of. I see it as a Trojan Horse into the fortified battlements of MLPN. Getting rid of the dichotomy means getting rid of the parochial way of thinking and governing.

So, given the chance people will change voting habits. The bigwigs at MLPN noticed that and last year they dealt the final blow to this possibility. They took away the chance for thousands of voters (even Daphne’s chance) to vote for another party when irked with the two of them. They created the mathematical formula that underlies Daphne’s argument. She is right. Of course she is right.Under the present magical formula concocted by the PN and passed unanimously in parliament, 20,000 votes spread among the 13 districts of the country can be lost. A party garnering 20,000 votes will not get one single seat in parliament. The magic words “proportional representation” have been neutered to an insulting situation where: if, and only if, two parties get elected to parliament under the present system then the seats shall be allocated proportionally to their national vote.

Daphne is right. What she is telling us is this. If you were ever thinking of changing the political spectrum in this country you have been royally screwed. The disincentive first trumpeted to the masses by then PM Fenech Adami – vote AD get Labour – is now here to stay. In one fell sweep, PN got rid of the only party that could seriously challenge its programs with an alternative vision of doing politics. It was one fell sweep that guaranteed the status quo in our political scene. What we have is an alternating chair. So long as Labour remain the band of inept politicians that the PN machinery depict, then PN’s place in government is virtually guaranteed.

Sorry Claire. You cannot go on campaigning without showing the second half of your poster. No “Vote Harry” without “Get Freddy”. I have other plans on my mind. You see Daphne, I too am one of the chatterers. I would love to not have been brutally disenfranchised by the electoral reforms. Like you I am often baffled at the way politicians in this country are ineffective because they live secure to see another day – since electoral scrutiny has turned into a PN vs. MLP farce. Our paths split the day you decided to accept the way MLPN voted to hold your vote to ransom.

I am fully aware of the repercussions of voting AD. I am fully aware of the “wasted vote syndrome” in our elections. Unlike you however I think that the responsibility is not mine to bear but that of MLPN and their electoral reform. Come election day I will exercise my right to vote. I will continue to use my vote to provoke change in Maltese politics. And the day my vote for Harry translates to a vote for Freddie I do not believe I should be the one to do the worrying… I’ll leave that to whoever came up with this wonderful idea that my vote is worthless and worth wasting.

The ball is in their court.

Categories
Politics

The last boathouse standing

Is it ironic, dramatic or downright farcical that in all this hullabaloo and with the two main parties completely at sea and in full panic mode, the AD can only* come up with a challenge regarding the boathouses at Armier? Throughout last Friday’s Xarabank Arnold Cassola seemed to provide the only reconciliatory potential for all the other members of the panel. They were at each other’s throats most of the time and Edwin and Michael had their tongues so far up Debono’s behind that they had trouble speaking but the moment Cassola attempted to use the precious space on public TV to highlight the deficiencies of bipartisan thinking and logic he was drowned by a concerted chorus of denigration.

I only watched Xarabank today and you may be surprised to find that even I thought that Franco was coherent in his arguments. I said coherent not justified. I particularly like his idea of a holistic approach to institutional reform intended to sanitise the business of government and democracy from the impending rot caused by the PLPN. I cannot not like this kind of thinking. It’s what J’accuse has been on about for a long long time. The retorts from Edwin and Michael were obvious – from the denial that PLPN act in their own interests to the dismissal of the importance of a role for other parties and forces in the country.

Then again it will be back to business once the election is called. As Arnold pointed out mid-program no reforms will take place before the next election. Forget a law on party financing, on data protection of individuals and other similar safeguards. Protect you from the parties? Ma tarax. I am told that NET TV reported today that the PL has started taking action in court to deprive expats from their votes. I am still waiting for the denial from Muscat. Who knows we might constitute an additional danger to the “instability” of the country. So yes. No changes before the election. Which means no new thresholds. No nationwide district. No tweaks in favour of proportional representation. AD are still up shit creek with no paddle and with no visible candidates to attract the protest voters who cannot get it into themselves to vote PL.

Which brings me to the boathouse challenge. It’s a legitimate challenge. AD wants PL and PN to commit to remove boathouses in Armier. Here’s Cacopardo:

With a general election seemingly on the radar, the Nationalist Party and Labour Party should take up Alternattiva Demo­kratika’s challenge and openly declare their stand on these boathouses if they want to gain credibility with the local environmental lobby, which has advanced into something more than a simple lobby.

It’s an important matter. Of the kind that has often the potential of exposing PLPN’s duplicity in these matters. Remember Gonzi’s letter to boathouse owners? Remember the pandering of PLPN to hunters? Last minute promises to specific sectors such as the LGBT movement are rumoured to have swung the last election. So AD is asking for something simple. A commitment. On paper. Will the big parties take up the challenge? Will voters give the challenge any importance?

My guess? AD will be ignored as they have always been. Because they are a non-entity. Like the last standing boathouse they are too small to be noticed. And anyway we are busy voting for the next party that is to become our permanent grudge. Busy shooting ourselves in the foot.

Because we have been taught to believe the stupid lie: if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same.

Fuck you Tommasi di Lampedusa.

 

*not really only but it’s what is in the news right now.