Tag: power

Categories
Panamagate Politics

No flowers in Panama (I – the seeds)

filpanama_akkuza

It’s Sunday morning and the nationalist party is gearing up for what it dubs a national protest against corruption. The Sunday papers are full to the brim with opinion articles, spin and (if you look really hard) factual reports about the issue that has a name: Panamagate. Over the week the men in Castille shifted through deny, downplay, riposte and finally deflect and distract motions. Nothing seems to work, and rightly so, because the issue is national, important and immediate. Mark Anthony Falzon’s column in the Sunday Times best explains why in the small picture Konrad Mizzi’s position is untenable. Falzon’s column can be added on to an earlier post in this blog explaining why even before delving deeply into Mizzi’s doings we could conclude that he was unfit for purpose. Mizzi, not Falzon.

I did say small picture though and I was careful when I said that. Don’t get me wrong, Panamagate is a scandal of gargantuan proportions. We are still coming to terms with the ramifications of what it all really means in terms of this government’s general program. Indian frauds and Azeri business deals have only just been brought into the fray while the feeble counter-ripostes from the government side have included reminders of how ex-Nationalist ministers (Ninu Zammit in particular) held millions in accounts abroad before being granted an amnesty by Joseph Muscat’s government. So yes, of itself and within its confines Panamagate is huge and insofar as the story of this bumbling government is concerned it should be a huge blow to its overall credentials for governance.

There is a bigger picture that we should objectively be looking at. It’s a wider look at the nature and workings of our body politic as a whole – beyond Panamagate, beyond the other PL government scandals, beyond the cases of corruption of ex-PN ministers that have come to surface and might yet surface. The bigger picture should be what the whole business of running our democracy is all about and understanding how it could be improved – not for the sakes and interests of the duopoly and a bit (I’ll get to that “bit” later) but for the sakes of a young Republic that needs renewal and revival.

Sunday’s protest is supposed to be a national one against corruption in politics. J’accuse is taking this cue in this time when trust in politics and politicians to take a wider angle look at what is happening, at how we got to Panamagate and the options of where we can go from here.

Getting to Panamagate

sowing the seeds of bad governance

Corruption. It did not start with Konrad Mizzi. It will not stop with Konrad Mizzi. At the heart of corruption is the misuse of the powers that have been entrusted in the hands of those chosen to administer the state on behalf of the people. This is, in essence, why and how corruption exists. Do not only see it in monetary terms – the pilfering of funds isn’t half the full story. Corruption is the abuse of trust pure and simple. It is the use of powers that have been lent to you in order to give, grant or allow things to people who do not deserve or would not have deserved such things had they gone through the right channel. Corruption is nepotism. Corruption is legislating as a favour for an interest group. Corruption is closing one eye. Corruption is abusing of the rules in order to get your way. Corruption is the conscious fettering of one’s discretion. Corruption is the creaton of networks that favour closed groups without transparency or merit.

The structures of a democratic state are intended to counter, as far as possible, the possibilities of corruption. Furthermore, when such preventive methods fail, the same structures should be able to counter with a remedy – investigation, prosecution and more. The Maltese Constitution, sovereign in 1964 and republican in 1974, was built around the concept of a sovereign parliament as inherited from our colonial rulers. It is clear from a reading of the constitution that with all the mechanisms of checks and balances in place, with all the power afforded to the head of state, the main engine of the system is the parliament. It may be fettered by a few absolute majority clauses but there is no doubt that parliament reigns supreme. The power of the people lies in parliament. It’s not exactly “if parliament wills pigs can fly” but it’s pretty damn close.

Over the sixty odd years of sovereign existence our parliament evolved into a two-party structure with more and more importance given to the main parties concerned. Laws were written, amended and “abused” in favour of this dual perversion – comfortable with the notion that if the world’s oldest liberal democracy can live with dualism then so can we. While China and Soviet Russia could work with the one party system (factoid: China actually has thousands of parties but only one counts) we developed a perverse system in which the constitution and all laws enacted would be subservient to the needs of the duopoly’s concept of power. Even notions of Equity and Justice had to be based on the notion of par condicio. The PLPN behemoth was born. Electoral laws would be drafted to ensure that as far as is humanly possible only two types of interests would be represented in parliament and the rest of the laws requiring political distribution would follow suit – government and opposition making up the numbers.

Many moons ago this blog was not alone among a movement of people warning that not all is right under the PN government. Our main argument at the time was that the PN government had lost its sense of purpose – from the 1987 calls of Work, Justice, Liberty to the 90s reconstruction and growth , to the push to join the European Union in 2004, the nationalist’s had a clear direction in their mind. They were driven with that purpose and their role in governing the country was underpinned by that purpose. Once Malta had joined the EU that sense of purpose and rive was lost. The PN was doomed to falter from then on. It’s unwillingness to engage on social issues would not be the first petard with which it would be hoist. The PN would fail to admit that the system that fed the two-party alternation was eroding the nation’s backbone from within. The next decade from 2004 would be spent with the Gonzi government suffering the rot that would ensue. Left to their own devices politicians without a cause beyond their district duties and obligations end up doing what they know best – peddling in influence and toying with power.

It is not surprising that the John Dalli’s and the Pullicino Orlando’s of this world were born under a nationalist administration. In a panicked attempt to hold on to the reigns of power the PN turned a twisted form of populist – hoisting upon the electors a pick and mix of politicians that were anything but while failing to see where the real remedy lay: tackling the source of our ills – the magnet of corruption that was our political structure of networks, friends of friends and die-hard flag wavers.

Which is when Joseph Muscat stepped in. On paper it was all promise of transparency, meritocracy and a battle on corruption. The sovereign power of the people was supposed to revert to the Maltese- Taghna Lkoll. On paper. Yet Muscat operated within the same parameters as had the previous government. Worse still the new Labour team has shown that it has no capacity for self-restraint. The trough was thrown out in the middle of the brand new Castlile square and the nation could only stand back gobsmacked watching the pigs feast on it day after day. Meritocracy? Spare me. Transparency? Say what? Corruption? Ouch. Muscat’s finely honed electoral campaign was meant to work under the current parameters of electoral mediocrity. Those same parameters encourage the development of corrupt networks of dependency and trading in power. In a twisted chicken and egg conundrum it became evident that in order to take a big slice of the power cake, the networks of dependencies and IOUs had to be in place BEFORE even getting elected. The government promising transparency, meritocracy and an end to corruption had set the mold for a corrupt system before it was elected.

Meanwhile, calls by (admittedly small) sectors of society to elect the third party into parliament and break the power mold fell on deaf ears. Most times it was derided as madness and as a failure to understand that the rules only allow one winner and one runner-up. Critics missed the point. They still miss the point today when they speak of the “need of redemption” for what was done by third-way enthusiasts at the time. It is only ignorance of the system and a blind affiliation to the idea of alternation that can foment such ideas.

In 2016 this blog will be among the first to say that the third way is not the way to break the system and change it. It cannot be any longer. Change must perforce come from elsewhere. more about this in the next posts. Keep reading. And you might still be in time to get to Valletta for the protest.

 

 

 

Categories
Dalligate Mediawatch

Talking about a revolution

Mohammed Morsi will just not let go that easily. The government installed after Egypt’s turn of the Arab Spring seems to have its days counted and the army has issued an ultimatum for it to step down. As representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood prepare for the last stand, it seems to be inevitable that there will be a new government that moves away from the initial islamist reaction that was originally installed following Mubarak’s removal.

Listening to the BBC radio this morning I heard of the travel advisories issued by the British government and was bemused to notice that while the political centres of Egypt are currently a no-go area for tourists, the Red Sea zones are still open to business as usual. Which goes to show that 21st century revolutions cannot afford any blips in the economy – so do not cancel that holiday in Sharm el Sheik and the next government will be grateful.

We did see something similar happening in Brazil in the pat few weeks with the social divide being clearly highlighted. On the one hand the Confederations Cup went ahead with a festival of sports in a country that is supposed to be football mad while on the other you had millions of people hitting the street reminding the government to get its priorities right. There’s nothing more symbolic of the surreal clash between the panem et circenses and the protesting crowds than the TV commentator wondering out loud whether the smoke that he can see is coming from the supporters or from the police canisters of tear gas being thrown outside.

Elsewhere Mr Snowden is busy concocting his own peaceful revolution. While Evo Morales seems to think that Snowden’s act is definitely in the interests of peace – a revolutionary act of courage, Vladimir Putin described dealing with Snowden as being “like shearing a pig – too much squealing, too little wool”. Maybe the truth is half way there. Snowden has issued his latest declaration from the transit zone in Moscow.

Snowden denounces the United States for having revoked his passport and left him stateless. He reminds the world that “the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised – and it should be.” Information and knowledge remain the key terms in this period of revolutionary change that is eating at the traditional dynamics of liberal democracy.

As Snowden remains stuck in no-man’s land in a Moscow Airport waiting for news of the first country that will offer him his much needed asylum, we hear of the Maltese politician who crossed half the world in order to spend four hours in the Bahamas for some philanthropic mission. In this case the press statements and emails sent to clarify his behaviour amount to nothing more than a garbled text of foot shuffling and enigmas. The lack of clarity in the statements should of itself suffice as proof to the inquisitive mind that the smokescreen being created (and accompanying conspiracy theories) is just that.

The truth, most times, is simple. It’s the lies and half truths that turn out to be most complicated.

Categories
Politics Values

Flashback: Cliques & Politics

I was going to post something different to this but it can wait. While researching my intended post I came across this post on J’accuse back in May 2008. My concern here remains the sucking out of values from within our main political parties – due mainly to their attempt to be everything for everyone. The result is Liquorice Allsort parties – the Mix and Match without much substance when it comes to accountability and representation. The dangers of having BOTH parties in parliament with this kind of mentality can never be sufficiently stressed.

The post below was written at the time of Labour’s reflective period just before the New Messiah was anointed Mexxej. I had tried to analyse the role of cliques and factions in the formation of a party – and why our concept of cliques and factions is all based on power and has little to do with ideology, values and substance. Because at the end of the day what counts for the PLPN politician is getting the power… not what they do with it.

 

Of Cliques and Factions

First appeared on J’accuse on the 28th May 2008

Cliques: Loud and Damaging

A salient point in the Labour Party report on the reasons for the defeat in the last elections is the existence of “klikkek” within the party. The word “kilikkek” translates to English, quite literally, as “cliques”. A “clique” is described as “a small, exclusive, group of people” – the operative word being “exclusive”. The Online Etymology Dictionary gives the following result for the word “clique“: “1711, from Fr. clique, from O.Fr. cliquer “to make a noise,” echoic. Apparently this word was at one time treated as the equivalent of claque.”

Today’s Times editorial dwells on the fragmentation and self-destructing party dynamic of the different party cliques. The editorial points out:

“Hardly any party or organisation is immune to internal trouble or the inbreeding of cliques but, when the pull of such trouble or cliques strengthens itself to a proportion that affects the central unifying force, it often leads to derailment.”

The sentence is a veiled defence to any argument that states that cliques cannot possibly be the only problem because everybody under the sun knows that the Nationalist Party has been equally afflicted by “cliques” – in their case power bases intended to consolidate the position of certain groups of individuals with the party. No doubt, the Times is once again performing its duty as unofficial apologist of the boys in blue but there is another implied truth in this statement that goes beyond apologist editorials – one that Labour sympathisers and reformers would do good to notice.

Cliques within a political party are not a local phenomenon and exist elsewhere. What is interesting is the way they have evolved within the Labour party, gnawing away at the very foundations and backbone of what is necessary for a party to function. To exist even. The problem with a clique is the reason for its formation. An exclusive group of persons intent on extending its power base for its own benefit does not have the interests of the party as its main priority. It exists to ensure the survival of the individuals – more than that it strives for a successful placing as high up in the hierarchy as possible.

The basic principle behind a clique is “help yourself and the others in the clique” – almost akin to a Masonic Agreement. In the political world a clique is not identifiable by a common political cause – let us say for example those in favour of making the introduction of more social rights like divorce. It is solely restricted to a power-hungry movement or sometimes to a movement formed to oust another one (think Gordon Brown though not exactly).

The MLPN are most prone to have cliques during election campaigns. The competition in districts is restricted between candidates of the same party insofar as certain “guaranteed” votes are concerned. That cliques occur in such circumstances are inevitable. It is also possible that clique-forming could occur within the dynamics of the party – normally compensated with the formation of shared power-centres one for each large or dominating clique allowing for a certain balance.

Factions: Purpose and Substance

What we have not heard about in the Labour Report is “factions”. A political faction is no new discovery. Political factions are omnipresent, especially in large parties. Some apologists would have us believe that the Nationalist party is an umbrella party that has different factions including what must be a very silent “liberal” one. There is no doubt in my mind that something of the sort does exist within the PN though the way the party functions does not allow for much transparency in that field (of ideological factions – call them nuances if you like) – given the one-way traffic at the PN general councils they seem to be very far from having an open and honest debate about the ideological differences that exist.

A faction is not a defection or a whistleblower on alleged corrupt practices. It is a healthy (though sometimes problematic) existence within a party that has a set of priorities based on different political ideas. Different from what? It may be different from the mainstream or more probably there may be different factions with different ideologies competing to push them at the head of the party agenda. A faction does not work to split the party (that is only a last resort when agreement seems to be so far from being reached that the only solution is the creation of another party). Factions debate (and yes, in this macchiavellian world of points of order, right of speakers to vote and party organisations sometimes use “underhand” tactics) in order to get their agenda as part of the party agenda.

Here is Wikipedia’s description of a political faction (my underlining):

“A political faction is a grouping of individuals, especially within a political organisation, such as a political party, a trade union, or other group with a political purpose. It may also be referred to as a power bloc, or a voting bloc. The individuals within a faction are united in a common goal or set of common goals for the organisation they are a part of, not necessarily shared by all of that organisation’s members. They band together as a way of achieving these goals and advancing their agenda and position within the organisation.”

As I said, even the work of factions can turn out to be deleterious to a party’s health. Long power-struggles between internal factions can still diminish the party’s appeal to the electorate. Factions also require individuals playing the role of the “leader” or as wikipedia calls them “magnets” around whom the faction forms. Factions have one substantial advantage over clique. Their substance is based around a set of goals, an agenda, that is more often than not political in nature. They bring to the party a level of debate about principles, ideas and policies that are absent from cliques.

Some parties prefer their factions to act internally. That is an organisational choice depending on the effects any struggle between factions may have on the public perception of the unity within the party. Let us not get waylaid by the debate of “going public” or not although it has its own merits. At this point my reflection centres on the problems of the Labour party as highlighted by the report.

Coupled with the call by the report drafters for the Labour party to be less scared of “intellectuals” (as they call them) and of engaging in debate, this issue of the cliques must be of primary concern to whoever wants to reform the party into a working viable alternative. The temptation is to iron out all differences and create a uniform party where individuals must get, if you excuse the vulgar Maltese expression, permission for every fart. The practices of the Labour organisational structures seem to point in that direction – permission to speak, permission to think and permission to exist as a Labourite.

This is a reaction to trouble caused by cliques and the ugly image they portray. Power for power’s sake is an ugly trait of Maltese politics, from the smallest movement within a party to the hegemony of MLPN on national politics. The risk is that in reacting to this report, the wheat is thrown away with the chaff and what is left is a factionless but spineless Labour party that might as well be a management organisation of sorts – managing fifty percent of the disillusioned electorate and expert only at producing reports explaining failures. That is not what the average Labourite wants, that is not what this country needs.

*****

* Picture: Jean de la Lune (fanfare)

  • Dans les armées, une clique désigne également une fanfare ou une musique militaire. Dans un régiment, elle correspond à un groupe d’instruments : tambours, clairons, caisses claires, trompettes, etc. Par extension, une clique est aussi un ensemble de musiciens civils, jouant ces mêmes instruments et interprétant des musiques militaires ou des musiques rythmées entrainantes.
  • Une clique est aussi un terme péjoratif pour caractériser un groupe restreint qui a pris le pouvoir dans une région, ainsi
  • la Clique du Château était un groupe de riches familles au Bas-Canada au début du XIXe siècle,
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta