Tag: representation

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Europe’s representation crisis?

representation_akkuzaThe upcoming French municipal elections have unearthed a huge problem. In many municipalities there is a dearth of candidates, particularly for the post of Mayor. In the Gironde area 45% of the smaller communes are still without a candidate – and it does not stop there. The main reason given for the dearth of candidates is the stricter set of rules being enforced among smaller communes when it comes to conditions for submitting candidatures and lists. There is another parallel reality though and that is related to the fact that potential candidates are shying away from what is perceived as a great responsibility.

In Italy, new PM Matteo Renzi has chosen to merge a swathe of administrative districts in Sicily in order to make them more competitive and promote development. The new “South-East District” encompasses Catania, Siracusa and Ragusa and is intended as an injection to the often static development in the south of Italy. Italy’s Senate and Parliament have had a little bomb explode within thanks to the earthquake that has shaken Grillo’s M5S.

Grillo’s 5 Star Movement has always found it hard to come to terms with an effective working representative system. In its effort to maximise transparent and representative decision making, the Movement ends up having draconian rules and emanates a sense of inflexibility. It could be a case of a far-fetched utopian reality attempting to adapt to the circumstances of old-style politics. Or it could simply be an implosion in the making.

Probably it is a bit of the two. What seems to surface from this kind of turmoil is the fact that a “new politics” without revolution rarely, if ever, happens. The M5S tried to glide into and replace the old system of political workings. This old system is a system that had settled comfortably into a market of power-mongering, influence trading and alternating hegemonies that had little or nothing to do with democratic representation.

Matteo Renzi has been accused of being the new face of the old style politics. He is the epitome of non-representative political methodology – not having been elected to parliament, senate or power. His is but one manifestation of the disenfranchisement of representative power. Another method would be the gradual removal of accountability, transparency and basic rule of law. The latter is a method preferred by the nouveau “representative majorities”, rushed into power by popular mandate which is all too soon discarded and replaced by the service of the power-mongering, influence trading and hegemonic elite.

Finally, the European Union itself, with the elections for its most representative branch just round the corner, would do well to take a long hard look at its long term objectives and if necessary question whether or not there exists a demos to be served and, more importantly, what that demos is calling for.

 

 

Categories
Values

Noti waqt elezzjoni tal-KSJC*

Kull sena meta tasal l-elezzjoni ghall-Ezekuttiv tal-Kunsill Studenti Universitarji nispicca nirraguna ma xi hadd dwar sistemi rapprezentativi u l-“winner takes all” tal-elezzjonijiet. Kull sena ma nikkonkludux wisq filwaqt li xi ghaqda politika minnhom “tkaxkar” is-siggijiet tal-ezekuttiv.

Dalghodu tellajt sentenza fuq facebook wara li rajt li kemm Luciano Busuttil kif ukoll Joseph Cuschieri kienu qed iheggu l-istudenti biex jivvutaw ghall-ghaqda PULSE. Ikkumentali Mark Vella u wegibtu b’serje ta’ kummenti li issa sincerament ghajjejt nirrepetihom. (*U wara li gibidli l-attenzjoni Philip Leone-Ganado indunajt li l-invit ta’ Cuschieri u Busuttil kien ghall-elezzjoni fil-KSJC – dan kollu li nghid hawn xorta japplika ghal KSU, fil-kaz ta’ KSJC hag’ohra, jiena nemmen li l-politika qatt ma ghandha tasal sa’ livelli post-sekondarji).

L-esperiment tal-istatut tal-KSU ma rnexxiex sa’ l-ahhar. Ma rnexxiex ghaliex l-indhil tal-partiti baqa jizdied u ma rnexxiex ghax l-immagni li tinghata hija wahda annwali ta’ xi glieda PLPN fil-mikrokozmu ta’ tal-Qroqq. Pero irnexxa f’hafna oqsma ohra. Kont fuq il-Kampus xi gimaghtejn ilu u rajt kampus  biezel – hafna hwienet vera – pero wara l-bibien tal-kuriduri t’isfel ta’ Dar l-iStudent smajt lil min qed ihabrek ghall-ghaqda tieghu, rajt noticeboards mifqugha avvizi u rajt hafna u hafna ideat iduru. Wara l-istorbju tal-influenza partitarja hemm hafna qed isir u dan ukoll grazzi ghal strutturi tal-KSU il-gdid (issa ghaddew 17-il sena imma ejja nahsbu li l-esperiment ghadu ghaddej) li bejn kontroversja u ohra hadem u halla lil min jahdem. Wara l-akkuzi u l-ghajjat ta’ partit u oppozizzjoni hemm min jibqa jtektek u ghaddej fil-hajja universitarja tieghu itella eventi u jirrprezenta filwaqt li jista jserrah fuq dak il-monolit li huwa l-eqdem kunsill raprezentattiv fl-ewropa.

Inhallikom bit-test tad-diskursata (vera iktar qisa monologu tieghi imma insomma), u nittama li jekk (bhal kull sena) ikun hemm x’tiddiskuti dan isir b’mod infurmat u minghajr wisq pregudizzji.

stipendjishah1

JRZ FB STATUS : Luciano Busuttil and Joseph Cuschieri would vote PULSE. Just so you know where your vote should be going …
#studentrepresentation #notomanipulation

MV Naħseb aħjar tikkampanja għal KSU aktar rappreżentattiv u mhux monopartitiku totalitarju kif inhu bis-sistema tal-lum

JRZ Perswaz li tahseb hekk. Kif ukoll perswaz li l-KPS hija manifestazzjoni cara ta rapprezentanza wiregha mahsuba ghat-trasparenza fit-tfassil tal-politika studenteska.

MV Ma nafx x’inhi l-KPS. Imma KSU ideali, bħal ma huwa Parlament ideali għalija, huwa korp proporzjonalment rappreżentattiv tal-ilħna kollha fl-Università, u mhux winner takes all li jispiċċa jirriproduċi l-partitokrazija ‘tal-kbar’.

JRZ Iva Mark, u bhalek hafna ohra ma semghux bil-KPS u xorta juzaw termini bhal “sistema monopartitiku totalitarju” u “winner takes all”. Il-verità (u l-ironija) hi li s-sistema mahsuba proprja fuq zewg principji importantissimi li huma ir-rapprezentanza u l-partecipazzjoni. Meta inhasbet is-sistema il-gdida tal-KSU, din kienet hsieb radikali u kienet mfassla proprju bl-idea li kemm jista jkun l-“indhil barrani” partitarju ma jibqax hemm, specjalment fit-tfassil ta’ kull politika li mahsuba li tirraprezenta l-istudenti.

Il-KSU ma hux biss l-ezekuttiv izda (u qed nghid dan minghajr ma nikkonsidra xi tbaghbis li seta sar mill-1996 ‘l hawn) huwa maghmul minn grupp ta’ organi rapprezentattivi – kull wiehed b’rwol car u specifiku.

Il-KPS (Kummissjoni Politika Socjali) thaddan fiha kull ghaqda u organizzazzjoni politika u mhux li hemm fil-kampus u ghandha rwol li tohloq u thejji pozizzjonijiet politici fuq kull qasam extra-kurrikulari. Meta thaddmet sew il-KPS harget b’pozizzjonijiet politici cari u determinanti (speci ta’ set ta’ principji) – ghadni kburi hafna bil-pozizzjoni li hadet il-KSU a bazi ta’ dokument tal-KPS qabel l-elezzjoni tal-1998. Huwa il-KPS li jiggarantixxi l-idea ta’ Parlament u li sahansitra lanqas ma hu proporzjonali fis-sens li kull ghaqda ghandha vot – jekk xejn dan huwa shortcoming illi kellu jiddahhal. Idealment jigi elett proporzjonalment ukoll organu bhal dan.

Il-KE (Kummissjoni Edukazzjoni) hija organu iehor li fiha tigbor awtomatikament ir-rapprezentanti akkademici kollha tal-istudenti (Faculty Reps u Senat u Kunsill). Ghal darb’ohra din tfassal politika li tirraprezenta l-wesgha kollha studenteska.

Ir-ras tas-sistema, kif ukoll il-magna hija l-ezekuttiv. Dan inholoq bit-tir li jhaddem politika maghmula mill-KE u KPS. Ma johloqx politika imma jwettaqa. Il-falliment tas-sistema kien (u ghadu) li l-organi ma jintuzawx kif suppost – b’mod partikolari l-ezekuttiv u l-elezzjoni ghall-membri tieghu. Dan jigri minhabba l-indhil tal-partiti politici li minghalihom qed jaghmlu xi gid meta jibdew idarru liz-zghar bil-metodi meskini taghhom. Ma tlumx l-istudenti f’ghaqdiet bhal SDM u PULSE illum li jaraw din bhala xi fast track ghal kandidatura jew xi post “fil-partit”. It-telliefa hija r-rapprezentanza studenteska iva. Mhux tort tas-sistema tort tal-“indhil”. L-istudenti ftit li xejn qatt irnexxielhom jeghlbu din il-gibda lejn il-partiti (zmienna kien eccezzjoni lampanti nahseb u malajr ghebet).

Illum ghandek lil Luciano u lil Joseph jtellghu fb status li kieku jivvutaw PULSE. Malli tellajt dan l-istatus jien gie retweetjat minn David Agius ghax minghalih li qed niehu sehem f’xi battalja diviziva u nilghab il-loghba tal-PLPN fil-grawnd ta’ tal-Qroqq. Dejjem jghiduli li diska mkissra din tal-PLPN, pero iktar ma jghaddi zmien iktar nahseb li hija realtà u qed ninghata ragun.

J’alla l-istudenti jivvutaw ezekuttiv kompetenti li kapaci johloq sinergija mal-kummissjonijiet u tabilhaqq jirraprezenta l-istudent l-ewwel u qabel kollox. U din ma hix retorika.

 

Categories
Politics

That Constitutional Question

Identifying Lou Bondi’s pitch on Tuesday’s Bondi+ was not too difficult. Franco Debono is doing a good enough job of undermining any valid points he may have with his behavioural shifting from the conspiracy theorist to the unabashedly ambitious politician. Franco seems to be unable to reconcile the values of his political mission with his unbridled hunger to slither up the greasy ladder of power as we know it. His behaviour plays into the hands of the spin-doctors of  “taste” who are prepared to highlight his faux pas until they totally eclipse any reasonable matter he may rightly wish to bring onto the forefront of the national agenda.

Bondi desperately tried to pitch the Franco vs Gonzi angle repeatedly throughout the program – infamously culminating in Franco’s refusal to “parrot” the words that the anchorman (and Nationalist quasi-candidate endorser) had desperately tried to plant in his nervous interlocutor’s mouth all evening. One aspect of this angle pitched by Bondi was his continued insistence that Franco was way out of his rights when he threatened to bring down this government by withholding his confidence vote when the time comes.

In a little “f’hiex tifhem?” (a very typical Maltese challenge of “what’s your expertise in this”) moment Bondi referred to his university lecturing credentials (“I taught politics and not just sociology – ghandek zball madornali“) presumably inspired by Franco’s earlier stunt of using his school reports. For a second I was worried that the two would pull down their pants and compare the size of their private members (sic) but a little side jab about the “Santana booing incident” (as witnessed from the I’m A VIP Quasi-Minister section of the crowd) did the trick.

Back to the constitution.

For it is a constitutional issue we are talking about. Does a lone MP from the parliamentary group of the party in government have the right to threaten to bring down the government? In bipolar (sorry, bipartisan) Malta we tend to run off with the idea that the game is one of simple mathematics – you win an election, you have the autocratic right to govern (should I say Oligarchic Franco?). Sure, what with the pilfering and tweaking of the electoral laws we have perfected the English constitutional bipartisan system to perfection and driven more than one death blow to the possibility of proportional representation.

Last election’s carcades were hooting to the tune of a D’Hondt majority (see Bertoon illustration that we cooked up the next day). the D’Hondt system of voting combined with our “tweaked” constitutional provisions had led to a relative majority government – no party had obtained more than 50% of the votes but one party had 1,500 votes than the other. A constitutional clause had come into play and the way it worked was –

a) if only two parties are elected to parliament,
b) if none of the two parties obtain more than 50% of the votes,
then the party with the largest number of votes (a relative majority) will be entitled to an adjustment of seats in order to be able to enjoy a majority of seats in parliament. That’s all found in article 51(1)(ii) of the Constitution of Malta.

Interestingly (and useful for later discussion) the provisos to this article are a rare instance in which reference is made directly to “political parties”.  It’s interesting because the Constitutional structure relating to representation and government (and therefore to the management of the basic power entrusted by “the people”) centres around individual “representatives” as elected to parliament by universal suffrage. The constitutional link between elector and elected is direct – there was no original intention for the intermediaries we now call “political parties”*.

This important distinction between political parties and members can be clearly seen from the Constitutional article on the appointment of the Prime Minister – article 80:

Wherever there shall be occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister, the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgment , is best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House (…)

Again. No parties. The President takes one good look at the House of Representatives and determines whether any member among them can count on “the support of a majority of the members” – that’s what is in play whenever a “confidence vote” comes into play. It’s an opportunity to put to test whether the PM still enjoys that  majority support. In the current context it’s what Joseph Muscat would like to table (a motion of confidence) and where Franco’s threat might come into play (by not voting for the PM and thus undermining his ability to “command the support of a majority”.

Now comes the hard part for hardcore nationalist voters to digest. Franco Debono is the latest symptom of the Coalition of the Diverse called GonziPN that oh-so-miraculously snatched victory from the jaws of defeat last election. The rainbow coalition within GonziPN was possible because of a lack of scrutiny, a loose combination of values (if any) and mainly because any candidate who could steal valuable votes that could lead to the relative majority victory (and therefore to the automatic majority in parliament) was backed to the hilt. Remember the JPO saga? Remember the spin masters backing what was very evidently a loose gun to the hilt – basta nitilghu?

So when the members of parliament finally took their place in the house of representatives Lawrence Gonzi could assume that he commands the support of the majority of members. He assumed it because any leader of a political party in Malta who has just won the election assumes that his party members will back him to govern. Easy. Alfred Sant assumed that in 1996. Lawrence Gonzi had no reason not to in 2008. The mechanism is not foolproof however. At the basis of the whole system remains the basic currency of power transfer – the representatives themselves. As Franco has reminded us more than once the “support of the representatives” cannot be taken for granted.

The mechanism of “support” or confidence is a check on the power of government. Viewed from outside the convoluted scenario that Franco has created around himself (with the help of the bloodsucking media) you will understand that the right of a member to withdraw his support is an important check in our democracy. It is just as important (if not more) as the existence of an opposition.

Even though our political parties operate on the assumption that “loyalty” is universally automatic they have now been exposed to the democratic truth that it is not. The failure is not of the system but of the arrogant assumption that the bipartisan mechanisms that the parties have written into the constitution will guarantee their permanent alternation. Franco’s methods might be obtuse and distasteful especially when they betray blatant and crude ambition but on a political level the renegade politician who disagrees with the party line was not only predictable but threatens to become a constant in the future.

The more political parties ignore the need to be coherent politically and the more they just throw anything at the electorate in the hope that something bites the more they can expect of “Franco-like” personalities. The failure to whip Franco into the party line is not a democratic failure or a constitutional flaw but a failure of the political party to operate as an effective vehicle of democratic representation.

D’hondt worry? Frankly it was only a matter of time. It’s actually a miracle it took this long for the shit to hit the fan.

* In a recent House of Commons document (Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation)  political parties were defined as “the mechanism by which people of any background can be actively involved in the tasks of shaping policy and deciding  how society should be governed. While they are not perfect organisations they are essential for the effective functioning of our democracy. Without the support of political parties it would be difficult for individual Members of Parliament, as legislators and/or as members of the Executive, to organise themselves effectively for the task of promoting the national interest—including by challenge to the Government, where that is necessary and appropriate—and ensuring that proposed new laws are proportionate, effective and accurately drafted.”

Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Drawing conclusions

Some time before “The Divorce Debate” went into overdrive, I had pointed out that this would be a good litmus test for the way our society sees itself and its politicians. That big mirror has been held up against our faces for some time now and I find myself in an unenviable situation of still not seeing eye to eye with most sides of the political spectrum. The most obvious conclusion would be that my understanding of the goings on is fatally flawed. Then again there is a possibility that the J’accuse perspective still resides resolutely outside the dualistic-partisan way of thinking. Which is why I cannot see “victors” or “losers” in the aftermath of “Civil Rights Debate Mark I”, I can only draw a number of conclusions. I thought I’d share them with you (sharing being a très social network concept). Feel free to “Like” or “Dislike” (or as the new Google+ lingo would have it: to “+1”).

*The 44 consciences*

I was called a “non-gentleman” on Facebook this week. This was because apparently I could not get myself to “admit” that the divorce bill had got through Parliament “thanks to Labour”. This is just the kind of “Right/Wrong” argumentation that allows people to lose their perspective. I have been arguing for some time that the PL-PN have abdicated their representative duties by not working with a party position on the divorce issue. When it came to voting in Parliament, both PN and PL chose the same formula: “conscience”. Both Muscat and Gonzi gave their members a “free vote” (a term brought into the debate by the Labour leader incidentally).

From that point on neither Labour nor the Nationalists could claim ownership of any votes in Parliament when the day of reckoning came. Neither could, for the sake of argument, the Vegetarians, the Smokers, Gozitans, Qriema (people from Città Pinto) or the Federation of Openly Homosexual MPs. We could play a statistical game and see which YES votes were cast by veggies, tobacco addicts, Gozitans, Qriema or gays, but at no point in time would our eccentric (and purely illustrative) choice of venn diagram material justify the statement “it was the Non-Smoking Ayes that made the difference”. There was no common stand by smokers as there was no common position for Nationalist or Labourite MPs. The vote was personal. You may disagree with that but it is a fact.

The parties did not perform their representative function in Parliament throughout the divorce vote. Which is why J’accuse has for some time now accused them of abdicating their responsibility. When Joseph Muscat dismissed questions regarding Adrian Vassallo’s “NO” vote, he implied that Vassallo would have to face the consequences of his vote with the electorate. There was nowt else Joseph could do because, very importantly, Labour had no position on divorce and had actually aided and abetted Adrian Vassallo’s “conscientious” vote in much the same way as it had done with those who voted in favour. Incidentally, it is also all Labour “YES” voters who have to face the consequences of their vote. Implying that Labour has some collective responsibility for a positive or negative outcome is a gigantic non sequitur and should not be confused with the next point: the people’s voice.

*Vox Dei and Gonzi’s Nay*

Vox Populi, Vox Dei is the Latin maxim that underpins one of the essential elements of democracy in this day and age. “The voice of the people is the voice of God” is the kind of logical conundrum that would have titillated the likes of Pierre Abèlard and Bernard of Clairvaux. If Abèlard and Bernard’s problems were great (google them… it’s a fun read), Lawrence of the Nationalist’s dilemma was even greater. On the one hand he is at the helm of a party struggling to deal with its conservative vestiges and on the other hand he is the Prime Minster of a nation that had yelled its acquiescence to the introduction of a bit of 20th century legislation.

Then there was the matter of “conscience” − or as Gonzi’s predecessor in Castille had described it, “moral matters that require a vote of conscience”. In Gonzi’s mind, as in the mind of many others, Vox Dei spoke rather clearly through the precepts of his religious and moral formation. In the end, Gonzi’s interpretation of Vox Dei won over the Vox Populi and he cast the infamous “No” vote − condemning him to the same circle of hell as others before him who spat in the face of the will of the demos.

What made the matter all the worse was Gonzi’s “calculated” vote: one that made sure that the divorce bill would actually pass before casting the symbolic “No”. In that way Gonzi’s “No” rang out a doubly-defiant note: firstly it was the ugliest of nays from a Prime Minister refusing to serve the will of the people once they had spoken (and after being consulted upon his insistence), and secondly it was Gonzi’s “Eppur si muove” moment − flying in the face even of those in his party who had advocated a wider, liberal approach to society.

*The Birth of MuscatPL”*

Joseph Muscat rushed to swing the hammer and ring Gonzi’s death knell. I have no doubt that as other commentators have aptly put it, this was Gonzi’s hara kiri moment by any standard. He may survive for some time yet, but the emphasis is on “surviving” and there is no end to the damage wrought to the PN in the public polls. I do find Joseph’s choice of words to announce this death particularly interesting, though (I must remind you that my analysis comes without the blinkers of partisan subjugation.) Joseph chose to state that “Gonzi lost the moral leadership of the party”. Funny that, coming from someone who has still to prove that he has the moral leadership of his own party. Partisan voters can look away tut-tutting at this point but if you are “gentlemen” or “ladies” enough do consider this…

Labour’s moral position during the divorce debate was not one of leadership of any kind but one that can be summarised as “To each his own (conscience)”. What we had during the divorce campaign are Pro and Anti Divorce Movements. Labour did not take a position on divorce (no morals there) and very clearly left it to each and every MP to make a “conscientious” choice of his own. What Labour is now highlighting is Joseph’s statement of his “personal” view that divorce legislation is necessary. Now that view is commendable but it remains a “personal” view nonetheless. I did not, and still do not see Joseph “morally leading” his supposed progressive party.

In other words, we still have to see Labour snap out of its “wait-and-see” fence sitting mentality and become pro-active and committed (as a party please, no free votes) to civil rights legislation in order to become progressive. What we have right now is a clumsy forming of “MuscatPL”. If Joseph’s position is popular then PL will spin it as the party position − which it is not. The biggest loss will be that to the Civil Right Voters, who until now wrongly assume that Joseph’s PL can be their rightful representatives.

*Chaos Theory*

The Nationalist Party is in disarray. This particular conclusion was confirmed in the aftermath of the parliamentary vote. The schizophrenic attempt to combine opposing value-driven interpretations under one “umbrella” party was doomed to backfire in the long term. It seems that Lawrence Gonzi had neither the patience nor the power to slow down or change course of a party rushing towards impending doom so he stepped on the accelerator. Gonzi’s “No” had the “liberal” fringe up in arms and Cyrus Engerer’s defection was the culmination point. Here is Robert Arrigo writing in the Independent on Friday, making it clear which side of the Vox Populi fence he sits on: “If I voted no, I would have made fools out of the electorate and I would have made a mockery out of the oath that I had taken. (…) I do believe that the Nationalist Party will read the writing on the wall, and will start heeding the people. Arrogance has been thrown out, and the people’s will must be sovereign.”

*Luck of the Draw*

Beyond the oath and the vote there are a number of conclusions to be drawn. The Nationalist Party has for some time tried to experiment with “umbrella politics” and is now reaping the consequences of this short-sighted, unprincipled approach. In 2008 people voted for gonziPN, not bothering to look beyond the Gonzi smokescreen. When gonziPN’s glue no longer held together we began to see the fragile face of a fragmented party − most vulnerable on social issues when faced with “progressive” civil rights. The reason for this fragile face is the lowering of the barrier for candidates: an anything-goes, vote-catching criterion. Surely some part of the PN is rueing Joe Saliba’s (and all the spin-doctor’s) backing of JPO and his antics back then?

The Labour Party is only delaying its own cracked picture thanks to the temporary euphoria and high it is getting by interpreting the divorce vote as some sort of victory. What Labour does not realise is that it is taking the first baby steps towards a “muscatPL” − a clone of PN’s 2008 doomed formula that held together for two years on a flimsy relative majority. To be fair, it might even obtain a larger majority but what might not work is the promise of progressive politics. Divorce was an easy gamble once it was clear where the wind was blowing. Will it be the same for gay rights, for IVF legislation and for the (dare we say it?) eventual raring of the ugly head of abortion? Unless Labour is prepared to commit itself in black and white to a set of principles, it remains an opportunist vehicle that not only has no moral leadership but also no value grounding: an abdication from representative politics.

Alternattiva Demokratika turn out to be the greatest losers in pragmatic and practical terms. Deborah Schembri successfully headed a progressive civil rights movement. She then had to opt for a party in which to presumably pursue her objectives. That she chose Labour might mean that she knows something that we don’t about future Labour commitments on civil rights. That she did not chose a home that would be obvious given her recent political activism: Alternattiva Demokratika − only goes to show how unattractive is the option, long before the people go to the polls.

Then we had Cyrus Engerer. I suspect that the Sliema deputy mayor’s move was based firstly on anger and frustration when faced with the gargantuan battle of converting the conservative base in the PN fold. Whether out of spite or out of principle, Cyrus reportedly switched allegiance but never considered the AD option. It is ironic that two high-profile figures of our temporary civil rights movements did not consider joining Malta’s one political formation that has always been clear and outspoken on civil rights and would have fit the party political programme like a glove.

The voter − the source of the vox populi − is fast turning into a mixture of angry, frustrated or disillusioned people. The tendency to stick to old habits is as strong as ever. It is hard to explain to Labourites that their joy lies in a decision and vote that had little to do with their party position. They may know who to vote for come next election but do they know WHAT that vote will translate into? It is even harder to explain to Nationalist voters that they are reaping what they have long sown by relying on “lesser evil” propaganda and drowning the possibility of a more open and representative form of politics. Franco Debono is pushing a commendable project that would give Malta a “European constitution”. It would be sad if such a debate were to be kicked off while the smoke, dust and anger of the latest battle is still around.

www.akkuza.com was almost silent last week thanks to the end of the judicial year in Luxembourg sending us into overdrive. We’ll be back – no worries.

Categories
Politics Values

The Wasted Vote

So you voted PN last election? You got Lawrence Gonzi and Austin Gatt. You got David Agius and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. You got Edwin Vassallo and Tonio Fenech. You got Tonio Borg and Karl Gouder. You got the party that is anti-divorce on paper but can wake up one morning and spring a private members bill surprise. You’ve also got Joe Saliba to thank for those sleepless nights conferring profession after profession on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – from dentist to farmer to press card bearing journalist. Don’t worry though… if you’ve got a liberal streak in you there’s always Cyrus Engerer and Frank Psaila’s plan for a “social liberal” face to save the day.

So you voted PL last election? Well actually you voted for Alfred Sant’s MLP but we know where that one went. After the tears subsided what did you get? You got Joseph Muscat and Adrian Vassallo. You got Owen Bonnici and Marie Louise Coleiro. You get Marlene Pullicino and Gino Cauchi. You get a party that wants to be liberal and progressive but fails to take a simple stand on divorce. You get the inventor of the “free vote” that means that whatever the flying flip you wanted to elect in parliament has no point anyway – because the individuals’ conscience is paramount. So was it pro-divorce Muscat that you were thinking of or was it anti-divorce Vassallo?

Have you really ever sat down and wondered what your vote translates to once the noise of the last carcade subsides, once the last billboard of empty propaganda is removed and once the last article of the spinners of hate is condemned to the bottom of your dustbin?

Funny. Last I heard, not voting PL or PN would turn out to be a “wasted vote”.

“I’m sorry, but in your desperate attempts at convincing yourselves and anyone else who is listening that if XXX becomes prime minister you have nothing to do with it, you are on your own. If you had the slightest bit of political savvy or psychological nous, you would know that you are setting yourselves up as hate objects…”

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
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