Tag: rule of law

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Bang! Bang! Democracy!

bang_akkuzaTwo shots. It could take two reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, illegal shots to finally get the people to “wake up and smell the coffee”. It might. There’s no telling really how willing an electorate can be to allow the fundamental tenets of a democracy to shatter before its eyes. That the nation was in the hands of a class that would only pay lip service to a system of rule of law was already evident to anybody who bothered to listen. We needed the caricature – the modern day parable ‘- to maybe pull the myriad ostrich heads out of the sand.

It’s more than a caricature. It’s a list of bilious arrogance spat in the face of any semblance of respect for the rule of law and the system.

  1. A minister’s driver used an official car for a private visit.
  2. That minister’s driver is also a policeman. Chauffeurs, waiters. Ipsos custodies gone wrong.
  3. That minister’s driver drives around armed. That’s a loaded gun.
  4. That minister’s driver feels entitled to take the law into his own hands. He could have reported an alleged “hit and run” offender, instead he took his gun…
  5. That minister’s driver was not happy with firing not one but two “warning shots” in a public place. He jumped into his car and began “hot pursuit”. Because of course he is also a policeman and there was the crime against public peace of scraping a side-view mirror to deal with. Citizens of Malta will drive more carefully now.
  6. That minister’s driver’s version was very soon the “official” version being backed by nothing less than a ministerial PR office. This notwithstanding a large number of eyewitness accounts failing to corroborate any pieces of the story that seem to have been concocted between the events and the media exercise. It’s not just a travesty, it’s a travesty backed by big brother.

We do say that certain trends do come late in Malta. Thirty years is a long time but hey we’re getting out very own 1984 right now. Put yourselves in the shoes of the British citizen who is guilty of having hit the side mirror of a ministerial vehicle. Hell, put yourselves in the shoes of any citizen involved in a traffic accident with a ministerial vehicle or a minister driving his vehicle. You’re screwed either way. If it’s the minister who was driving at the time then you know whose version of events will count. If it’s the ministers driver then your lotto for life will begin the moment he reaches for the gun. You know…

“Mr. Minister’s PR Guy in Press Conference Rag

Notice how his mouth never moves, almost”

Pathetic really. Even before any gun was shot the minister’s driver has already stepped out of the line (see list above). What do we get? We get a ministry of the government of the republic defending “his version of events” – essentially on the face of it (and on the basis of the alleged facts available hitherto) defending what can only be described as criminal activity. Why?

The Labour government track record defending persons with a poor record with the law is already a huge burden on Joseph Muscat’s dwindling credibility. Criminals turn heros rather enthusiastically in Labour’s constellation. Compared to this kind of nefarious behaviour, the sins of failing to deliver on any of its major electoral promises and the (non) meritocratic mess pale in comparison.

Sadly there is a huge chunk of the population that are prepared to carry along with this farce. These are the kind of people who applauded Muscat’s pushback antics, who are amused by his backing of criminals as Labour representatives and who will think that the minister’s driver is some kind of latter day hero who was valiantly defending the right to have an unblemished car mirror. As I explained in this blog only yesterday, this is also the result of the erosion of authorities and institutions. It is the result of the gradual hacking away at any semblance of system of accountability and rule of law. It is also the result of the drunken stupor induced by that famous number – 36,000.

Two shots. They might be the beginning of a wider awareness. Or they might just be the starting pistol’s shots announcing the beginning of our descent into the absolute pits of mediocrity.

Grazzi Joseph. Nibqghu nafuhulek.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Once Upon a Time in the Republic

once_akkuzaWe are fast approaching the 50th anniversary of our nation’s independence. It’s been fifty years since the sacred instruments were handed over to Prime Minister Borg Olivier in Floriana. And where are we now? Are we a model democracy that can be used as a shining example and beacon among the corrupt and failed states of the post-Fukuyama collapse?

Not if you believe the hype we aren’t. The editorials in the major English dailies are resorting to the use of such terms as “lawlessness” and “laissez-fairism” (they don’t use the last one exactly, they imply it, but they would if they knew it). Fifty years of independence and barely one into Taghna Lkoll’s declared aim of creating a second republic, we seem to be waking up to the gradual break-down of the system of rule of law that invisibly holds a nation together.

Is it really scaremongering? Like hell it is. It was always there for everyone to see. When you have a party that intends to hold on to the thrilling rush of power by way of appeasing as many people as possible as much as possible then you inevitably open the way for the compendium of trickeries that involves turning a blind eye, irrational decision making and more of the sort.

The first blinder that hit the electorate in the face was the sinking of the meritocracy boat. With the nonchalance of a tin pot dictatorship idiots and fools were promoted to high places. If that were not enough they actually invented more high places to accommodate all those who had been promised a piece of the pie. So Taghna Lkoll programmes were to be run by monkeys.

The second blinder was the ransacking of any system of punishment. All the hoo-haa about being strong with the corrupt, all the words about changing a system in order to empower whistleblowers and construct a good government. All well and good for the mass meetings with the faithful and the hypnotised. When push comes to shove though we have seen the proof in the amnesties, in the judges allowed to wriggle free of impeachment and in the “who cares if my latest appointee was also running an illegal hotel” approach. Like meritocracy, the tough talk about being strong with the unjust came crumbling down as quickly as possible.

Now we are hit with the absolutely preposterous notion of playing with elections at whim. This government of the people has arrogated unto itself the power of suspending Local Council Elections while using one “the dog ate my homework” kind of excuse after another to justify the manifestly gross slur upon its democratic credentials. Youngsters promised a first vote in the 2015 elections were brushed quickly under the Labour Carpet of inconvenience and sacrificed as victims to the greater good that is the hunting lobby. Gaddafi and Idi Amin would have been proud.

Then there is the brazen approach to public property that ill-befits any socialist label. The Australia Hall sale to make good for 20-year old debts for furniture is a monumental farce especially when coming from a government party that verbally espouses principles on party financing and good governance. Having already twisted the law in its favour by advising itself as government to return the hall to itself as labour party, the party then went on to sell off this public patrimony to private individuals. Shame? What’s shame? It’s a buzzword that was useful for the Prime Minister’s bromance buddy for a little while before he started giving out Arse Et Gratia payments to the happy people.

Because that is what the people want. Muscat has sussed it out. In this Second Republic, 50 years independent, it is the egoistic cowboys that win the day. That is what they all mean by lawlessness. The law is a mere guideline but if the government sees a few points for itself to be made then the law becomes naught but arse wiping material. It helps us not that the long arm of the law are occupied doing a silly prosecuting bird lovers for displaying illegally shot birds (heaven help us) or proceeding with their obsession with nudity arresting skinny dipping Frenchies.

Our Emperor has long paraded bare before a bewitched populace. Sadly a muddled opposition that keeps shooting itself in the foot (cfr Clyde Puli’s poverty gaffe) will not help much. The opposition actually needs to press hard the obscenity that is this postponing of elections business. Harder than youtube videos. This obscenity have the whole rank and file of the opposition shouting “foul” (and not just shame).

It’s a short step away from a land of cowboys this. Once upon a time in the Republic we had a working constitution and the rule of law. Today we have Labour in government. A round of drinks for all at your local saloon.

Categories
Citizenship Drugs

Playing that Criminal Record

criminal_akkuzaThere’s an item in the news about the Earth Garden concert. The article title is “DJs ‘humiliated’ by police at Earth Garden Festival“. This is one of those instances where you have to wonder what the quote marks around the word humiliated are intended to convey. Is it sarcasm? Irony? Is the journalist taking the piss out of the DJs and saying that they are making a mountain out of a molehill?

I’ll leave you to guess about the employment of quote marks by the Times journalist on this occasion. What is more interesting, and worrying, is the existence of a policy that is being applied by the police in these circumstances with regard to the line up of DJs. So, from what I gather, when you apply for a permit to have a concert such as Earth Garden (in this day and age when people are paid commissions by government to look for garages for performing artists to practice in – coz we iz cool and with it) your line up of DJs gets vetted for any “priors”. If what the organisers said is true then apparently even a minor crime (I’m assuming possession) that dates over 20 years is sufficient for the long arm of the law to strike you off the list. I am also assuming that no such vetting occurs for the other people emplpyed for this concert – the barmen might have just finished their latest stint in Kordin, the cleaners might be on parole and there is (I am still assuming) no quick check up at the door to ensure that all concert goers have a clean bill on their social conscience.

If at face value (yeah Prima Facie) this is not already a ridiculous state of affairs in your mind then just put it all in context. This kind of attitude is a clear demonstration of our society’s lax and arbitrary attitude towards any sense of justice and equity. Policies such as this might (and I stress the might) have a place within a comprehensive program of – let me see – drug dissuasion. But is there one? What is the national policy on Dj’s and their role in concerts? Is there one? Has a spin doctor within the Taghna Lkoll government noticed the potential niche market and come up with some new groundbreaking “social legislation” to add to The One We Allowed the Puffs to Marry, The One We Made Being Gay Legal and The One We Introduced Social Security. (Warning, Irony and sarcasm might damage your brain)?

Not yet it seems. So the branch of the law that most randomly interprets policy and the rule of law decides to suddenly make even the most minor of infractions hidden back in time a huge handicap for DJs. yep. Just DJs. All this while the Prime Minister of the Republic openly embraced a convicted criminal and proudly declared him a soldier of steel. Mixed messages? Who cares? We work in niches and pigeon holes. Even far from the political rhetoric there is something very worrying about the haphazard way that we go about creating, applying and interpreting our laws and policies. The man in the street cannot be blamed for having a skewered view of the law and all that pertains to it.

Cause the police always got somethin stupid to say
They put out my picture with silence
Cause my identity by itself causes violence – N.W.A. (includes O’Shea Jackson a.k.a Ice Cube, Andre Romelle Young a.k.a Dr Dre)

This is the country that hosts the Isle of MTV and will (rightly) close an eye for performers such as Snoop Dogg yet small-time DJs will be struck off the list. A video about FIFA and its corruption is making the rounds – it mentions how in Brasil alcohol consumption was illegal in stadia until FIFA obliged Brasil to make it legal to accomodate main sponsor Budweiser. It is this kind of inconsistency that makes a mockery of any social and legal system. Policies are meant to be created and used with real social purposes. The law should not simply be a toy for bullying selectively and making a mockery out of citizen rights.

The law – the rule of law – is essential to the fabric of society. It can erode slowly and gradually but the ultimate implosion will not benefit anybody. Justice and equity deserve more careful and less partisan application. I will never tire of repeating the old latin adage. We are servants of the law so that we may be free.

“Police on the scene, you know what I mean, they passed me up, confronted all the dope fiends”- Robert Matthew (a.k.a Vanilla Ice, criminal record includes possession of firearms, domestic violence, expired pet tags, driving with expired licence)

Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development Politics

The Hunter outside the Palace

When we decided to change the logo of SDM (the Christian Democrat Student organisation) in the mid-1990s we had decided to include a motto within a design that was meant to portray citizen participation and inclusion. The slogan, taken from Caldera’s tome describing the Christian Democrat principles translated as such “the ideal democratic palace is made up of the whole people”. We were very much into the notion of participatory democracy at the time and it was an interesting formative period of my  life.

One crucial question I have been asking myself recently, particularly after the discussions at the Vilnius closing conference of the European Year of Citizens, is “how far do citizens really want to participate”? Is not an ideal democracy one where citizens are duly represented and where such representatives go about with the business of managing the demos as entrusted unto them? Should a citizen be “active” on a daily basis or should his interventions be limited to the two instances of (1) electing those to be entrusted with the res publica and (2) intervening in moments of crises (taking to the streets)/extraordinary intervention by referendum.

The referendum – a method of public consultation is by now a familiar concept in Maltese politics. European Union membership and divorce have served to speed up the learning curve in this field and we know have a petition for a new referendum this time in the hope of abolishing Spring Hunting for good. It would seem that the representatives of our hunting community are suddenly alarmed that this petition for a referendum might be successful and they have kicked off a counter move – this time the move is a petition by the hunters to amend the very act that gives rise to Referenda. In the hunters’ opinion, such an act should never be used to stifle minorities.

It would seem therefore that the learning curve has hit a huge obstacle. The hunters’ move betrays a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of democratic action and participation. An act such as the referendum act is written in such a way so as to ensure that it does not become a tool for minorities to be ‘stifled’. Given the size of our population, it is already a gargantuan task to obtain a number of signatures that is sufficient to get a referendum going. Then, once the referendum does take place, one should also remember that it requires a majority vote – very much like a national election where similar issues are (supposedly) put on the plate in the form of electoral manifestos. That is why this blog (and a few others) have often insisted for more clarity from political parties during election time as to their commitments for their period in government.

hunter

That is also why the vague propositions found in manifestos are often more of an affront to representative democracy than the very clear aims of a referendum proposition. One should also not forget that a law that is a direct result of a referendum could also be challenged in the courts of law – especially if a citizen could claim that his fundamental rights are being infringed. I seriously doubt that a hunter’s right to shoot at will in Spring  time falls within the ambit of the fundamental rights of humankind and I only mention this check in order to paint a clear picture that goes beyond the PR-oriented assessment of rule of law and politics that is very much encouraged by our political classes today.

As it stands, the hunters are firmly entrenched outside the palace. They are not alone. Our political class have diluted all forms of accountability that would normally allow a democratic system based on rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances to work. When you have a government that first enacts a law, then rethinks it, then admits it was wrong, then admits it failed to consult stakeholders, then also remembers that there was no mention of this law in its political manifesto – and all the while such a government acts as though this was the most natural way of things and actually tries to get brownie points from its whole u-turn by claiming that it is “listening”… well then, something is rotten in Malta’s democratic palace.

“We are accounted poor citizens, the patricians good.
What authority surfeits on would relieve us: if they
would yield us but the superfluity, while it were
wholesome, we might guess they relieved us humanely;
but they think we are too dear: the leanness that
afflicts us, the object of our misery, is as an
inventory to particularise their abundance; our
sufferance is a gain to them Let us revenge this with
our pikes, ere we become rakes: for the gods know I
speak this in hunger for bread, not in thirst for revenge.”

(from Coriolanus, William Shakespeare).

 

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – The Saturday Protest Edition

Saint Julian’s

Paceville’s suburb and older neighbour is sending out an SOS for help. An Old Aloysian prefect of discipline has set up the SAVE SAINT JULIAN’S campaign after having noticed an alarming amount of planned projects concentrated within a small area between Balluta and Spinola. Yes, in many ways it could look like another NIMBY story that occurs when a community has had enough of concrete and high-rise. In other words it could seem to be another egoistic ploy to save one’s own corner of this rock condemned to unfettered development.

Walking through the backstreets from Sliema to Paceville yesterday I took time to snap some hipstamatic shots of architectural gems that might soon be relegated to the annals of history once a contractor gets his hands on them. The Torregiani Villas nestled among the hideous monstrosity of Le Meridien in Balluta are a clear testimony to all that is wrong with our planning sense. We need not even go into environmental tree-hugging mode to understand the brutality of pen-pushing administrative permits. Aesthetic considerations are close to nil. Kiosks turn into pavement hogging restaurants, old townhouses make way for obscene flats (with little or no car parking opportunities) and a refused application today is only just a hopeful window for an approval tomorrow.

So they want to build in the middle of Balluta valley. They want to choke Spinola and deliver the death blow to what little remains that can be described as picturesque. “Save Saint Julian’s” is less of a protest and more of an appeal. It is the kind of appeal that J’accuse takes to heart. Save Saint Julian’s are asking that the law be applied. Yes. It’s that simple. They are not saying DO NOT BUILD. They are not yelling NOT IN MY BACK YARD. They are painfully aware of the concrete reality that is the Sliema/St. Julian’s (forgive me for mentioning the two in the same sentence) front. They are simply calling upon the authorities to apply the law before which everybody should be equal.

It is useless giving permits to developers who will suddenly blame MEPA when their plans on paper turn out to be the hideous monstrosity that everyone else except the developers had seen (pace Albert Mizzi). It is useless “refusing” a permit if contractors feel invincible and go ahead anyway full knowing that the more development there is the more difficult will it be to refuse the next round of applications (see “Polidano can, if he thinks he can“).

On a day like today, PM Gonzi’s ears are best kept out of the kitchen and in Spinola Square. There’s a bunch of people who have something to say and would very much appreciate knowing that somebody, somewhere is listening.