‘Think-tank’ Articles at j’accuse

The challenge has been launched. The gloves are up and the million dollar question has been put on the table (and is now a guest at the myriad “talk shows” on our TV’s and radios). Joseph “Inħobbkom” Muscat has put an end to his party’s reticent “cards-to-the-chest” policy and finally announced the 51 proposals that are described as “positive and concrete”. It’s all down to a game of numbers – Gonzi asks 10 questions – he gets 51 answers. Beat that Gonz.

Woe betide he who decides to actually read through the 51 “proposals” and tries to make out how this can be the blueprint for an accountable plan for managing Malta’s future. This is a list that lies long and thin.

Lies – because the sum total is proof that it is marketing above substance, a clumsy attempt by “think tank” apparatchiks to sound sophisticated and clue-full.

Long – because in the mistaken belief that the long numbered list will be enough to con even the intelligent observer, it is evident that whoever sat around the table to pow-wow this thing went through great lengths to add as many “proposals” as possible.

Thin – because the depth of thinking required to come up with this kind of pie-in-the sky ideas belongs somewhere down the evolutionary scale between the amoeba and the sponge.

If you find me insulting then you have not read the proposals yet. Why 51? Easy because 50 would be too obvious… they probably think that 51 sounds like a number casually reached. A while back I got think-tank man Aaron Farrugia in a twist because I criticised the tautological vision of Joseph Muscat about university’s role in society (something about how a university should be a centre of learning). I spoofed it with “Sajjieda ghandhom jaqbdu hut frisk u bdiewa ihawwlu frott tajjeb“. Aaron “unfriended” me for my efforts. No big loss. Then came “Proposal 45” – “Importanza mistħoqqa lill-biedja u sajd“.

Declaring your belief in Airmalta (35) is not a proposal. respecting Maltese and Gozitan “investors” (30) is not a proposal. Youth before bureaucracy (26) is a bumper sticker gone wrong but not a proposal. Promising not to give out government contracts that do not respect worker’s rights (16) is not a proposal – (a) it should be implied in any government, and (b) there are laws and directives that prevent this happening anyway. “Gvern li jkun safe ghal businesses u negozji” (5) is not a proposal, it’s sounds like an advert for companies to store their cash in some government vault. Citizens getting a good and timely service from the courts is not a proposal if you don’t say HOW and WHY you will bring this about (47). Idem Better security in entertainment areas (49).

It doesn’t end does it? These are not proposals for a government in waiting. They’re proposals from another planet. Planet 51.

And if for one minute you thought that the 51 proposals make sense and are a credible plan for electing Labour. Then you deserve a Labour government.

That’s the beauty of democracy – you get the government that YOU deserve.

Planet 51 (Trailer) from Roberto HG on Vimeo.

The PL’s recently founded think-tank, IDEAT, has just published its first quarterly online journal – Ideat Journal. We might tend to judge a journal by whether or not we agree with its content – which would not be the right way to go about it.

I’ve read through some of the articles and on the whole J’accuse’s verdict is that here is a job well done. This first edition is themed “The Road to Progress” and manages to both critique and expand on the notion of “progressivism” as promoted by Joseph Muscat. Contributors such as Andrew Sciberras do not shy away from criticising the early contradictory signs between message and facts being sent out by the PL:

Incidentally, however,Muscat’s reluctance to go the whole hog on divorce and offer instead a free-vote on the contentious issue has sparked further debate, particularly on a future Labour government’s willingness to adopt this civil right. Whilst one can understand that on moral issues one should not be forced to vote against his or her own personal ethic, it is our firm belief that the current position should be reconsidered, especially in light of the commendable declaration by the Labour leader that the majority must never decide for the minority (although it is highly doubtful whether those in favour of divorce are actually in the minority). After all, Labour did not shy away from decriminalising homosexuality and giving women voting rights even though these measures were highly controversial in their day and age. (Grasping the Progressive Ideal, Sciberras)

What we find throughout IDEAT’s first journal is a willingness to engage and criticise away from the the deceptive spotlight of PR-politics and mud-slinging. It comes as a pleasant surprise that is a far call from the bumbling PL public relations attempts. The PL has so far faltered in the attempt to project a factual impression of being able to shoulder the wave of change that it has hinted in many words but little programmes or facts. This job well done could be a first step to bridging the gap.

In his introduction Aaron Farrugia (IDEAT Chairman) shows that the messages from the blogging world have finally hit home somewhere. We get a first signal of a realisation by a party organ that the new communication tools are not only useful for the marketing propaganda but also to engage in exchanges:

We are now embarking on a new way in how we communicate and reach the general public. Conferences and seminars are a traditional method of maintaining such contact, but new technological tools offer many new options for people to get information and constant updates from our end. (…) Regardless of their gender, educational background and socio-economic status, people, especially the young, don’t bother with newspapers or political periodicals. Sometimes they regard them as part of the political dead wood. It is a fact of life that today, most people get their news off the internet.
As a relatively new political foundation we would like to communicate and engage with You and so we are today launching a new concept in local politics – an online political magazine which will be published quarterly and which can be downloadable for free from our website www.ideat.org.mt

IDEAT are to be commended for this venture into the world of open ideas. J’accuse expects to see an IDEAT online wiki/forum in the near future. In the meantime there might no longer be an excuse for us not to engage on purely political terms.

We expect (yes, we are quite big headed on this count) to see the journal transform itself into (at least) a monthly edition – is one magazine with 5 (local) articles every four months all the progressive movement can come up with? Surely there is space for more debate?

Secondly – a little bad habit I pick up from thesis review days – when quoting liberally from an article it would be good to acknowledge the source – otherwise you risk discrediting the content quite quickly. In Aaron Farrugia’s case there was some “borrowing” from David Miliband’s speech at Demos on the 23rd February of 2010: “Powerful people. why progressive ends need progressive means“. There’s no harm in referring to other movements who have “been there, done that” but acknowledging the source is a definite must.

More frequent, more content but otherwise a job well done. Let’s hope others will follow suit.

spread the word:

spread the word: