Tag: vote

Categories
Campaign 2013

The Courage to Vote – voting AD

The last post is always the one about which way the J’accuse vote will go. This time round it is not that hard to guess given this blogs declaration of its preference early in the campaign. It’s not simply about declaring one’s voting preference though. The reasoning behind the vote is just as important as the vote itself-  particularly when we are in the phase of the election when the vilification of the “wasted vote” reaches its peak. In my discussions with like minded voters I have always stressed that if the third party was to attract votes it would have to be clear, honest and up-front about its motives and its reasons.

Yes it is true, you have only one vote. It is a huge responsibility and you are meant to use it not egoistically or on the basis of grievances that are mostly personal by nature. A responsible vote is one that is made when fully conscious of the consequences of that vote, of what it entails and what one hopes to achieve with it. So here is the reasoning that leads me, and I hope will lead other like minded voters, to vote for alternattiva demokratika.

The Wasted Vote

To begin with you have to be aware of the investment that you are making when using your vote. Yes, they are right when they try to scare you and warn you that your vote risks being wasted. The “waste” is in terms of being a determining factor of which party will govern the nation for the next five years. True there is a sight chance that the third party gets to form a coalition in government. We’ll come back to that later but the truth is that the odds are stacked highly against this happening. It is the existence of these very odds that makes me stop considering my vote wasted. If I want change from this winner-takes-all mentality I have to set the ball rolling. The main parties will not do that for me. They have proven time and again that their promises of electoral reform are a lie.

They blatantly disregard the basic rules that are supposed to level the playing field, they engage in gerrymandering and abuse of the very rules in order to scare you away from voting for an alternative. The first reason to vote AD is to mark a positive step and add to the critical mass that will one day drive a wedge into the winner-takes-all mentality. The first reason to vote AD is to show that nobody owns your vote and that by exercising your democratic right to choose the party you want you are not wasting your vote. That is why the number 1s will be more effective.

Risk vs Returns

So the AD voter is running a higher risk. He is sacrificing the possibility of choosing the lesser of what he considers two evils in order to make a positive statement in favour of more proportional representation and in order to break the dichotomy. What returns can he expect?

In the first instance the achievement of a critical mass could mean that finally a third party is represented in parliament. Irrespectively of whether it is a government-forming coalition or a party that forms part of an opposition this achievement would in itself signify a very positive return on the risk. An AD MP means more scrutiny of parliamentary affairs, it also means positive action with the possibility of proposing bills in parliament, participating in parliamentary committees and transforming the black and white dialogue into constructive debate. It would also mean a sucker punch at the heart of the complacent parties who have long settled in the race to the bottom – safe in the assumption that the system of eternal alternation guarantees them a part of the pie.

At a second level an AD that is in a position to reach compromises with the main parties on matters of governance means influencing the populist rhetoric that wins the mainstream party votes with real and concrete commitments in the field of environment and civil rights. Both parties have tried to label AD as being part of the “other”. It’s inevitable because they see every vote for AD as a vote of theirs that is lost to the other side. Do not fall for their trap. AD has no pre-written preference. AD is not the PL or PN in disguise. It has proven to be a party fully capable of coming up with concrete policies and proposals that rise above partisan interests.

Number 1

The hesitant voter is the one that is currently contemplating whether it is worth investing in this new wave – the green spring. The odds are stacked against the party. His original party of choice has drummed the wasted vote argument in his head. The fear of the other side winning is coupled with the false rumours that abuse of your ignorance. A Daphne would attempt to equate Michael Briguglio with communism for having written against the Cuban Embargo – do voters know that the nationalist government was on Mike Briguglio’s side? Does that make GonziPN a commie government? A Labourite would claim that Muscat’s wave of change is the change that is needed. The temptation for many to simply vote Muscat for change’s sake is sad. It betrays a lack of clarity and a readiness to be sweet-talked on the basis of some anger at the nationalist establishment.

It takes courage to vote AD. There’s no denying that. It is the courage of opting to go against the current, of thinking different, of recognising the difficult odds and yet persisting in driving home the final straw that might begin to break the system. Voting AD is not for the weak, for the easily offended or for the easily convinced. It is a responsibility that must be borne with care because it is a responsibility that could effect future generations. As an enlightened young columnist once said – we must not simply think in the short term but we must think for future generations. Do we want them to experience this race to the bottom politics or are we prepared to give them a chance to see a new dawn, a new page in our history.

Voting for AD is not for the faint hearted. Third party voters are those that really want to stand up and be counted. They are those who are unaffected by the fear campaigns and scare mongering. They are the ones who are prepared to give a chance to thinking different about a future nation that is everybody’s true, but that is based on reason and reality not on populist rhetoric.

On Saturday, if you are strong willed enough and if you believe in change give your first preference to AD before moving along the ballot sheet. If you still cannot shed the habit of alternation you couldn’t do worse than giving AD your second preference after choosing your government party of choice – but be warned, that vote is not half as effective.

AD stands for open democracy, open society and open politics. With AD there are no deals with interest groups or business interests. Ad has no endorsements from foreign politicians, footballers or clowns. The only endorsement AD is seeking is yours. In return AD pledges to be honest and clear with you.

Because with AD you know where you stand.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Briguglio’s Faux Pas?

This is only the second national election being covered by this blog (which incidentally turns 8 on the day of the results). For the first time we have been ever more outright in our support for getting a third party elected into parliament particularly since alternattiva demokratika has not only proven to be a particularly apt vehicle for that process but also (and more importantly) it has proved its worth as a party with full credentials for representation. In other words it is much more than simply electing a third party for a third party’s sake.

Having said that the recent revelation regarding Michael Briguglio’s 2008 vote have caught many of the party’s supporters on the wrong foot – myself included. How can you trust a party that is led by a Chairman who openly declares not having voted for it last time round? A legitimate question if ever there was one.  Should AD have their version of Malcolm Tucker he would be down Michael Briguglio’s throat in no time. It would have much to do with the idea that there is a place and time for downright honesty and an electoral campaign is not one of them. There doesn’t seem to be a Tucker though and Briguglio seems to be happy enough with his version of “I have always been a floating voater and see no inconsistency”. Isn’t there?

Well I am not one to be satisfied by this and I have asked for a better explanation. Why did Michael Briguglio – an AD councillor in Sliema at the time – not vote for AD at the General Elections? The answer is not only comforting but also encouraging. It turns out that “AD mark 2008” run by Harry Vassallo was not turning out to be as incisive and effective as Mike Briguglio hoped. Compare that AD to today’s AD for an answer – today’s AD is confident, with a clear vision and is not into the business of begging for your number twos. Briguglio’s AD is definite about its position on everything – no half truths, no lies, no corners – just a clear “with us you know where you stand”. It also turns out that Mike had some concerns about the administrative running of the party. Mike had concerns on matters of principle.

I can understand Mike’s worry in that respect. Last time round the campaign from this corner of the blogosphere focussed on the third party for the third party’s sake and that might be a mistake. A party cannot simply be elected out of the need for a third party. It has to have clarity of vision. This might have been lacking to a point in 2008 and Mike’s contribution since his election to the chairmanship has contributed to making sure this lacuna is filled. Which brings me to the next point. Mike chose to sit back during the last election (he did NOT contest for AD – and retained his seat in the Sliema council out of respect for his voters). He did vote for Sant’s Labour given the choice. His disillusion with what was being wrought in AD at the time might have had a part in that decision.

One point that springs to mind is that Mike acted out of principle. Not agreeing with what was going on in the party at the time he stepped back. Did not campaign actively, did not contest (of course). Compare that to what was going on in the PN camp in 2008 with ghost writers and secretary general’s turning somersaults in order to sell the lie that was Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Would you barter Mike’s honest stand with that load of crap?

After that election Michael was approached by Labour to join the new movement. He turned this down. Surely if Mike wanted to be part of a Labour wave as some bad tongues are wagging right now he would have jumped on Muscat’s Train of Misfits? Surely it would have been easier for Michael to sell his progressive ideas in a Labour government than from the hypothetical partnership in a coalition? Surely. You’d have to be stupid to believe that Michael Briguglio has the Labour Party’s interests at heart.

We know what happened next. Cassola asked Mike to return to the AD fold. Vassallo was out of the picture working for the Nationalist Commissioner in the EU John Dalli (after having been hounded by the same nationalists on the eve of the election for having forgotten to file some VAT documents relating to defunct companies). Mike rejoined the new project with enthusiasm and charisma, bringing the experience garnered from years of political militancy. Sure, Mike brings a leftist touch to the Green politics of AD but anyone wanting to look at the credentials of Mike and his party need only look at the uncompromising principles in their manifesto. This is not a party that would sell its soul to the FKNK.

In the Maltese atmosphere of exploiters of ignorance and purveyors of fear it is easy to pounce on Mike’s honest answer to the question “who have you voted for in 2008?”. The gullible and the easily exploited will fall for the ruse that Mike is Labour disguised as green. Mike is none of that. Mike is one of the few honest candidates running for the election on the ticket that could make history.

For that reason and because I have full faith in Michael and his team I will be putting a number 1 next to Michael Briguglio’s name next election. (And yes, this Gozitan votes on the 10th District).

Categories
Campaign 2013

The Magritte Effect

I’ve already referred to this phenomenon earlier in the campaign. I’m calling it the Magritte Effect – the moment when you are told something but the picture and the clues before you are telling you a diametrically opposite story. This campaign more than any other has given us a steady dose of Magritte effects – your ears hear a statement, a story, a spin (or your eyes read it) but it is evident right from the start that it is a very very twisted distortion of what is reality. That’s it. This election has been one long hyperreal trip.

I cannot stand hearing any more protests about the “Wasted Vote” particularly when a vote for AD is practically the only vote that goes to a party that is not twisting truths or bending reality in order to seem to accomodate everything and everyone. A vote is a positive vote and that’s what you would be exercising should you chose to vote for Briguglio & Co. You’d be saying – “yes, there is one party that has given me a clear picture of what it wants and what it will do. I’m trusting them with my vote because they are not in bed with businessmen and other centres of interest, they have not sold their soul to any interest group that comes knocking. Yes, I hope they will get a seat in parliament – even in opposition – because I can trust them with representing my interests.”

As for the PLPN and their Magritte effect… where to start? How about funding? The ears hear Gonzi and Muscat waxing lyrical about party funding. We are told that both parties are fully accountable and don’t owe anyone any favours. Then our eyes see the PN getting a loan from businessman Nazzareno Vassallo and they insist (Look into my eyes, look into my eyes) that there are no obligations there. Labour speak as though they are the pauperissimi of the nation yet they are very evidently subsidised by big money – no obligations there either? Pull the other one. Let’s not forget Paul Borg Olivier’s infamous “we barter for our goods” statement and Labour’s never ending flow of cash with no real audited accounts. Then we are supposed to believe that these parties would self-discipline themselves should they be elected? Ha!

How about environment? The two main parties claim to be greener than an illicit hash deposit yet their wheelings and dealings with the hunting and squatting communities openly betray this deceit. Armier. Just one word should have you holding your noses and looking at the PLPN lists with disgust. It’s public land that will be given away there. Green public land in Armier, not that far away from JPO’s Mistra (remember that one). Then you see Labour all bla bla about being the best in Europe, better than Europe but when it comes to all the gas plans by Konrad Mizzi they seem to be more than prepared to ignore Environmental Assessments and safety directives. It’s their costings (coooostings) not mine you know. Magritte… we are green but we’ll be buggered if we’ll lose a few votes by staying green.

Then there’s the positive campaign business. A load of bollocks really. The last thing that Labour’s campaign has been is non-divisive. Rarely has Labour held back from slinging the mud even where it was evident that evidence was lacking. As for the PN. Ah, the masters of negative spin probably still hold some bombs in their arsenal. The apex of Magritt-ism was reached on the Runs the day the PN denied the persistent rumour that it had any dirt to bring out on Muscat’s personal life. Just look at this farce:

Ah good. I’m tired of being asked about this. Daphne Caruana Galizia

 

It couldn’t be more obviously comical and sad at the same time. The blogger is actually putting up the PN denial “No we don’t have any rumour on Muscat’s private life” then illustrates the blog with pictures that tell a different story – unattributed pics with unknown persons photographed with Muscat. There’s no better way to not kill a rumour than by adding more fuel to the rumour. A masterpiece from the blog that excels in tailoring, bespoke suits, funny hairlines and other such morass from the area of politics of taste.

The Magritte effect. It’s all over the place. PLPN are now busy trying to be what they are not. They need to be pleasant to anyone who could promise them a vote. Labour was busy rewriting history throughout the campaign – with a “we legalised homosexuality” lie here to a “we introduced stipends and opened university” lie there… the lie found fertile ground with the enthusiastic purveyors of non-change.

I’ve said it before and will say it again. Voting labour for change is like turning your underwear inside out and putting it on again. As for PN. Well PM Gonzi’s last displays of “trust us because there is nothing better than us” is the usual case of too little too late in many fields. It’s 2008 all over again. Vote for us to keep out the unelectable dinosaur that is labour. While there’s no denying at this point that the mascara riddled Labour party is a disaster in waiting, there’s also no denying that Gonzi’s PN failed on many counts to deal with the issues that were already pressing in 2008 – topmost among which is the issue of proportional representation in parliament.

Had these issues been dealt with we would not be speaking of wasted votes and insulting thousands of voters who could be about to vote positively (and not for the lesser evil default) with more confidence. 5 years ago they were busy backing up JPO to the hilt in order to scrape as many votes as possible (which they did). They told many to put their priorities of representation to the side and get the PN in – their priorities would be dealt with later.

Here we are again. 2013. This time voters have a clear and open opportunity to show that they see through the Magritte effect. They have a chance to use their vote positively and elect someone who can guarantee he will represent their interests even from the benches of the opposition.

In a campaign that is bereft with lies and faux promises the only party that has shown consistency and a consistency that yearns to be at your service is alternattiva demokratika.

A vote for alternattiva is a vote for real representation. It is a vote for change.

Don’t waste yours on fake effects. Don’t waste your vote. Vote AD.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Malta Post-Franco (Reprise)

Discussing the Franco Debono situation over lunch yesterday, we joked that his statement of “I will not vote with Labour” (as reported by MaltaToday) meant just that. Admittedly our considerations were more in jest than anything else but we considered the possibility that Franco was using his very literal form of reasoning in the sense that “not voting with Labour” does not necessarily mean voting otherwise.

I must admit that given the information earlier that morning I too was surprised by the outcome of the final vote. Surprised to a certain extent though. While I had not seen Franco’s vote coming I was fully aware of the consequences of this vote in the sense that there would be no great collapsing of government, no tumbling down of the temples of power and that the only “victim” of this latest fit would be Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

Incidentally we had also joked that since the motion of confidence had concerned a portfolio that was no longer in CMB’s remit then technically there was nothing to resign from once the vote passed. I know, it’s no laughing matter but the way things were going laughter did seem to be the best medicine. The whole body politic has been in the thrall of Franco Debono’s voting antics for quite some time now. As we pointed out in an earlier series of posts (Malta Post Franco I-IV), Franco is doomed to be a temporal blip in political history.

Sure a record might be broken here and there – such as the forcing of a resignation of a minister (within living memory) but the long-term impact of Franco on the Maltese political landscape was always intrinsically linked with the one-seat majority that the nationalist party enjoys (ah, the cruelty of language) in parliament. The content of Franco’s agenda (or whatever screen he has put up to disguise any personal ambitions and compensation for suffering) is all watered down when seen from a long-term perspective.

In two matters Franco has been unintentionally and unwittingly useful. Firstly his protracted theatricals have served to exposed one major weakness of our representative democracy. The obsession with guaranteeing a bi-partisan approach and discarding all other models (such as one that encourages proportional representation) has meant for some time now that the JPO’s and Debonos of this world expose the stark reality of “election or bust” oriented parties without a backbone. This is a weakness that no “premio maggioranza” would solve , rather, it would only serve to entrench the two parties further in their twisted machinations.

The second useful matter concerns the Labour party. Franco’s bluff and no bluff has actually uncovered the Labour party’s brash “power or nothing” approach that discards any conventional value-driven approach while grafting the ugliest versions of the nationalist party to what it believes to be its own benefit. Valueless politics giving way to full blown marketing was already bad enough. Now we have Labour with it’s catastrophic approach. Muscat’s Labour has shot itself in the foot so many times it probably lacks any limbs.

There is a third, important conclusion that one should add. It is the ugly reflection about the “general public”. A large swathe of it – or the particularly active part of it – have proven to be ridiculously hopeful of the promises that Franco seems to have bandied about. His pet subjects were manna to the ears of the disgruntled – particularly conspiracy theories peppered with mantras about arrogance, cliques and friends of friends. His tales of hurt and suffering – culminating in the infamously comic “broken chair in Court” episode could only strike home if the audience were (how can I put it) less informed.

To conclude, the merry go round that risks being extended once Franco misses out on the latest redistribution of power has exposed huge fault lines in our appreciation of how a basic democracy should function. Separation of powers,  judicial authority, parliamentary privileges, public security and rights were all melded together in one big bouillabaisse of political convenience.

Franco’s minutes in the political playing field are now counted. We should have moved on from gazing at Franco months ago, yet we (and the press have much to blame for this) are still at the mercy of his idea of a guessing game. The real politics that will affect out lives for the coming five to ten years lie far away from Franco’s hand. Sadly, nobody seems to be bothered to find out what what those politics and policies really are or will be.

…

from Malta Post-Franco (II)

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.

Categories
Divorce Politics

Humpty Dumpty Politics

What makes or breaks a modern political party? Can we still talk of the terms “christian-democrat” and “socialist” (or the masacara “progressive”) when it comes to the nitty-gritty of politics in Malta? Is it just Malta that has entered a Bermuda Triangle of party values?

The nationalist party might hold the “Fehmiet Bazici” (Basic Beliefs) document to its heart but how is it to reconcile that with the calculated vote grabbing net that is elaborated every five years? Joseph Muscat may have declared a new era of progressive liberals but his party is having a hard time trying to appease the weird animal that is the “conservative proletariat”.

The “socialists” were never socialist to begin with. Even at the worst of the church-Labour battles their worry over the fact of being buried in non-consecrated ground or their sacristy marriages betrayed their Peppone like interior. Beneath the wannabe socialist revolutionaries were Catholics who were really stung by the fundamentalist church moves. Had they really been convinced of their socialist, lay battles they wouldn’t have given two hoots about being interdicted from a church that was supposedly not theirs.

The nationalist party lost its moral compass right after 1987. It was on a life-saving machine all through the EU campaign having placed its bets on the right horse but once the fog of the EU War subsided (thank you very much Waste-Our-Bloody-Time-Sant) it fell apart like Humpty Dumpty – unable to string together a coherent plan of action and a victim of the Young Battlers of the EU Campaign clamouring for a piece of the victorious pie of government. The worldwide economic crisis did the rest of the trick.

So when an issue like divorce hits the parties when they least expect it, they are unable to react as political parties. Or at least it seems so. James Debono has done a(nother) wonderful job of assessing the different scenarios with regards to divorce and the two main parties: “Divorce: When principles and convenience collide“. Even if we were to set aside the issue itself (divorce) and focus on the party reactions to what is basically a “principle” or “value” changer in society the results are rather bleak.

The stand taken by Austin Gatt might be old hat but it is after all what you’d expect from a party MP. Austin’s stand is about the PN stand not about what Malta thinks. He is spot on when he says that if he (Austin) disagrees with divorce legislation then he cannot fit in within a party that actively promotes divorce legislation. J’accuse would go one further. Resign from the PN in case it decides to back divorce legislation but do not resign from parliament.

Paul Borg Olivier’s recent interview on Dissett points to a possible development for the PN. It is the possibility of acknowledging that the party itself is in favour/against divorce but leaving its members free to vote. The question J’accuse would like to ask is: Does this count as a party position on values? Is the acknowledgement that a discussion such as divorce is one that has both pro- and con- partisans within the same party sufficient to say that party values are safe?

Even Labour, with what is supposed to be a less confessional set of values (actually it claims to be progressive) has difficulties taking a stand on divorce. Granted that there is no denying that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has a proven track record of opportunistic bandwagon politics this particular nut will be a tough one to crack. Muscat has his own Gatt on his side of parliament (Adrian Vassallo) and surely other conservative proletarians will follow suit.

Which leaves us with Alternattiva Demokratika. What started off as a party with a strong green agenda at the time of its affiliation with the Verdi/Greens can now boast of a wealth of political positions in the social sphere – from property rights to gender issues to divorce. The party position is unequivocal and clear: they want divorce legislation.

The D’Hondt relative majority has done much to whittle away the party backbone for the party in government. It lives each day nervously wondering which backbencher (or government member) might step out of line and threaten the fragile structure that is at wits end. It has gone from “Par Idejn Sodi” (a pair of strong hands) to “Kuljum bir-Roghda” (everyday shaking). The PL is at sea trying to desperately loop in any possible voter and trying not to tread on anyone’s toes in case their vote is needed come d-day. Which leaves us with a gaggle of spineless politicians unable to take a clear stand on matters that count. Or does it?

J’accuse believes that for the first time Alternattiva Demokratika has a chance to assert itself as something more than a party aspiring for the third place. The l vacuum opened up by the PLPN (ironically as a direct result of their tweaking of the D’Hondt Relative Majority) opens up the same possibilities as those seen by the UK Liberal Democrats before the last elections. AD should no longer aspire to be a third party. On paper, it has every right and chance to aspire to be a major role player in the next elections and technically it should be the most spineless of the PLPN duo that suffers.

That of course does not take into account the partisan vote base. Which will stick to its PLPN guns come hell or highwater… or come divorce.