Much as I respect Chris Said and his work, I cannot help thinking that the whole “let’s build a tunnel from Malta to Gozo” is the latest in a series of red herrings commissioned specifically by Gonzi’s PN. Ever since the hullabaloo about the Coupé Convertible Opera House subsided, there has been a desperate scramble for another controversy of the pointlessly popular kind. I was worried for a second that the Nationalists would resort to streaking MPs in Parliament just for the sake of not having to get down to the nitty-gritty of resolving the Gordian knot of divorce (Gordian from a conservative point of view). Instead we get “an immediate, in-depth technical and financial assessment of the tunnel idea”.
It sounds so Yes, Minister, doesn’t it? Actually “in-depth” studies are step five of the 12-step delaying tactics as described by Sir Humphrey (the full list being: informal discussions, draft proposal, preliminary study, discussion document, in-depth study, revised proposal, policy statement, strategy proposal, discussion of strategy, implementation plan circulated, revised implementation plans, and cabinet agreement). Needless to say, most ideas drown somewhere along the way, never to resurface – the mere supporting of the idea having won the relevant minister the necessary brownie points in his constituency.
I may have mixed feelings about the tunnel myself, but I will not be drawn into discussing the usefulness of a €150 million project right now. This is not to say that the project might merit discussion at some point in time in future and wealthier days (‘future’ being the key word here). The feeling I get is that, notwithstanding His Master’s Voice’s efforts to prod its readers into discussing this project, it has been given as much serious consideration as the fact that Malawi’s government is about to outlaw farting in public.
In the dark
I don’t know why they bothered with this tunnel business, really. I mean, the rules of the game perforce mean that we are constantly given the choice of bulk buying plus one (that makes it two products and only two) when it comes to election options. Right now, all Gonzi’s PN have to worry about, come election time, is that they are seen to be a better solution for government than the PL. Easy-peasy really, since Joseph Muscat has been all over the place trying to dispel any leftover worries that he could actually be the chosen one.
We have already assessed his sensibility on the international scene, thanks to his brainwave regarding tourism theft from the ailing Maghreb and Mashrek. This week we also learnt that the brand new Labour’s election manifesto will be drawn up by an old hat of the tried and tested variety. It’s not a question of character assassination, as the victims of criticism are so ready to point out these days, it’s a question of a running curriculum vitae and, frankly, Karmenu Vella’s doesn’t quite fit the bill, does it?
For all their talk of grass root openness and discussion, both parties are really milking the constitutional advantage of a virtual numerus clausus on parliamentary representation. The Nationalist Party discusses basic issues and projects behind closed doors, leaving the Academy for the Development of a Democratic Environment (AZAD) floundering as a token think tank, while Labour commissions the one-man authorship of an election manifesto, completely ignoring the fact that it is supposed to have a fledgling think tank of its own that should supposedly be the prime contributor at this stage (Fondazzjoni IDEAT).
Double insularity?
The tunnel project would end Gozo’s supposed affliction (personally, I think of it as benediction) of double-insularity but, unfortunately for the Gozitans, they will only be linked to Malta and I doubt whether there is any truth in the idea that this would limit the “sister island’s” insularity. Certain mentalities are hard to ditch and a tunnel to the land of partisan crassness loses much of its charm, doesn’t it? That hundreds of Labour’s partisans stood by Joseph Muscat’s rant about Egypt and Tunisia says much about how far the core voter base will stick to their party, come hell or high water. They were not being asked to vote against him, mind you, just disagree. Yet the only answer I came across was “even the Nationalists took advantage of Greece by making a profit on the loans”.
Really? Which part of “all of Europe lent money to the Greeks” did these Labourites miss? Did they not notice that Joseph’s position sticks out as madly as a Mintoff position in his heyday and makes us look like complete jerks? Or they probably did, and the similarity brought out misty-eyed feelings of nostalgia that further compounded the sad truth that we are really two realities living on one island and that there is no way out – no, not even with a tunnel to Pozzallo.
Underwater
The divorce position has forced hitherto unseen cracks in the modus operandi of both parties. For the first time we are seeing the possibility of parties “taking a position” on an issue without, however, binding their members to vote one way or another in Parliament. Cake and eating it comes to mind. Although Malta’s myriad experts and thinkers have rushed to the Pavlovian reflex of drawing up the pro and anti tribes in a jiffy, the divorce question has, more than any other issue, exposed the limits of ‘umbrella politics’ within both parties. It was the ‘anything goes’ policy of the Nationalist Party candidate selection before the election (not to mention the Mistra Crusade and JPO’s crocodile tears with the whole party behind him) that led them into this unprincipled corner.
Needless to say, progressive Joseph is as progressive as Karl Marx in his coffin for the very same reason. Too many contradictory strands of politics (if they may be called politics) are harboured within his party. The magic number of 50 per cent plus one haunts the PLPN in every step of their operation. They are constantly too fixated with garnering votes to be able to concentrate on the politics. Sure, the Daphnes of this world can croon that better a haphazard government of the relative majority than a throwback to Mintoff’s Club once again, but the truth remains that both parties are spineless when it comes to being principled representatives (bar anything short of miraculous happening next Thursday in the PN camp).
Yes, Austin is right. A party should take a position based on its principles and that should be a condition for membership of the party and for contesting elections within the ranks of the party. If JPO leaves the PN ranks and keeps his seat in Parliament, the PN cannot cry foul: they backed him ferociously (and unfairly) to get into Parliament and, lest they misread the Constitution, it is his seat, not theirs.
Building bridges?
For reasons completely unrelated to J’accuse’s bias towards a multi-party environment, I strongly believe that AD’s strength this time around is its consistency on yet another social issue. AD has been pro-divorce and has no qualms about declaring it. Notwithstanding the dearth of manpower and the unfortunate lack of plucky charisma that constantly plagues the party, AD has proven to be the only party in Malta that is able never to compromise its principles for votes. I argued this week on the blog that, given the dearth of principled parties in our politics, this might be the time for AD to aspire higher than simply being a third party. It is the time for AD to aspire to become a main party in its own right – to the detriment of one of the other two, of course. Unfortunately, the voting public has proved to be as discerning a public as a gathering of Inter supporters, which means that we are heading straight down the tunnel of unprincipled representation, come 2013.
Outside, in the real world, Jordan seems to be next in line in the wave of revolutions in the Arab world. The Egyptian movement has given us a new twist. For the first time, social networking on the Internet reacted to the revolutions and not vice versa. With the Internet down, Google collaborated with Twitter in order to allow Egyptians to tweet via phone lines. An interesting development – it is these times of revolution that could provoke a speedier change than we are already witnessing.
That’s all this week from gloomy Luxembourg.
www.akkuza.com – daily blogging for free public consumption.
ADDENDUM:
And his Master’s Voice is fast at work, eager to dispel the idea that this is just an exercise in mental entertainment. The Times carried an article yesterday entitled “Gozitans welcome tunnel idea”. Well J’accuse welcomes the idea too but does not believe the timing. On the other hand you really have to ask what made the Times dish out the superlatives such as:
“Massive support for the proposal was shown this morning but it was pointed out that Gozitans should have a very big say in the decision. They proposed a referendum in Gozo to see where Gozitans stood on the issue.”
Really? So what exactly is the “massive support” if a referendum is needed? then the GRTU came out strongly in favour of the tunnel. If you consider Vince Farrugia a strong unbiased voice that is. On the other hand, if you remember that Vince was part of the umbrella coalition for MEP votes then you might think again. The Times’ eagerness to shower plaudits was unbridled:
Some of the organisations in Gozo had already appointed sub-committees to work on the proposal, while a survey held by the GTA found had 90 per cent support of members of the Gozo Tourism Authority.
I bet the Xewkija Tigers social committee got an early head start on that one. And you’ve got to love the survey by the GTA (Gozo Tourism Authority) that obtained 90% support of the … wait for it… Gozo Tourism Authority.
As for copying Nordic countries, the last time we experimented with their ideas in the Fliegu we ended up with flat bottomed boats that were ideal for fjords but that rocked like crazy whenever the Libeccio was here to stay.
Could do better.
