Back in January 2012 Dr Carmen Sammut a specialist in media studies succeeded Aaron Farrugia as Chairperson of Labour’s Think Tank “Fondazzjoni Ideat”. Farrugia had presumably been kicked upstairs (downstairs) and filled the new enigmatic role of secretary to a manifesto. Meanwhile we had high hopes for Dr Sammut who judging by the quality of her input in her “blog” on MaltaToday (more like a regular column Carmen – for someone specialised in media you should know) was brimming with promise for some reasoned discourse.
That was then. Now, only a month later we have an article entitled “PN and civil society: a relationship of convenience“. All in all it’s not a bad article and the observations regarding the PN’s on and off flirtatious attitude with civil society are not quite off the mark. The problems begin when Dr Sammut falls into the commonplace trap of attempting to blame GonziPN for everything she does not like and disagrees with. Even worse, her prescription for what she claims to be a shackled training ground is “government intervention”. Yesterday we had Owen Bonnici inviting the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General to ride roughshod over any pretentions of autonomy the student body might have, today Carmen Sammut, Chairperson of Labour’s think tank, believes that a Prime Minister should intervene and change the statue and workings of the autonomous student body. Here’s Ms Chairperson:
We can also observe that some valid groups are being shackled so that they do not have enough oxygen to flourish. Take student politics at University as one very clear example. The University should be a training ground for political and civil society leaders. Yet, government has never lifted a finger to ensure that many student organizations do not continue to be blocked-voted out of the Students’ Council. It never intervened to help replace an outdated first-past-the-post election that secures a majority of votes for government sympathisers in the executive committee.
There’s something seriously twisted in Labour’s way of thinking. It definitely cannot get to grips with the basic elements of student representation. Forget for a second this particular prescription by Carmen Sammut. What is really worrying is how Labour seems to perceive the role of government in civil society. It is a gilt-edged invitation for Big Brother to step into places where he is definitely not wanted. Is this how a Labour government will work? In the absence of concrete proposals we can only go by what the Chairperson of their think tank seems to think is the best mode of action.
“Block-voted out of Students’ Council”? What bullshit. Has Ms Chairperson bothered to read the statute? Does the fact that 50+1% of voters opt for a particular grouping (no matter how twistedly incompetent) suddenly make it a no-no? Funny, I thought that is how we get a government – that is just what Joseph Muscat is aspiring to achieve come next election: a block vote into government. Outdated first past the post eh? Pinch me, I must be dreaming. Again, Dr Sammut, as one of the persons directly responsible for drafting the statute in question I dare you to state that you looked beyond the complaints of a few Pulse members. In any case your assertion that government should “lift a finger” in this issue is frightening. Terrifying even – in that it exposes the huge chasm between your thinking and reality. Progressive party?
With thinkers like this the only way is back….
5 replies on “Carmen’s Regressive Thoughts and the Labourite’s Obsession with Government Control”
Jacques please re-read the who article. I am talking about two-way communication between civil society and party structures. I also stated that autonomous NGO reponses should not be drawn into polarized debates or overwhelmed by powerful institutions that include parties and the state. Now let us move to the important business of student politics. You have been a University student and so you must be fully aware of our particular reality whereby an old voting system, which I believe dates back to the 1920s, is suffocating student politics. Instead of vibrant student politics we have a long-standing status quo which is contributing to widespread apathy; just look at the voter turnout in KSU elections these days. Many student organisations of all hues tried to join forces to change this but did not manage. It just happens that the status quo suits the party, which is in government. So it seems it is NOT ME who is obsessed with government control. You may agree that it is the KSU voting system which is regressive and not the reasoning behind my whole argument.
Thanks for replying Dr Sammut. Here are a few points of mine:
1. Re: NGOs not being drawn into polarized debates
Agreed. Though there is the inevitable fact that NGOs do not exist in a vacuum and that they are duty bound to participate in debates. What we do not want is NGOs that turn into prostitutes for this or that party.
2. The Voting System at KSU
Was reformed in 1996 (and is definitely not the one that exists since the 1920s). I was one of many who took part in that reform and I have often gone on record stating that it is not the rules that are wrong but the abuse thereof. I will state again that KSu’s particular structure was intended to have an elected EXECUTIVE with the “Policy Making” part of the Union being a much wider body to which the executive is answerable. I have admitted that it does not work but I also insist that the fault lies with students who allow themselves to be driven by outside forces.
3. Student Vote
Student turnout has ALWAYS been apathetic. There has never been a huge turnout for SRC or KSU elections. It is not an excuse, it is a fact. I strongly doubt that the low turnout is a result of the voting system. In any case what Pulse and similar organisations have urged for is a system of proportional representation – which would lead us to having the same style of confrontational elections (this time for the wrong reasons) – and does nothing to try to solve the needs of a representative KSU.
4. Government intervention
One last point . I would still like you to be more clear on this statement of yours:
“government has never lifted a finger to ensure that many student organizations do not continue to be blocked-voted out of the Students’ Council.”
It is a dangerous statement since it implies that you believe Government should interfere with the running of the student council. Do you stand by it? Rectify it? Is it a lapsus?
It is common knowledge that the governing party influences the student body which block-votes the rest of the other organisations through a regressive voting system. Pity if you are cut off this reality!
I’m sorry Carmen but if you were any other opinion columnist I’d just let this off as a typical instance of sweeping generalisation. You are not any other opinion columnist. You sign off your column as “Chairperson of Labour’s Think Tank” and that is what worries me here.
“Common knowledge” is neither here nor there. Your statement implies that government should intervene to replace the voting system. My question is not cut off from reality, on the contrary it is very direct and clear:
Are you or are you not advocating a situation where as you put it “government intervenes to help replace an outdated first-past-the-post election that secures a majority of votes for government sympathisers in the executive committee”?
Why does that worry me? If you espoused that kind of thinking as any other columnist I would not worry – I would be happy to stop at disagreeing. What I would like to know if the Chairperson of Labour’s thinking side actually believes in a policy of government intervention in student politics. Yes or no?
[…] here, for a political news article about the Labourites in England, please click here & please click here, for a political article about the Labourites in Georgia, a country in Europe, please click here […]