Some months ago, while being interviewed on public television (Dissett), I had described the issue of political party financing as extremely urgent and a priority. I strongly argued that the issue should be tackled immediately, considering its direct bearing on our country’s democracy. The interviewer had dismissed my claims to urgency, apparently comforted by the fact that the issue was, at the time, being tackled by a parliamentary committee.

Recent events have, since, brought work in that committee to a standstill. Moreover, about 15 years ago and we were, compared to most countries, already late, a report (the Galdes Report, 1995) had been tabled in the House of Representatives but still, to date, nothing has come out of it. Since then, no significant developments have taken place and no concrete measures have been implemented with regard to the issue under discussion.

The issue of party finance is crucial and central to any democracy in this day and age.

As the Council of Europe’s Third European Conference of Specialised Services in the Fight against Corruption, held between September 28-30, 1998, had declared: “…political parties play an essential role in democratic systems.

“Their operation requires appropriate resources while electoral campaigns have become expensive. Faced with increasing expenses, political parties are unable to live only on their members’ fees and have to solicit and accept donations. Trading in influence has, thus, developed. In order to remedy this situation, which is detrimental to the rule of law and democracy, it is necessary to ensure political parties are financed in a wholly transparent manner.”

Political parties are challenged today with complex tasks, including researching and developing relevant and updated policies as well as communicating their message in the best possible manner in order to garner maximum support and win elections. Such tasks necessitate a sound structural organisation and infrastructure, which cannot be put in place and function without adequate financial resources.

The process of securing the necessary funds could lead to abuse. Parties could potentially end up at the mercy of particular donors who may seek to exert control through undue or unlawful influence. Legislation all over the world has been enacted precisely with the aim of averting such jeopardy and limit the dangers to democracy.

Since political parties are not just voluntary organisations accountable solely to their members, but organs of a constitutional nature and relevance, the necessary legislation tackling the most urgent issue of disclosure and public auditing of parties’ finances should be enacted. Strengthening democracy means ensuring political parties are financed in an accountable and transparent manner.

Thus, the Galdes Report, tackles such issues as whether there should be a ceiling on private donations, whether donations exceeding a certain amount should be prohibited and sums exceeding which amount should import a duty of disclosure.

In the United States, disclosure of small amounts by small donors was held by the Supreme Court to potentially seriously infringe on the rights to privacy and association and belief and, thus, one must always strive to strike a balance.

Tackling the issue of eligibility for state financing, linked primarily to the number of votes obtained by a party in the previous general election, the Galdes Report again establishes the requirement of the compulsory publication of financial statements and accounts, as well as disclosure of particular donations, exceeding certain amounts. It proposes strict penalties in cases of default or non-observance, enforced by a regulatory and supervising authority to be established under the same proposed legislation.

The report had, for instance, also tackled the issue of candidates’ expenses during election campaigns, which amount, just under €1,400, 15 years and four elections ago was deemed too low and unrealistic. It was suggested that it should be increased, in addition to proposing a more realistic definition of the relevant period preceding an election. We are still debating this today and nothing concrete has as yet materialised.

This aspect of transparency is important too.

It is time to rethink the structure and internal organisation and set-up of political parties as constitutional vehicles. It is time to think about the relevance of political party stations today. It is a time of great challenges where we must continue to revise and upgrade the constitutional architecture for the future.

As has always happened under successive Nationalist Administrations, we must continue strengthening democracy and this is the next step.

It is time to pass from reports and committees to action and legislation. And we must continue on the good work being done in public broadcasting , upgrading it too.

Dr Debono wrote his doctoral thesis for the law degree on The Constitutional Implications Of Party Organisation And Party Finance (1999).

Website: www.francodebono.info

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta

• Major political donors get anonymity (theage.com.au)
• Paying for politics and putting power where it should be (theglobeandmail.com)
• Ireland is not a Democracy. Change is therefore impossible. (politics.ie)
• Are capitalism and parliamentary democracy unsuited to Ireland? (politics.ie)

Image via Wikipedia

So here it is. Flagged originally by DF on facebook I couldn’t resist posting this short lecture by Slavoj Zizek. His scatological examination of different ideologies is already impressive in its absurd simplicity but just wait for the pubic hair analysis to be absolutely convinced. You will never again flush the toilet in the same way.

Related articles by Zemanta

• And What Are Straight Guys Having Their Pubic Hair Shaped Into? (queerty.com)
• Reader Roundup: Wild Pubes Can’t Be Tamed [Commenter Quips] (jezebel.com)
• Steven Nereo: The Straight Nope: Hipster V-Necks (huffingtonpost.com)
• Leslie Goldman: Do Women Have To Be Hairless To Be Sexy? (huffingtonpost.com)

Cover via Amazon

It’s a blog. Not a professional newspaper. We “opinionate”, we rarely (if ever) “report”. We blogcomb and we recycle with an input of opinions. That is why when summer comes – the silly season – the blog tends to aestivate in its own way. Travels and trips and holidays mean that notwithstanding advanced technology that could allow us to blog from anywhere we prefer to lay back and recharge the mental battery. It’s not like the summer season helps much anyway. Not with the kind of news it tends to throw at us. Were it not for DimechGate this summer would have gone by without much of a squeak.

The becalmed waters of somniferous summer have now been whipped up into a veritable storm. We enjoyed the magnetic calm last week as we could feel the storm coming. From the rekindled divorce discourse, to the faith vs reason, to fireworks and local councils we are now once again pressed for blogging time. As the first rains of the wet season began to fall on the Grand Duchy this morning we thought of that calm moment before the storm – and Gary Oldman’s “Stansfield” in the ‘94 movie “Léon” came to mind:

Stansfield: I like these calm little moments before the storm. It reminds me of Beethoven. Can you hear it? It’s like when you put your head to the grass and you can hear the growin’ and you can hear the insects. Do you like Beethoven?
Malky: I couldn’t really say.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Film Review: The Professional (cinemaroll.com)

on the history of the firework

A Chinese monk named Li Tian, who lived near the city of Liu Yang in Hunan Province, is credited with the invention of firecrackers about 1,000 years ago. The Chinese people celebrate the invention of the firecracker every April 18 by offering sacrifices to Li Tian. During the Song Dynasty, the local people established a temple to worship Li Tian. The firecrackers, both then and now, are thought to have the power to fend off evil spirits and ghosts that are frightened by the loud bangs of the firecrackers. Firecrackers are used for such purposes today at most events such as births, deaths and birthdays. Chinese New Year is a particularly popular event that is celebrated with firecrackers to usher in the new year free of the evil spirits. (history of fireworks)

on europe and the firework

Generally Marco Polo is credited with bringing the Chinese gunpowder back to Europe in the 13th century, although some accounts credit the Crusaders with bringing the black powder to Europe as they returned from their journeys. Once in Europe, the black powder was used for military purposes, first in rockets, then in canons and guns. Italians were the first Europeans who used the black powder to manufacture fireworks. Germany was the other European country to emerge as a fireworks leader along with Italy in the 18th century. It is interesting to note that many of the leading American display companies are operated by families of Italian descent such as the Grucci family, Rozzi family, and Zambelli family. (history of firework continued)

on firework factory explosions

Too many words have been spent. Futile speech and hypocritical mourning for “heros” whose lives suffer the ugliest of clichés – going up in smoke. In a country that is buried in ignorance, that champions populism and that is run by proxy there is not much to hope for. Only last week we celebrated our brethren winning some concours in Spain for firework production. Only last week the Mosta blast was buried beneath the rubble of short-term memory and swept under the convenient carpet of forgetfulness.  And now the country mourns again. A family. A whole branch of a family tree is buried under yet another nonsensical blast. From grandfather to unborn child – they have all vanished in one big bang that shook the West. The nearby chapel of Saint Dimitri brought little solace. The balkan Saint did not ride to bring the Farrugia’s to safety as he had done for Zgugina’s son many moons ago. And the Xaghra feast will go on as usual.

on spin, (t)reason and slash and burn

Legislation is lacking. Defective chemicals or no defective chemicals the regulatory lacuna is as huge as the new hole in GHarb’s grounds. Over twenty years of nationalist government and we will still be crossing our fingers come next festa season. There are no balls to tackle the problem and the worst part of it is that the spinmasters come a-scrambling over the dead bodies of the latest fallen as soon as they see a new opportunity to shoot at the opposition. It appears that Joseph Muscat’s father is one of the importers of the chemicals used to make fireworks. We are now one step short of blaming Joseph Muscat for the explosion. it is clear as crystal now – the PN government has not taken firm action to regulate (or eliminate?) the firework industry because it would (obviously) find no support from labour since Joe’s daddy imports the goods (obviously).  Excuse the sarcastic brackets but even if that were true I’d expect PN to be strong enough and take the decision with or without Labour’s go-ahead. But they cannot can they? Because it’s not just Joseph’s daddy. It’s many many a money pushing peasant who cannot live without the smell of burnt fireworks during festa season. And what would PN coffers be without the firework lobby? Most PN MPs would not be in parliament would they? Are we sure it’s just Joseph’s daddy that is stopping spineless politicians from taking a firm stand? Bah.

on the light fantasticke

In Strasbourg last month I witnessed a beautiful, breathtaking lightshow that went on every night illuminating the monumental cathedral. The son et lumière (that’s light and sound) show had everybody lost for words as fifteen minutes of lights playing on the facade and from within the church while classical music filled the square proved that not much is lost when fireworks are foregone. The biggest risk with a light show in the village piazza is the non-collaboratorial cock-up by Enemalta and the power suppliers. It’s time to think lateral. The firework industry needs to start paying for the damage. Already the residents of Gharb are looking for compensation for the damage wrought by the latest explosion.

How long before houses are shook to the ground and the firework war takes its first “civilian” victim? Will that be enough for the government to take firmer action? Will it be enough to stop the spinmongers jumping on the let’s blame Joseph for everything wagon? Frankly I do not give two hoots about what Joseph thinks or what his interests may be. If he were to stoop so low as to back the firework lobby for the sake of private interests then that would only reaffirm many suspicions on the politics of opportunism that seems to be rampant in the PL – but let us not lose the main focus. We have a government that governs with a majority thanks to the rules of the game. If that government really has the goodwill of the people at heart then it should not be relying on its spin machine to deviate attention but it should be taking concrete action. Now.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fireworks : A History (skysports.suite101.com)
• Fireworks safety (cenblog.org)
• Celebrate The 4th Of July With Virtual Fireworks (multiplayerblog.mtv.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Number One: God

It’s been one hell of a myth-busting week, one of the groundbreaking variety. It all began with the revelation (this time not in Patmos) that Stephen Hawking’s new book includes the following bold assertion: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” (For a dramatic touch read to this last paragraph while playing Mendelssohn’s And Then Shall Your Light Break Forth).

Hawking has not managed to completely dispense with the figure in the sky completely as many a Dawkins would undoubtedly prefer, but he has got quite damningly (in a Dantesque sense) close by asserting that the figure in the sky was not a determining element in what many religions term “the moment of creation”. “God the Innocent Bystander as the universe sparked into life” is definitely not going to go down well with many a deist on this earth – let alone the Monsignor Gouders of this island who are still putting forward the complex and highly relevant (and Dantesque) notion of classification of sins applicable to politicians performing their civic duty.

It was refreshing to read the reaction of senior members of the religious community in the UK. From Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) to Lord Sacks (Chief Rabbi), the argument ran on familiar and (from my point of view) very comforting lines. Sacks summarised it beautifully in the simple but eloquent phrase: “Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation.” There you go – quod erat demonstrandum and all that. It threw me back to the days of yore when I was quizzed by Brother Mifsud (a brother of the learnéd Jesuit variety) as to whether or not I believed in the sun and that it would rise the next day. My unequivocal “yes” would earn me a harsh slap on the head and a (confusing at the time) explanation that you cannot believe in something that can be proved – such as the very sun shining through the window.

Belief, by definition, requires an act of faith. Whatever has been proved no longer requires belief. And that is where Hawking, Dawkins and all the rest will find that the new brick wall is to be raised. As the Archbishop of Canterbury put it, “Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the Universe. It is the belief that there is an intelligent agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence.” Hawking may spend valuable time and energy telling believers that nobody really threw the switch (it was automatic) only to be dismissed with the phrase: “Yes, but who put the switch there?” He just has to thank God (or his lucky stars) that we live in the time of Benedict XVI not Urban VIII and there is little chance of his being summoned to the Ratzing-court for a forced recanting of his ideas.

Deep down, most religions do not even care or need to care about proof that there is a god. Religion works with or without such proof – like Schrödinger’s cat opening the box is not the whole point of the experiment. It’s not that hard to reconcile oneself with this new reality of mutual exclusion. Science is built on proofs and has no place for leaps of faith, or as French mathematician LaPlace best put it in answer to Napoleon’s question on why he made no mention of God in his works of astronomy “I have no need for that hypothesis”. The inverse is true in the case of faith as the Tourist from Tarsus once defined it: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” See? Everybody’s happy. Except maybe Schrödinger’s cat.

Number Two: Those infallible Americans (and Brits)

On 31 August the number of US troops in Iraq was down to 50,000, as promised by newly elected President Obama 20 months before. Obama might still be in time to save the face of the world giant by stage-managing a strategic withdrawal (though it will definitely not be called that) from the zone of combat/stable democracy. Tune into any documentary on the US time in Iraq and you will be convinced that the stay has been anything but a success. The US joins a long list of world powers that have understood that the Middle East is nobody’s playground. Next Afghanistan.

George Bush’s partner in crime for Iraq has been busy publishing his memoirs, and although he might have expressed a tad bit of regret for whatever pushed him to invade Saddam’s jolly land in conjunction with his bumbling cousin across the ocean, he has less regrets closer to home. Blair has joined the list of clairvoyants who were apparently very confident that Brown’s term in power would be quite a cock-up of an affair. Insofar as myth spinning is concerned, the business of memoirs seems to be quite the ticket. Follow Jesus Blair (you’d be excused to thinking he’s the new Messiah) on his peripatetic attempts to save the world, the UK or the nearest local council, and you will be left with little doubt as to why the man abandoned the Protestant fold and marched straight into the comforting arms of Catholicism in a much publicised move towards the end of his tenure.

Meanwhile, in Westminster, a senior minister of the Tory-Dem coalition is rather angry at the gossip and spin culture perpetrated by the media and blogging world over the past few weeks. William Hague is in a bit of a fix because of persistent and undying rumours of his being gay (and of consequently having favoured gay partners) that have persecuted him since his entry into the world of politics. The great Tory orator is not new to PR slips but this time the story seems to be a conjecture of the whisper corridors that plague politicians and public figures. Apparently, Hague had opted to share a twin hotel room with an aide of his on one of his travels. That, and the close relationship he seems to have enjoyed with this young man, seems to have attracted the paparazzi moths to the limelight.

The aide had to resign from an advisory post earlier this week and only on Thursday, Hague’s wife had to break the silence on a very private aspect of the life of the couple in order to clear any niggling doubts as to the sexuality of the politician. It is always despicable when spin-monsters cut and slash into the private lives of politicians just for the sake of it and without any concrete proof. Hague has become disillusioned with political life, but then again he might come out of this saga in a stronger position.

Number Three: Those Magnificent Men in the PLPN

Michael Briguglio penned a good article this week (Sliema: Reaping what was sown) and it appears in J’accuse (www.akkuza.com) with his kind permission. Mike begins his article by stating that “the last local council elections were a clear example of how, at times, factors that have little to do with political vision influence electoral results”, and ends with a clear exhortation to the voter “if you want change, vote for it”. It would be stupid of me, or of anyone, not to read Mike’s invitation as a class bit of promotion for the party he chairs, but there is much more to this line of reasoning than simple a third litigant enjoying the ills afflicting the two behemoths.

Whether it is PL, PN or AD (or any other “political party” as defined under the Local Councils Act) presenting lists of candidates for your perusal and selection in local council elections, we have long laboured under the impression that such candidates have been selected by way of their being the best people to put into effect their party’s programmes and policies at local level. I am not one of those trigger-happy people who feel that the current spate of scandals vindicates Alfred Sant’s idea that political parties should keep out of local politics – far from it. I strongly believe (in a scientific and not in a religious manner) that a well thought out structure in a political party system that backs candidates in different localities can only enhance participative democracy and not degrade it.

That however is the ideal standard (why does that phrase remind me of toilets?). Ideally, party politics pervades the local level by bringing the administrative competence, the structural continuity and the value based commitment. Factually, as Mike has been ready to point out, party politics seems to be importing the rotten mentality that has been nurtured through years of practice of stagnant bi-partisanism. Power for the sake of power and not of service, cutthroat and inbred competition within the corridors of the same party and unregulated financing and sponsorship can only carry on for so long before exploding in the perpetrators face.

DimechGate and its cousins have shown the voting public the ugly side of voting through blind faith. Interviews carried out by internet papers among the Sliema population brought up two ugly truths (caveat lector: the interviews do not constitute a scientific survey): First it became clear that Nikki Dimech was elected mainly on the strength of the guarantees of a hidden saint or sponsor, which, combined with the PN nihil obstat assured the voters of a winning horse. Secondly, and more astonishingly, few, if none, of the interviewed had any idea of the mayor-elect Joanna Gonzi. It is a surprise mainly because someone, somewhere must have voted her in too – and with a number of votes inferior only to Nikki Dimech among those obtained on the Nationalist list.

Sliema is only one example of many voting through faith and not reason, as is the norm. It may no longer be only faith in the parties themselves but also in the complex system of saints and sponsors that is a throwback to the times of Cicero’s Rome. DimechGate will not provoke the kind of cleansing that a tangentopoli could have. PLPN have found a quick exit door via the washing of hands and responsibility. In a way they could do not other than ostracise the erring members of their wide net of candidates – true. On the other hand, we could ask questions of the structure backing the elected candidates once in place. Could a hypothetical council member who has been approached with a bung/suggestion for corruption resort to a party structure for support?

Are lawyers at hand to deal with such situations? Simple training and advice could create a sense of responsibility and awareness among elected councillors. This is where the role of party structures is desirable. A party could provide trained councillors – trained to face different situations at council level. Have our parties abdicated this side of their responsibility? Worse still, are parties too well entwined with potential providers of bungs (sponsors and donors in politically correct parlance) to be able to prevent their corrupting the local levels of our politics? In other words, does the infamous JS list extend to the local level or are other similar lists being refined at a lower level?

Number Four: ‘La Vecchia Signora’

I promised myself that should Juventus purchase Marco Borriello towards the end of the summer window, I would put my faith in the bianconeri in abeyance for a year at least. Although the transfer fell through I still have to be convinced that Juve are worth following this year – the insistence on the Italian label and on no brain to give the team some form of tempo is a formula for tears.

www.akkuza.com has resumed the discussion on impeachment and local politics. It’s never been a matter of faith.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Stephen Hawking: religious leaders dismiss ‘God not needed’ comments (telegraph.co.uk)
• Coverage of William Hague’s personal life is ‘contemptible’, says Alan Duncan (telegraph.co.uk)
• Leave Hague alone, media warned (mirror.co.uk)

Sliema is really getting what it deserves. I am sorry to say this but the last local council elections were a clear example of how, at times, factors that have little to do with political vision influence electoral results. In a few words, Sliema is now reaping what was sown. I might be biased in saying this, given that I was not elected in 2009, having been elected in 2003 and 2006. But I invite others to contradict my statements below.

Beyond the battle between the official Nationalist Party position, the Nikki Dimech faction and the strange alliances of certain Labour councillors, one has to view the whole “Sliema” issue holistically.

Given the lack of proper legislation on financing of electoral campaigns, it is no surprise that political clientelism and business interests play a key role in Maltese politics even at a local level. Indeed, if one looks at the last local election in Sliema it would be very difficult to believe that all candidates’ electoral expenses were within the allowed limits. Many residents to this day tell me it is more than obvious that local elections are not based on a democratic and just level playing field.

In the last council election, one could witness social events such as receptions, the systematic provision of transport for elderly voters, electoral promises to various constituents that have nothing to do with political vision, telephone campaigns of the “Big Brother is watching you” type and so forth. There surely was no level playing field among all candidates.

This was even evident in the character-assassination-whispering-campaigns, at times between candidates belonging to the same party.

Given that Malta has practically no legislation regarding the financing of political parties, this necessarily leads to pressure from business interests for political favours. Hence, it is imperative that contracts awarded by local councils are properly scrutinised.

It is precisely for this reason that when I was councillor I consistently proposed having a contracts manager. I was supported by PN councillor Julian Galea on this… yet a decision by the council was consistently postponed.

Having professional administrative staff is imperative for efficient local councils. Yet, the present council apparently thought otherwise as one of its first decisions was to oust executive secretary Josef Grech.

The work of Mr Grech, his staff and of certain councillors, who, in previous years, did their best to ensure that Sliema’s voice was heard and who worked as a team, was basically discarded.

As for myself, in my six years as councillor I worked as hard as possible to help improve the quality of life in Sliema. I gave priority to issues such as public consultation, sustainable development, the impact of construction on the community, waste management, pollution, public transport, swimming and animal welfare. I worked well with coun­cillors irrespective of their political affiliation and I often managed to convince both Nationalist and Labour council members on various issues.

Well, actually, in my eyes, there were “four” political parties in the council, namely, Green, Labour, the PN “Pullicino faction” and the PN “Arrigo faction”. Perhaps the most surreal experience of all was when certain PN councillors objected that the council should praise the government for the reclaiming and embellishment of St Anne Square!

I thought I would get my best result ever in 2009 but the opposite happened. I was obviously disappointed and I was about to quit politics, feeling a sense of freedom in the process… But, as philosopher Louis Althusser tells us, “the future lasts a long time” … Indeed, I changed my mind after a few weeks and ended being elected AD chairman.

Whenever I am stopped by Sliema residents who complain about all sorts of issues, I remind them of a powerful tool they still possess – the vote.

If you want change, vote for it…

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
****

Article 29 of Chapter 363 (Local Councils Act)
29. (1) The Mayor or Deputy Mayor shall cease to hold their
office upon a vote of no confidence delivered by a majority of the
Councillors in office.

(2) The motion proposing a vote of no confidence in the Mayor
or Deputy Mayor shall be signed by at least one third of the
Councillors in office and shall specify the reason for such motion
and propose another Councillor to be elected as Mayor or Deputy
Mayor as the case may be.

J’accuse chooses “impeachment day” to ask a few questions of the current system. DimechGate (and the ancillary cases involving PL and PN councillors in different localities) have brought to light a few shortcomings of the dealings of political parties at local council level. J’accuse does not intend to advocate against the participation of parties in local politics but rather would like to question what the added value actually is and whether the parties are really providing a service to the various communities by bringing their partisan terms to the local table.

Condizionamento Arbitrale

In dealing with the issue we take a step away from the allegations regarding the police questioning of the current Sliema Mayor in the hope that any doubts raised and alarm bells rung are replied and seen to in the appropriate judicial forum. This is not about an extended conspiracy theory involving some hidden arm of the law directed from some party HQ. We do feel the need to say, however, that police intervention in certain matters might suffer from what in football (at least when it was trendy to bandy conspiracy theories) is referred to as “condizionamento psicologico arbitrale” – and that this does not only apply to PN intervention (vide PBO) but also to sudden trysts of fancy by the PL (vide Anglu Farrugia’s crusade on purchased votes).  This condizionamento arbitrale is a symptom but not a cause of the current ails.

Partiti Politici

The role of political parties in local councils was hotly debated from the start. The PN had no qualms in spreading its political participation at local council level. Labour on the other hand took a step back from the first elections and only entered the fray at alater stage. The very notion of a “political party” in the law applicable to Local Councils is interesting. Under Cap 363 – the Local Councils Act – a “political party ” is defined as follows:

“political party” means, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, any person or group of persons contesting the elections of a Local Council as one group bearing the same name (Article 2 – Interpretation)

Unless you take into account the Kafkesque detail of the Third Schedule to the Act (entitled Local Councils (Elections) Regulations, 1993) in which the electoral fetish of us Maltese is reflected in full blasts with such minutiae as the behaviour of Directors of Retirement Homes during election time being regulated and above all – access to every step of the process – from printing to counting – for party agents being guranteedd… unless you register that, parties have little or no mention in the actual political running of councils under the letter of the law.

The most important provision in which parties make a fleeting (but very relevant) appearance is Article 25 dealing with the election of the Mayor:

25 (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of article 29, the office of Mayor in any Local Council shall be occupied by such elected Councillor who at the last local election shall have obtained the highest number of votes in the first count amongst the candidates of the political party which at such elections obtained the absolute majority of Councillors in such Council. Such Councillor shall assume the office of Mayor at the first sitting of the Council after such local election. If for any reason such Councillor refuses to occupy the office of Mayor, the Councillor with the second highest number of votes from the aforesaid political party shall assume office, and so on, until the office of Mayor is filled:

Provided that if the Mayor vacates office during the Council’s term, the office of Mayor shall be occupied by such person belonging to the same political party who had obtained the highest number of votes in the first count after the Mayor who is vacating office:

Provided further that where the law does not provide otherwise, the Mayor shall be chosen from amongst the Councillors.

Peachy innit? Bear in mind that party refers to not just PN, PL or AD but also to any other group of individuals contesting under one name: e.g. Società Filarmonika Hal-Bomba. In a hypothetical vote even if a member of a newly council of five got over half of the first count votes to get elected but the rest of the votes were share equally between another four candidates of one “party” then the new Mayor would not be the independent person who garnered most votes but rather the candidate who has most votes among those elected on the party list.

Strangely, this system does away with the simple vote among councillors to see who among them enjoys the support of the majority of councillors (whatever the colour or creed) as is done (hypothetically) for the selection of Prime Minister in parliament. So essentially a party will vie for an absolute majority of councillors in an election after which it is guaranteed that there will be no “freak vote” whereby its councillors “defect” and vote for a popular “independent” – and boo to self-determination.

The role of parties in the 80 articles of the Local Councils Act starts and stops with the determination of the Mayor. The rest of the Act (particularly the aforementioned Schedule 3) is more concerned with the hobby of thousands that is the electoral process, electoral agents, perspexes and ballot papers. So the law is not exactly illuminating with regards to the interaction between a political party and its elected members within the council.

A che prò?

So why does a councillor like Robert Musumeci “take exception” to calls for parties to get their hands out of Local Councils? What’s the big deal? How is a relative party heavyweight like Secretary General Paul Borg Olivier drawn to risking his and his party’s reputation by attempting to oblige at least one councillor to use her vote against her will in order to obtain the necessary number of votes to get an impeachment of a Mayor going?

The answers are not so easy and we need to step back in order to get a clearer picture. As I said earlier my concern is to discover how parties could be beneficial to a local council and whether they are actually inputting such benefits. The impression right now is simply that while the PLPN are eager to have a finger in every council pie they are only really heard of when distancing themselves from those who fail to perform well. Furthermore there is a distinct impression that there is no nation-wide policy that applies to local councils in similar circumstances.

Faustian reasoning may play the fool with regard to Karol Aquilina and requisitioned houses elsewhere in Malta but Karol’s position on the Siggiewi house sounds very much like a policy that could, and should, be applied elsewhere by members of the same party in the interests of the community. That this does not happen cannot be taken as proof that Aquilina’s move was opportunistic (true) but it definitely paints a picture of a haphazard one-off application that cannot in any way be attributed or equated to the home party unless similar actions are really triggered off elsewhere.

That there is no evidence of a coordinating body within the parties that is used to trigger off local-friendly programmes across different councils is a clear sign of the misuse of the party ticket. For what worth is it to aim to garner as many majorities as possible in the councils of Camillo and Peppone when there is no programme to follow through? The dangers of such wide nets simply for the number are being evidenced now as both PN and PL find themselves burdened with scandals they never bargained for. That such scandals can and will happen is normal – when a sequence of scandals related to mismanagement and mishandling of public resources occurs then we begin to question the preparation of such candidates. Worse still we question whether the culture of curried favours and political obligations is now too well dug in into our council system.

So the first question we pose in this first part is this:

1) If we accept the role of political parties (and not just PLPNAD) in Local Councils how should or could this role be defined? Is this a question for legislators to address (aihmè the PLPN legislators) or is it something that should come from within the parties?

We’ll be back with more.

Yesterday’s rentrée prevented us from extending the interesting debate sparked off by the last post. Meanwhile interesting developments in DimechGate might allow more factual light to be thrown into the miasma of different interests and allow us to comment more clearly on the rot in Local Councils and the parallel worries associated with party politics. Later today we will be posting a full post on this issue and the main theme will b “Why Party?” or what is the purpose of party participation in Local Councils. What guarantees are political parties giving voters? What is their constitutional role in the system? How much control can a party legally and effectively exert on its list of candidates? Can we rightly assume that a party is “vetting” its candidates for suitability to run for election? Can we equally assume that a party provides a support structure for its councillors that makes them more efficient purely through the economies of scale and continuity? Do our parties have anything that could be described as local policies (applied in multiple councils where possible)? Are parties using different measures and standards for their mini-politicians? Once again, what is the measure that tells us when the balance of loyalty to party vs loyalty to constituents has been broken? The constitution makes little or no mention of political parties – they have “infiltrated” the system by custom and usage – is it really that wrong for an elected person from a constituency to trump his party loyalties with those towards his constituency – especially when the so-called “party principles” are not so clear in certain cases? All that and more… later on J’accuse.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Vote Independent? Not if you believe in democracy (thepunch.com.au)
• The Weirdest Political Parties Of All Time (PICTURES) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Pirate Party Strikes Hosting Deal With Wikileaks (torrentfreak.com)

Image via Wikipedia

The rot seems to have spread – or could spread. MT reports that the police will probably arraign more councillors as they widen the probe into the running of local councils. The irony is not lost on anyone that while Local Council small fry are thrown into the burning oil for their (punishable) misdeeds and misappropriations the equivalent on a national level still goes by unnoticed, unpunished and sanctioned by almost half a century of bipartisan tradition. Which is why Lino Spiteri’s take on the issue in today’s Times opinion piece (Away from the eye of the local storms) is somewhat perplexing.

In his analysis Spiteri rightly points out to the strong grip that the two parties have developed on local council politics (Labour did so after a hesitant start) then goes on to prescribe a confusing formula (unless I have misunderstood his prescription). While on the one hand hinting at a necessary relaxation of the political parties‘ hold on council politics, Spiteri seems to accept a “reasonable degree of bi-partisanship”:

True devolution from central government and party could help a culture of involvement, a measure of direct democracy to spring up whereby the citizenry does see itself being put first because its voice is listened to and, on occasion, heeded. The system could encourage young candidates towards it so that, if elected, and if their council follows a reasonable degree of bi-partisanship, they can gain some experience of bureaucratic administration, before they venture into the broader field of national politics.

We beg to differ. First of all the problem is not party involvement itself but rather the manner in which party involvement is perpetrated (yes, criminally so). The party involvement in Local Councils is simply to keep tabs and control on the extended networking created by the supposed devolution. There is no “local” conscience emanating from the PL and PN (ironically so when you consider how “local” our “national” politics are) and they have proven unable to impart any school of thought to budding politicians. This could also be a direct result of the inability of both dinosaurs to absorb ideas from the groundroots and champion them as their own.

Bottom-up politics has never been the forte of the PLPN fold. Candidates are enrolled in order to add to he number and provide punch to the “good vs evil”/bipartisan mentality on which the PLPN thrives. There is little time for a localisation of policy, let alone government and the good success stories in various localties (San Lawrenz and Nadur in Gozo comes to mind) are in spite of and not thanks to PLPN bumbling dictats. Just look at the Siggiewi farce with wannabe star politicans trying to impress  (that’s you Carol Aquilina)…

Mater Boni Consilii

Mike Briguglio wrote an interesting piece in the MT about the Sliema council (Unsurprising Sliema) . We tend to forget that the new Sliema council embroiled in all its troubles is the first post-AD representative council. I am in no way saying that AD could possibly have provided better council support than its behemoth counterparts but just look at the difference between what a multi-party council and the balbugliata that a PLPN bi-partisan council has to offer.

It is very surprising therefore that someone like Lino Spiteri would advocate a better honing of bipartisan skills at Local Council level as some sort of panacea for the current ills. I rather prefer the first part of the formula where parties relax (or revise) their relations with local councils. As a first suggestion I would suggest proper screening of candidates based on what proposals they have for the running of the council and what they would offer as guarantees of good management.

Local councils need just what national politics need. Injection of new political blood thinking outside the bipartisan box that has gotten us used to the idea that networking and bungs and funds is all that politics is good for.

Maybe we should ask our Lady of Good Council(s).

See also: Claire Bonello (Some parties do have them)