J’accuse : Friends

Posted on 06. Jun, 2010 by jacques in Articles

Legatus non violatur

Posted on 03. Jun, 2010 by jacques in Mediawatch, Politics

The big three credit ratings agencies were threatened yesterday with fines and the creation of a new state-backed competitor, only weeks after European leaders attacked them for exacerbating Greece’s problems with downgrades. – The Times (UK)

Readers will be familiar with reactions by the Maltese administration to certain reports from particular institutions. “Audit” is the byword for a scrutiny or check that was originally applied to matters accounting but is now extended to such realms as “democratic accountability” and “freedom of press” to give but non-economic examples. The auditor is supposed to be as impartial as possible and his job is simply to report on the state of affairs – the idea being that it is up to managers, politicians and lobby groups to make do with the report as best they deem fit.

Recently we have seen an increased tendency to debate the validity of the auditor rather than the message itself. In other words, in these times of economic woes that might even effect the clear thinking of (non-economic) democratic institutions, there is a growing tendency to shoot the messenger.  A concerted effort by (Commission President) Barroso and (German Chancellor and French President) Merkel & Sarkozy has recently been stepped up with the intention to undermine the credibility of a very important set of “auditors” in this day and age.

Credit Rating Chart

Europe’s continental leaders have targeted the three credit ratings agencies – responsible for the rating of governments and of their ability to pay their debts. The three: Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch (no relation to Abercrombie’s other half) have been busy downgrading Greece, Spain and Portugal’s ratings recently and were also on the verge of giving the same treatment to France. While Merkel and Sarkozy argued that the agencies need more scrutiny – a form of supervision and regulation – Barroso criticised the three for failing to alert investors on the imminent demise of Lehmann Brothers in 2008.

Barroso asks three questions:

• Is it normal to have only three relevant actors in such a sensitive issue where there is a great probability of conflict of interest?
• Is it normal that all of them come from the same country?
• Is it normal that such important entities are escaping fundamental regulation?

Now the eagerness with which the “EU that counts” shoots down the three agencies is inevitably tied to the large amount of control that they hold on the mood of the market. their ratings are not simply an auditing assessment but any move of theirs tends to have heavy repercussions on the financial and economic sectors. Shooting the messenger is only half the story.

The EU does not only intend to regulate the auditors but seems intent on creating an auditor of its own – an in-house competitor. Questions will surely be raised about the independence of such a new monster. If the current three are not above suspicion because of the possibility of conflicts of interests what then of the new monster that will be financed by the very set of sovereign nations it is supposed to vet?

Barroso’s questions begin to sound more and more like Muscat’s quickly assembled 15 point plan to battle corruption. Loads of rhetoric and flimsy legal justification. In both cases they provide little solution and comfort. Back to the drawing board José (and Joseph)

Related articles by Zemanta

• EU wants credit rating agencies regulated (telegraph.co.uk)
• Stocks Retreat, Led by Banks, as Euro Advance on Greece Bailout (businessweek.com)
• Spain Loses AAA Rating at Fitch as Europe Battles Debt Crisis (businessweek.com)
• EU calls for new rating agencies (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• EU plans credit ratings watchdog (guardian.co.uk)
• “EU, IMF to spend 135 billion euros to bailout Greece” and related posts (stockwatch.in)
• Euro drops to lowest in 10 months (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Robert Davey: The Banks and Derivatives Trading and Senator Blanche Lincoln (huffingtonpost.com)
• Merkel’s Coalition Steps Up Calls for EU ‘Orderly Insolvencies’ (businessweek.com)
• Angela Merkel calls for tough regulation on banks (telegraph.co.uk)
• Audit regulation should be global: IOSCO (accountancyage.com)
• FCIC Testimony: Credit Rating Agency Execs Say They Couldn’t Say No To Wall Street (huffingtonpost.com)
• Damien Hoffman: Are Ratings Agencies Protecting the UK and US Like They Did With Mortgage Debt? (huffingtonpost.com)
• Credit-Rating Firms Face Single Regulator Under EU Proposals (businessweek.com)
• Credit-Ratings Firms Face Single EU Market Regulator (Update3) (businessweek.com)

J’accuse: Stable government and its price

Posted on 16. May, 2010 by jacques in Articles

So David Cameron got to move to number 10 after all. With a little help from his new-found friends, Cameron (and Clegg) ushered in an era of “collaborative politics” that promises to combine effective representation with reasoned administration for the greater good of the people. The much-maligned monster that is coalition government settled in and is already working on an Emergency Budget to tackle the continuing ails of the economy (British, European and worldwide). And there we were thinking that pesky third parties would ruin the show.

When the pros and cons of coalition governments are being discussed, the question of stable government always figures as one of primary concern. The fear of government breaking down or collapsing mid-term and of provoking multiple elections over short spans of time have been one of the main arguments against the possibility of coalition governments – that and the ugly duckling of a “kingmaker” party – a minor party able to call the shots on who gets to form a government.

Whenever such considerations are made we are making implied choices between stronger representation and stable government. The implication seems to be that perfect, proportional representation is not conducive to stable government. In a way that is because, given our “black or white” bipartisan all-or-nothing approach, we are automatically suspicious of compromise politics and confidence building. But is our “stable government” system really so perfect after all?

Stable or bust

Speaking to the party faithful at the PN General Council on Friday, minister Tonio Borg reassured those present that “the government will be safeguarding the people’s clear verdict given in the general election two years ago which was for the Nationalist Party to govern the country for five years.” This was Tonio’s summary refusal of the PL thesis of a government hanging onto power by its talons. Forget Auditor General investigations, forget disquisitions on Erskine-May and forget companies with ugly acronyms like BWSC.

It’s all about who is in power for five years. The reverse side of the coin is the same. Look at the fracas in parliament – the yelling, the motions, counter-motions, the childish insults and defences (you’re drunk and she’s pregnant – oh the shame) – it all boils down to one thing and one thing only: the PL wanted so desperately to bring this one seat-majority government crumbling down (on a vote which technically does not do that) and to undermine whatever sense of legitimacy GonziPN still has to govern.

When the results of the last election were out, our Bertoon had Gonzi celebrating on a small bucket representing his “relative majority”. A party that garnered less than 50 per cent of the vote in the country would govern, thanks to a constitutional mechanism of seat compensation. Our caption read: “D’hondt worry, we’re happy” – a nod to the D’hondt system of calculation in elections – invented by a Belgian (Belgian? now that’s a sure source for stable governments). The toon was our way of saying “at least someone’s happy”. Sure. GonziPN had every right to be happy as the next legitimate government of the nation, having snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. But was the voter really getting a good deal in constitutional and representative terms?

The cost of ‘stable government’

Two years ago a party that had a 1,500 vote advantage over the next party that had failed to get to the 50 per cent threshold could claim two extra seats in “constitutional compensation”. Those two extra seats (voting value approximately 7,000) are given to the party with the relative majority in order to ensure that it can govern for the next five or so years – assuming that all the members on its side of the House will vote in its favour.

So we have constructed our “stable government” around a fictive majority that in effect exercises something akin to absolute legislative power in parliament. If government wills it, anything becomes law – unless its bench members decide (knowingly or out of fatigue) to vote against it. The Opposition may – rightly or wrongly – yell, cry, perform its least flattering resurrection of 80’s parliamentary thuggery, walk out in indignation and shout “foul” to an angry nation. It may do all that and more but, barring a revolution, the government is as firmly in place as a limpet – crisis averted, n’est-ce pas?

There is no coalition partner forced upon a party that has not obtained the majority of national votes. No coalition partner to act as a moderator of the more radical of the government policies that might only have enjoyed the favour of a national minority (relative majority it well may be, but it is still a government by national minority). The closest we can get to the coalition partner scenario is in the infamous “rebel backbenchers” picture where, for reasons that can be highly volatile (not as clear as those of an elected coalition partner), a fraction of the party in government decides to make use of his newfound disproportionate weight.

I don’t know about you but if that’s stability, then give me instability any day. Not that I would want instability, but this kind of conundrum really makes the examination of an alternative scenario with coalition partner worth revisiting. AD chairman Mike Briguglio wrote of the current state of affairs in an article that also appeared in J’accuse (Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly). At one point Mike suggests that the Nationalist Party might even pull off a victory at the next general election. What then?

Mike wrote: “The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone, in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights.” The “if in government alone” bit did not escape me. It is obvious that AD of all parties would entertain thoughts of coalitions in Clegg style and Briguglio’s message is clear – if the Nationalists were to be part of the next government it would best be with a check and balance system guaranteed by a coalition partner.

Cleggmania?

The problem in Malta is that voters will weigh this option with the usual suspicion. Elections are depicted as an all or nothing battle themselves. The rules are such that – as I have shown – the trophy of governance is intricately merged with the trophy of absolute power at all costs. Even in such telling times as these, when the bipartisan representation exposes all its ugly warts, messengers like Briguglio will find it incredibly hard to sell the idea of a different form of “collaborative government” that has just been launched in the UK. Selling the idea might not be enough – without electoral reform, laws on party financing and a clear awareness among the voting population, we are far, very far, from being anywhere near the kind of movement that brought the UK Cleggmania.

Meanwhile the BWSC saga with all the parliamentary repercussions rolls on. Joseph Muscat of the Same, Same but Different Party has just presented his 15 points to battle corruption. The monster, once defined, failed to bring the PN government down. So now Don Quixote invents a few swords and sabres and bandies them about. We shall see how gullible the voters can be by the way they accept this new set of “promises”. In our analysis of the 15 points on the blog we point out (among other things) that:

(a) promising a working electricity system is just the mediocre kind of electoral gimmick you can expect from our bipartisan stable system in the 21st century; (b) you cannot fight corruption if you are unable to define it legally; (c) there is no such thing as retroactive application of criminal law; (d) when Joseph Muscat promises to implement a directive he is stating the obvious – he will have to implement directives when in government whether he likes it or not; and (e) a law on party financing must not be limited to “corruption” whatever that means – transparency means knowing even what are the “legitimate” sources of party funds.

Somebody stabilise that euro

I know it’s egoistic of me but I have begun to notice that ever since I booked a June trip to New York, there seems to be a general conspiracy to threaten my holiday. As if Iceland’s bucolic volcano and its random outbursts of paralytic ash were not enough, the combined effect of Greek woes and economic disaster on the continent have daily gnawed away at the purchasing power of the beloved euro, once I cross the pond to the other side. Also, if you please, those bigoted maniacs that fabricate religious excuses at the same rate as they strap bombs to their chests have upped the ante once again in the city that never sleeps.

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, I have “New York or Burst” (as Balki Bartokamous would have it) tattooed on my brain. No volcano, euro devaluation or fanatic terrorist will come between me and the joys of the 24-hour Apple Store on Fifth Avenue – open 24/365… beat that GRTU! How’s that for stable determination?

www.akkuza.com has been on a go-slow this Ascension Long Weekend in Luxembourg. We’ll be discussing stable governments all next week so do not miss out on the action.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Will a coalition government be bad for Britain? (cnn.com)
• Debunking the latest arguments in favour of first-past-the-post (leftfootforward.org)
• Coalition government – live blog (guardian.co.uk)
• We want a 55% threshold because Britain needs stable government | Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander (guardian.co.uk)

Labour Assignment – 15 Points

Posted on 15. May, 2010 by jacques in Politics

Joseph Muscat has announced his 15 points to tackle corruption. This is a welcome declaration of (hopefully) clear policy commitments that could translate into legislation. At this point we are reproducing the 15 points as reported by the Malta Independent while opening the (virtual) j’accuse floor for an open discussion on the merits and demerits of such points. So. The Labour leader has proposed the following measures to tackle corruption. Discuss.

J’accuse has added titles to the points to facilitate references in the discussion – our titles are in brackets after the numbers : and our comments in red should serve to provoke further discussion:

1. (New Electricity System) The PL will do its best to quickly and within the shortest time possible guarantee a new electricity system which is in line with the country’s needs and which keeps up with the economic and social targets. A government that promises a working electricity system – now that’s 21st century bipartisan fun for you. J’accuse verdict: Obvious.

2. (Switch to Gas) The Delimara power station based on heavy fuel oil will be converted to gas which is more sustainable for health and the environment. This would be done without inflicting new burdens on Maltese families and businesses because newer technologies will be cleaner and more accessible. If the current government did not object to finding €100 million to build a new parliament building, €53 million to go back on a promise to public transport drivers, €74 million to lend to Greece, €350 million as a guarantee for a new European fund, and in the meantime sell off one of the government’s major assets, the Shipyards, for a paltry €3 million a year, the next government will not find it a problem to invest in people’s health. If the PN gov’t have no problem spending then why should we? We will be just as irresponsible with YOUR money than any other gov’t before us. Gov’ts worldwide are reducing spending, cutting costs etc. Joseph’s Same Same but Different Labour will be different in that aspect too. Any real number crunching costings? J’accuse verdict:Cowboy.

3. (Strengthen AG’s Investigative Powers) The PL would strengthen the Auditor General’s office to give it more power to investigate deeper situations where persons involved do not collaborate. These powers would allow cases like that of the BWSC power station extension, to be re-explored. Re-opening shut cases? Stronger INVESTIGATIVE powers? To find what? It’s the political equivalent of “I’ve looked in that drawer and there is nothing – so look again!”. And “where persons involved do not collaborate” – what’s that exactly? We have means to make you talk? J’accuse verdict: Knee-jerk.

4. (Remove Prescription on Politicians Cases) Cases involving politicians would not be time barred so that no politician would put his mind at rest that hidden cases of corruption would not be investigated after 10 years have elapsed. Here begins the random referencing to “corruption”. Define corruption. I’m not saying its not a good idea – I’m saying that this knee-jerk reaction out of the Italian Magistratura’s book is rather pathetic in its weakness. What cases involving politicians? Define these cases. As a government official? As a candidate? So if an unelected candidate with a PLPN party has an unpaid parking fine come back to haunt him 12 years on does this fall within Joseph’s great battle? Should it? J’accuse verdict:Vague.

5. (Encourage whistleblowers) Whistleblowers will be encouraged to put forward their concerns with the intro

duction of a serious law that ensures their protection. Could do but needs more context in order to get us to sign up on this one. Are we talking whistleblowers in private companies, in parastatal entities, in gov’t institutions or in authorities or even someone from among an elected person’s canvassers? J’accuse verdict: Vague

6. (Protect informants on past cases) A Labour government would give the opportunity to all those who have information or have collaborated in cases of political corruption in the past to come forward by not taking action against them. And then what? If we are criminalising the vague concept of “corruption” then we are also entering the jurisdiction where “lex non habet oculo retro” – the law cannot be applied retroactively. If political corruption occured in the past – and even if the time bar is lifted or extended – then past cases are shut – whether proven or not. What use would such a principle have). J’accuse verdict: Nonsense.

7. (GM Party to legal proceedings and request reimbursement)In the case of legal proceedings, the Maltese government will become a party and ask politicians and others who had enriched themselves to pay back what they had taken which was not theirs. Again legal proceedings in what? The spectre of BWSC continues to raise its head in every point. Hastily drafted points do not a gov’t make. Someone somewhere stood up while the list was drafted and said “yes, and we make them give the money back ghax mhux taghhhom”. Spiffin’. Do they mean unjust enrichment? Did they check if the principle already existed in the law (and EU legislation on procurement for example)? Are we to assume that this list only applies to BWSC circumstances? If not to what else? Not just generic and knee-jerk but also highly impractical. J’accuse verdict: Hasty Political Mush.

8. (Guilty of “corruption” – proscribed from gov’t tenders) Persons or companies found guilty of corruption will be blacklisted by the government and will not be allowed to bid for government contracts for a period of time, depending on the gravity of their case. Yay. An easy one. Except that “guilty of corruption” still assumes we have a legal definition of corruption that works. It’s not just that – they tag on “depending on the gravity of the case”. We do not just not define the monster but also complicate matters by saying that it comes in different shapes and sizes. J’accuse verdict: Undefined.

9. (Companies blacklisted by int’l inst’s disqualified from gov’t contracts) Those who are blacklisted because of corruption by international organisations such as the World Bank, the EU or the Bank for European Investment will be automatically disqualified from bidding for government contracts.This one should be straightforward. The “because of corruption” bit becomes a bit tacky. Blacklisted by WB, EU or EIB would have been sufficient guarantee no? J’accuse verdict: D’uh

10.(Implementation of directive 2007/66/EC) The PL would implement the European Directive 2007/66/ EC to introduce transparency and improve the procedures of how government contracts are awarded following the Auditor General’s recommendations. A PL gov’t will implement an EU directive as per its EU obligations. J’accuse verdict: And that’s a promise?

11. (Full implementation of Freedom of Information Act) The Freedom of Information Act, parts of which have not been implemented yet would be improved and fully implemented for the sake of government transparency. A good start. So they will implement a law that is supposed to have been implemented. Which parts are not implemented ? Worse, what about wavering the protection of political parties under the Data Protection Act while you are at it? J’accuse verdict: Shallow.

12. (Personal responsibility in case of missing files) Permanent Secretaries and chairpersons of government entities will be held personally responsible in cases of missing files or documentation. Do they mean personally liable? Again is this BWSC speaking? J’accuse verdict: context?

13. (Improved code of ethics) The code of ethics for authority chairpersons and public entities will be improved on to identify and avoid cases of conflict of interest.Yes. This one should work.

14. (Parliamentary watchdog) A Labour government would introduce a Parliamentary Commissioner for standards, who would be appointed by parliament and would function independently to monitor MPs’ and cabinet members’ behaviour, to ensure that their work and financial interests are fully declared, to investigate as deemed fit, report back to the speaker and publish his or her reports. Truth is that the current system should be good enough if the involved parties acted dutifully and loyally. What Same Same but Different are proposing is another post for the parties to bicker about whenever they want to throw a tantrum and in a small nod to the House of Commons. Expect Same Same but Different to publish a report in 8 years time saying that they intend to Strengthen the Investigative Powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. J’accuse verdict: Mascara for the People

15. (Law on financing of political parties) A law on political party financing will be introduced to ensure that party funds originating directly or indirectly from corruption are not used to help parties or individual politicians. Aha. Of course we expect such a law not to be solely concerned with “corruption” sources but also to give a clear and precise picture of the (very legal) but obscure system of party donations that create an unhidden rule of onerous conditions between donor and donee. J’accuse verdict: Show me the money.

To conclude. J’accuse sees this list as a knee-jerk political propagandistic reaction to the BWSC fracas. Joseph Muscat’s party built a momentum within the collective psyche – even gov’t sympathisers might have registered a twang of sympathy for the PL cause when it came to this contract and the ruckus surrounding it. Although the general furore did not result in the much expected (from Labour quarters) collapse of GonziPN, Joseph must be seen to have an answer to the “problems” that all and sundry were led to associate with this case.

Facts are almost irrelevant at the point of political salesmanship. The audience is important. They have been sold the narrative of implied corruption. The govt’s and opposition actions throughout the saga undermined any residues of confidence that the taxpayer had on bipartisan representation. The undermining bomb was essentially built on the implication of corruption – that ugly undefined monster. The taxpayer needs to vent his anger that results on the higher cost of living etc. So the narrative of finding a spendthrift culprit combined with corruption should sell and sell fast.

This 15 point list is a capitalisation on Labour’s part. The claim here is simple: We have a cunning plan. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Labour’s plan for government (or part of it). You are being asked here to assess whether it is a knee-jerk reaction and effort to capitalise on the momentum of disquiet or whether the 15 point package does hold the key to eradicating the ills of administrative mismanagement (or tackling a substantial part of it).

J’accuse’s verdict is definitely on the side of the knee-jerk assessment. What is yours?

Related articles by Zemanta

• The corruption eruption | Schumpeter:The Economist (yogeshnaiks-blawg.blogspot.com)
• Greece: ‘There’s a sense [corrupt] people have got away with it’ (guardian.co.uk)
• Italy minister resigns in scandal (news.bbc.co.uk)

Constitutional Nonsense

Posted on 10. May, 2010 by jacques in Mediawatch, Politics

A Monday morning email from the PL Communications Office lands straight in my work outlook. How did they get my email address? Yes, there is a Whoiswho directory for EU fonctionnaires but somehow I don’t recall granting permission to the Malta Labour Party to make use of my date for its propaganda – or any other political party for that matter. No worries, I shall flag their spamming address with the IT people this side of the great firewall.

Meanwhile back at Dar it-Trasparenza the charade continues. Malta’s Labour Party wants you to believe that the reason democracy has been undermined is because a member of parliament was allowed to rectify his vote. There is no way in hell that this tantrum will go down well with the intelligent voters. Erskine May or no Erskine May the constitutional understanding behind a members’ vote is related to the expression of his intention. If his expression was hindered in any way as to cause error then surely Joseph would know that his intention counts more important than his tired slip.

The charade is hopeless. It borrows on heavy words “undermining of democracy” because it is desperate for a marketing, PR ploy that can be sold without too much logic and reasoning. PL believes that there is a weaker democracy so what will it do? It resigns from the “kummitat” (double-m for J) for the strengthening of democracy. Labour is strong on the cliché adjectives … “assolutament, bl-iktar mod possibbli…” then comes the pause… because when you try to reach a climax with a bubble you risk it bursting in your face (see video at 53 seconds).

Mario Galea would never have voted in favour of Labour’s motion. Joseph can cry till his tear ducts are dry. The Labour benches may swell with yells that will serve as an easy reminder of thuggery in parliaments past but this is no constitutional crisis. It is a charade.

Tonio Borg’s “solution” to the Mario Galea gaffe is just as despicably pitiful. It is not exactly an “attakk oxxen/fahxi” that Labour would like it to sound like but you can understand why Justyne Caruana is pretty miffed at being thrown into the business like Pilate in the creed and why she is suddenly being projected as Labour’s answer to Aun San Suu Kyi.

I would say that there is an undermining of a democratic principle. One that has been in the process of rapid deterioration for quite some time now. It is that of representation. For a moment you would say that the people are being unfairly and wrongly represented by a class of buffons hitherto unequalled. Then, after a moment of reflection, you correct yourself by remembering that it was “the people” who put them there in the first place.

Reap. Sow. Reap. Sow. Reap. Sow.

Mick Jagger notwithstanding sometimes you get just exactly what you wanted.

Video Section

first the stone wall:

then the Stones

Well Hung

Posted on 09. May, 2010 by jacques in Articles

Why Cameron would love to be Maltese

I cannot help wondering how David Cameron must wish that he was a Maltese politician. Rather than sitting at the negotiating table with that pesky Nick Clegg (the tiddler that he is) he’d be sitting firmly, decisively and stably at the head of some carcade on Tower Road, Sliema, celebrating his relative majority victory – the constitutional provisions written for the “Big Two” would have done the rest.

How silly of the Brits not to have thought of the advanced electoral systems that have been refined through the ages by the PLPN. Cameron would not be fretting over conjuring some “big, open and comprehensive” offer to lure Nick into his coalition government. He would be sitting happily at the head of a fictitiously constructed majority of seats – purposely engineered to compensate for any defects resulting from the expression of the will of the people.

Of course, the above scenario would perforce include an electoral system that would preclude any of the Lib Dems obtaining a seat in the first place – and Dave’s your uncle. Poor Dave. He cannot enjoy the automatic coronation for relative majorities proffered to the anointed ones under the Maltese Constitution: instead he will have to sweat it out to build a government that really represents a majority of the elected parties. A coalition between Tories and Lib Dems (18 million votes) just makes it into a decent 59 per cent of the electorate.

Numerologies

Let’s face it: the UK election results were disappointing for the movement of reform that was promised under Cleggmania. The Lib Dems actually obtained five fewer seats than last time around but, and that is a big but, let us look at the numbers that count. Out of 30 million voters, 11 million chose Tory, nine million chose Labour and seven million opted for the Lib Dems. A close call, no?

Let us translate those figures into percentages of the voting population. The Tories had 36 per cent of the votes, Labour 29 per cent and the Lib Dems 23 per cent. No absolute majority. No biggie here. Vote-wise, a Lib-Lab coalition (52 per cent) forms a parliamentary majority as much as a Tory-Lib Dem coalition (59 per cent) would.

The situation goes awry when we see the number of seats that each party won in Parliament expressed as a percentage. The Tories got 47 per cent of the seats (with 36 per cent of the vote), Brown’s Labour got 39 per cent of the seats (with 29 per cent of the vote) and the Liberals? Ah, the Liberals’ nine million votes (23 per cent of the voting population) got… drum roll please…. nine per cent of the seats in Parliament. Nine per cent. You read it right.

So, disappointing as the result may be, it is not for the reasons most people have come to expect. You see the result is NOT disappointing because now, more than ever, it is an eye-opener of the blatant distortive effect that an electoral system plotted out to ensure bipartisan “stability” has on effective parliamentary representation. An electoral law that serves to dumb down representation in order to preserve stability has this twisted effect on democratic rationality: there is none.

Clegg’s Law

It might not be about to replace Sod’s Law, but Clegg’s Law is a firm candidate for the prizes of Phyrric Victory, Lose-lose Situation of the Year and Sacrificial Lamb on the Altar of Democracy rolled into one. Clegg, you see, is in a dilemma. He is exactly at the point where all the naysayers of proportional representation want him to be: the much demonised and warned-against “kingmaker”.

Before the election Clegg made two semi-commitments regarding possible coalition governments. The first was that he believed (erroneously, according to J’accuse) that the party with the relative majority of votes had some sort of moral right to govern. The second was that no matter who he formed a coalition with, Gordon Brown would no longer be Prime Minister (again, with the benefit of hindsight a premature claim). As things stand, these conditions would point to a coalition government with the Bullingdon Babyface.

It’s not so easy though. Following the early results, the Lib Dems put their kingmaker position up to auction. The initial bid had to conform to a number of conditions, but most important of all was the eternally elusive question of voting reform. Because, you see, the Lib Dems had to wear two hats in these elections. First they wore the hat of the normal party, with policies to iron out, programmes to put into effect and plans for government – coalition or otherwise. Secondly though, they also had to wear the hat of pioneers of change – the hat of the only party insisting openly on a clear reform of the rules of the game.

The kingmaker has no crown

It is this dilemma that risks turning Clegg’s brave stand into a schizophrenic disaster. The Lib Dem’s bipolar situation raises their stakes tenfold. They have a duty to the electorate – a mandate obtained both via policy promises (Hat number 1) and reform promises (Hat number 2). Sitting at the coalition table with someone like Cameron means negotiating a compromise plan. Cameron knows that. His “openness” has involved, until now, no offer for electoral reform.

Clegg can stand firm on electoral reform – making it a sine qua non of the negotiations, thus risking being labelled a stirrer of instability. This would not only throw mud on Clegg’s face but also on future possibilities of stronger electoral performances of the Lib Dems as a party. In the eyes of the electorate, Cameron’s refusal to work for a fairer representative system will be eclipsed by Clegg’s breaking down of a possible stronger stable government. The kingmaker shamed – every naysayer’s dream.

Then there is Brown. Rather than bow out gracefully, he has (rightly, again in our opinion) pointed out that, should Cameron fail to entice Clegg with his all or nothing approach, then he is willing to provide the second option for a coalition. Clegg is still bound by his “governing without Brown” promise and Brown knows that. Which is probably why he has dangled the electoral reform carrot in front of him. Brown accepts a fast track for a referendum on electoral reform. With Brown, Clegg would get a fair chance to discuss reform (note, though, that the referendum might not succeed).

Constitutionally, there would be nothing wrong should Clegg opt for a Lib-Lab coalition. Cameron’s questionable moral authority to govern simply because of his relative majority of votes can be put even further into representative perspective when we look at it geographically. Do you know how many seats the Conservatives won in Scotland? One out of 59: Dumfriesshire. They only did slightly better in Wales, wining eight out of 40 seats. The best bet for a strong Tory government would probably be an Independent England. Otherwise, they have about as much moral authority to govern certain parts of the UK as Edward Longshanks.

Democracy in the 21st

So Clegg is in a right fix. Stable and moral government under current rules means playing along with the game and forgetting about electoral reform. A Labour coalition might open a long shot for the referendum, but what does that say for the chances of the referendum actually succeeding after the predictable vilification Clegg will suffer for not having chosen the horse with the highest feelings of legitimacy?

Clegg’s fix is the fix of every other party that will try to break a bipartisan mentality, and I have begun to strongly believe that the solution for change is not to wait for the incumbents (PLPN, Labservatives) to cash in on their feeble promises of reform – but to educate, educate and educate the electorate. It is after all the electorate that needs to understand that the current status quo only results in electing two versions of the same, the same but different politics intent on performing in the inevitable race to mediocrity.

Joseph 2010 tries Eddie 1981

That was the verdict after a tearful (is that true?) Joseph Muscat led his angered troops out of what passes as our temple of representative democracy following a heated vote and ruling by newbie speaker Frendo. Labour stormed out of Parliament in a collective tantrum after Frendo opted to re-listen to votes in order to understand whether allegations by members from the government benches would be substantiated – and whether MP for Gozo Justyne Caruana had also erred in her vote.

’Coz Mario did it first, you know. He was tired, miskin. Exhausting, this government business. He said “yes” instead of “no” and then it was too late. The House of Representatives (of what?) descended into absolute chaos as bullies started a yelling competition while Tonio Borg tried to make a point of order. Our representative relative majority government and relatively incapable Opposition went about representing us as well as they could.

Prior to the voting debacle, grown-up men on the government benches defended the Power Station contract and agreements blindly and ignored the big questions that had been raised in the Auditor General’s report. Then grown-up men from the Opposition benches had a parallel discussion with presumably a different interlocutor. It was evident from the discussion that all sides were intent on speaking and no one was listening. Our young journalist of an Opposition leader rued the opportunity to have the debate screened live on public TV so he could preen and crow in a show paid for by our taxes.

At the bottom of the power station contract issues lie the problems of transparency, of political party funding, of reforming our system of representation in order to create a wider gap between private interests and partisan politics. None of this was discussed, except for when the renegade Franco Debono reminded the House of the need for a law on party funding. His calls were soon drowned by the ruckus and by what has been described farcically as an “attakk fahxi” on Justyne Caruana – Malta’s new version of Burma’s Aun San Suu Kyi.

Well Hung

It’s pretty clear that if the UK electorate did not vote strongly enough to force through the necessary electoral reform, it will be a hundred times more difficult to get that kind of message through to this masochistic electorate of ours. Our PLPN farce that has once again descended to incredible levels of mediocrity this week will hang on for another mandate. Whether we have the not so smooth operators of PN or the bungling drama queens of Labour in government after the next election, J’accuse is still of the same opinion as it has been in recent times – the greatest losers are the voters, hung parliament or not.

Malta’s number one political blog and mediawatch still has the same address: www.akkuza.com – blogging so you don’t have to.

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s Malta Independent on Sunday.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The progressive delusion of a Labour-Lib Dem deal | Deborah Orr (guardian.co.uk)
• Talks continue on hung parliament deal (guardian.co.uk)
• Opinion: A Letter to Nick Clegg (libdemvoice.org)
• Cameron lashed out at Clegg for “holding the whole country to ransom” on electoral reform (newstatesman.com)
• Are we on the verge of a blue-yellow coalition? (newstatesman.com)

Frankly it’s Franco

Posted on 06. May, 2010 by jacques in Politics

The debate in parliament has begun in earnest and the Times of Malta reports Franco Debono’s intervention. The young (no longer youngest) nationalist parliamentarian is busy calling a spade a spade and exploring possibilities of what could have been done and what can be done. Here’s Franco’s (reported) words:

The auditor also spoke about Enemalta having been placed at risk because prototype equipment had been selected. He had pointed to administrative shortcomings, rather than irregularities. He also said he found no hard evidence of corruption. Suspicion, however strong, remained just that unless it was proved, Dr Debono said. The auditor had not found any violation of the laws which would annul the contract. But he said that some things could have been handled differently.

Quite so. If you feel “involved” with Maltese politics – a bit more involved than, let’s say, the UK election would grip you – then you would find this Auditor’s report business quite interesting. The governmental reaction has raised more than a few eyebrows: the bulldozering trademark arrogance of Austin Gatt, the enigmatic responses of PM Gonzi and the foot-in-mouth syndrome that seems to have afflicted Tonio Fenech do nothing to reassure the voter about its capability of handling such situations.

A tender process is about administration. A power plant is about future costs, future environment and future quality of life. Brushing the ugly incosistensies highlighted by the Auditor’s report under the carpet is surely not the way forward. The government’s reaction gives the impression of being as knee-jerk as it is opaque. You do not have to be an energy expert like Profs Mallia to smell that not all is well with the particular options that would be purchased by this tainted contract. The Times editorial had some harsh words for the government on the 5th May:

It would seem that often enough the government is acting rashly as in its enthusiasm to defend itself at all costs it fails to adequately assess the implications of assessments made by those whom it asks to investigate. This has glaringly been the case in the Fairmount ship conversion contracts and, even more so, in that of the award of the contract for new power generation plant at Delimara. It is all very well for the government to say now that it would seriously look into the recommendations made by the Auditor General in the case of the Delimara contract. But the investigation is as yet inconclusive. The mind simply boggles at the number of serious shortcomings listed by the Auditor General. (…) Good governance, propriety and accountability demand that the tale in both cases does not end before the whole truth is found.

Franco Debono’s intervention in parliament tonight is commendable and encouraging. His is the first voice from the government seats to move beyond the hide and seek played over the past week. He may yet vote with the government when push comes to shove but he has now gone on record indicating the necessary remedies for the shortcomings that we have witnessed until now.

Much as Joseph Muscat would like it to seem so, the BWSC contract is not the be all and end all of this government’s term. His grandstanding on the issue – calling for government MPs to vote against the contract, requesting live broadcast on PBS for the parliamentary debate and threatening future “action” risks making a mockery of a valid political point.

The political point is that certain administrative practices must change. The political point is that considerations to be made when administering for the public – tendering contracts for roads, power stations and the like – must no longer be the pocket of entrepreneurs and cliques – they must be the real interests of the people.

Franco Debono makes an interesting step in parliament today. It is not enough. It will not be enough. Nevertheless it is commendable and needs support and encouragement.

Renegade yes, but for a reason.

Meanwhile:

Labour MP Evarist Bartolo concluded his speech saying:

The Labour MP said he agreed with Nationalist MP Franco Debono on the need for a law to regulate political party funding and transparency in this area, so that one would not have corrupt gangs who controlled how decisions were taken.

UPDATE

Listening to audio transmission from Parliament. Minister Tonio Fenech reads from the audiotr’s report “With the benefit of handsight (sic)”… not the best pronunciation. A few seconds later he addresses the opposition “Nispera li tifhmu ghax bl-Ingliz”. We hope so to… between deliverer and recipient there’s not much hope for the Queen’s English is there?

UPDATE II

Just listening to Joseph Muscat makes you sit down and weep. This is not a politician. It is a quasi-journalist living a dream. How can you be “involved” in local politics and not despair at the sad, sad choice that is available to voters. Where are our LibDems???

Daphne says Give Up

Posted on 02. May, 2010 by jacques in Articles

I got some advice from fellow blogger/columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia this week. “Here’s a tip, Jacques,” she said, “try writing things that people want to read. If you haven’t got yourself an audience in five years I’d say it’s time to give up.” Now it’s probably good to know that other people take such a level of interest in your welfare and blogging, and it’s probably even greater that a seasoned old-time columnist has some tips to dispense to a newbie like myself, but there’s much more to be read in that tip than appears at first.

The clue is to be found in one tiny phrase that DCG let slip in her prescription: “things that people want to read”. I know you wouldn’t guess it but you see DCG is a public relations (PR) person – a self-made marketing/communications product of the nineties and noughties. Finding out what people want to read is her bread and butter. It’s not just that though. As a dabbler in the arts of PR and marketing, she is in the business of packaging anything to make it sellable. An expert PR specialist can package something normal and make it seem to be the most desirable item in the world. Expert PR people work at Apple, Google and the like.

A dabbler in the arts of PR will not reach those dizzy levels of success – they will not become the new Steve Jobs. Instead he or she will be sufficiently well versed to understand the tricks of the trade among which is one very basic tenet: feed on the buyers’ curiosity. Being able to get as wide an audience as possible means being able to provide what that wide audience wants as effectively as possible. What could possibly attract large audiences in today’s world? Sensationalism, trash and tabloid style voyeurism that’s what. In his appreciation of DCG in MaltaToday, columnist David Friggieri described her adopted style as “trash and destroy” – aptly so.

The Romans had “panem et circenses”, the Victorians had “PT Barnum and circus freaks”, the 21st century Malta blogging scene has TYOM and Running Commentary – and boy do they have an audience. If you want to set up a blog and get “an audience” before five years then all you have to do is follow Daphne’s advice: write what the people want to read… or give up.

Thanks. But no thanks.

You see marketing people invaded the political scene in the early nineties. Look at the UK – they constructed the Blair persona and are in the process of constructing Clegg and Cameron. Now Brown is a different kettle of fish. The man has a volatile temper, is very much a down-to-earth old style politician who has little time for the marketing shenanigans of pandering for the photo-op. The poor man tries but just look what happens when he drops his guard for a moment – Bigotgate: the ultimate blunder for a politician occurred.

After having been cross-examined by a voter in a rival constituency, Brown forgot that he had his microphone still on and proceeded to describe her as a “bigoted woman”. It’s probably what most politicians think of even the most fawning of voters (just look at DCG’s appreciation of John Attard Montalto in the Indy to see what I mean,) but you don’t need a marketing expert to tell a politician that it’s just not done to be frank about these things. Don’t get me wrong – PR management and marketing definitely have a role to play in today’s communication driven political struggle but the danger is in letting them take over completely.

When I started J’accuse five years back my intention was to openly discuss ideas – not just political – with anyone interested in listening. The blog grew into a regular platform where ideas are exchanged (and yes, sometimes – thankfully rarely – insults are traded). Someone ingrained in PR cannot conceive of a different form of result than “audience” in the vulgar term of audience. J’accuse is not in the business of “selling” but is simply an expression of opinion using a (not so) new medium.

The surprise is that around 800 people log onto J’accuse on a daily basis to read what DCG describes as “boring and irrelevant” content. Others log in on a less regular basis. Frankly, we’d be happy with 50 or 10 regulars because ours is not the business of numbers. We’ve proved time and again that the moment we dabble with sensational or “what people want to read” our figures explode into the thousands – just see what happened in the recent case of The Times spoof. You need not look far for that phenomenon – the instant success that the despicable and sensational TYOM formula enjoys is proof enough.

Frankie says ‘Relax’ – DCG says ‘Give Up’

The measure of success in the PR world is audience. We’ve taken to measure the success of our arguments by the deafening wall of silence that surrounds our more inquisitive of arguments. Particularly when we know for a fact that our questions are read and that it is easier not to answer them. The advice they give us is “give up”. The hope is that the irritating presence of those asking the relevant questions will fade away if ignored. We are the elephant in the room of communications experts – those who can only write or present “what people want to read” (or what they want people to read).

This column (and blog) has asked questions of Daphne (Why now? in Plategate), Lou Bondi (the death of journalism) and (Fr) Joe Borg (more deafening silences). The questions were not complicated – they were not difficult to comprehend and they were there for all to see. It’s true – if they are ignored they will fade away and Lou Bondi will trump up another highly relevant programme like resuscitating the ghost of Norman Lowell in order to give the people what they want (rather than what would be a service to what they need). Daphne will yell until she is blue in the face that nobody reads our complicated articles while simultaneously ignoring the very pertinent questions posed therein.

It’s happened before. A year ago we asked Daphne to follow proper netiquette and provide links to J’accuse whenever she quoted huge chunks from the “boring and irrelevant content” on the blog that nobody reads. We were told that we were “bitching” and that we should be grateful for the “free publicity”. Once again DCG laboured under the impression that we should somehow feel sufficiently rewarded by gaining notoriety with the masses. Furthermore, even though we never asked for an apology, DCG told us “I am not going to apologise and backtrack”.

A year later UK blogger Charles Crawford, who had a brush with Maltese politics thanks to some conspiracy theory linking him to Gonzi’s choices for Cabinet, told Daphne off for having “quoted great chunks from my blog but without the usual blogging courtesy of giving her readers the link to my original work” (his words not mine). DCG apologised without batting an eyelid. Weights and measures? Who would have thought?

Obsessions

Yes, we do have an obsession. It’s called blogging. We love it. We love the tool as a free form of expression and quite frankly we will not be told what the measure of success of a blog is from someone who cannot even grasp the basic concept of netiquette. The reason J’accuse is also a column in The Independent is because someone somewhere saw what was written in the blog and decided it was interesting for some people. We are more than happy with the fact that the sensational content (and sporadically excellent articles – such as this week’s Pigeonhole business) are what keeps DCG’s columns in The Independent – there’s all kinds of readers for every kind of stuff.

Daphne was not the only fellow columnist this week dispensing the kind of advice to “give up”. Stephen Calleja’s column last week was called “Too weak to be called a force”. In it he invited Alternattiva Demokratika to “give up” in so many words. AD and any other respectable third party has a mountain to climb. It has to sell political ideas to voters who are trained to interact with politicians in a certain way. The Pierre Portellis and Georg Sapianos of this world will be back come next election telling people what they want to read: that a vote for the third party is a wasted vote. That these irritants should have called it a day ages ago and leave the political business to the experts – to those who have mastered the combination of marketing and politics to a T.

AD and their likes are the “tiddlers”, the small fry who will not count because their message is not packaged in proper marketing material and they do not tell the people what they want to hear. They do not “twitter” frivolous messages on Church/State separation (viz Joseph Muscat) while espousing contradictory policies. They do not pitch a marketing campaign that is good for the hunter AND for the environmentalist (gonziPN’s rainbow candidates). They are “boringly irrelevant” because of their frank and direct messages on the environment and on divorce. They might not be what people want to hear – which when combined with the obstacles of electoral law and voting traditions might be just the right formula for “giving up” and calling it a day. Or not.

Twenty years in politics and five years in blogging and what do AD and J’accuse have in common? Consistency and dedication to the truth. Frankly, I’d rather be on that side of the fence than “trashing and destroying” any day.

Breaking the rules

Well, that’s another column dedicated to confusing people with the J’accuse “boring and irrelevant” message. I’ve had to break my self-imposed limit again but I still have a few more things to add.

First of all do take a look at www.ideat.org.mt. Labour’s fledgling think-tank has published the first edition of what will be an online quarterly. The J’accuse verdict is “a job well done” – full review on the blog. Finally, there’s an attempt at engaging in politics and not marketing – let’s see if it gets viral or is destined to be marginalised like most things truly political.

It’s the first of May as I type so I should be wishing all workers a good day of rest (not too sure about shopkeepers resting though). Worker’s Day brings back memories of the stress of preparing for exams when – admit it or not – even in the later stages of university you were always thankful for a motherly figure refilling the coffee cup and keeping you going physically and morally till exam day. Ten years ago I was in Bruges, delivering my Master’s thesis and though there was no mother around to pamper and encourage, I was always grateful for the supporting phone call.

So it’s thanks again mum 10 years on, and happy 60th birthday. It’s not just the kids at Stella Maris College and the La Sallian Freres who are lucky to have that great headmistress around. It’s also this hard-headed son of yours who does “cause trouble” as you would say – but always in a constant and well-meaning way.

www.akkuza.com promises to be as boringly irrelevant as always this week. Be there or be square (or tabloid).

This article and accompanying Bertoon appeared in today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

IDEAT Journal – A job well done

Posted on 30. Apr, 2010 by jacques in Mediawatch, Politics

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.

Twits and Tweets

Posted on 29. Apr, 2010 by jacques in Mediawatch, Politics

JosephMuscatPL is Joseph Muscat’s twitter name. He has just tweeted the following: “Il-PL jaspira ghal separazzjoni bejn Stat u Knisja b’rispett reciproku”. (The Labour party aspires for a separation between State and Church with mutual respect).

Why?

Yes. That is my question. What exactly am I, a voter, supposed to make of this? I mean how binding is it on Joseph Muscat and what exactly is there to be binding about? This is the same party which produced President George Abela – whose statements were indistinguishable from those of men of the cloth when the Pope’s visited the Maltese islands. This is the same party that cannot call a spade a spade and still backs the hypocritical “free vote” in parliament rather than setting it down in black on white that Labour will introduce divorce in Malta.

Since it is “aspirations” we are talking about Joseph does that mean that you will be revising the “principles” on which our nation is founded. Let’s see. Maybe you would like to change  the introductory articles of the constitution – you know the bit about our being a Roman Catholic country?

I’m not sure twitter is the place for that kind of statement Joseph. To be quite honest I am not sure that it looks good on the aspirant leader of a progressive movement to be stating the obvious like that. I should hope that severing any Church/state links would be “taken as read” in the preparation of a clear policy direction for the New Progressives.

Less twitter and more substance Joseph… the clock is ticking and you are very very far from even beginning to convince the intelligent part of the electorate that your party is worth considering. Unless of course you are still banking on winning the election solely on the basis of the votes of the disgruntled – I wouldn’t blame you since the system is perfectly geared for that eventuality.