In defence of what has been perceived as J’accuse’s inertia on the recent scandalous business in the media and on the net.
We are not blind. We have not been so long deprived from access to the net as to not know what is going on. We are not surprised and if we may paraphrase the hidden hand behind Genesis, J’accuse saw what was going on and he saw that it was not good. Quite frankly it’s not good at all and those who have dirtied, or are still to dirty, their hands in this latest record-breaking phenomenon of mud-slinging are performing a major disservice to journalism, to blogging and to themselves.
We do not sit on a high pedestal in judgement – we cannot – because first of all we have constantly and consistently refused the “argumentum ad hominem” (arguments based on the person) as a tool of political or social discourse. We will not because there is nothing political about the discussion. J’accuse has long insisted that personal status should not be considered in the discussion of a person’s political opinions and outlook. This might have been an opportune moment to highlight the inadequacy of judgements made on marriage status, couple trouble, upbringing and responsibility of offspring and “gift of life” choices – but it would be like shooting on the Red Cross. Such judgements fail on numerous counts, but most of all – like the electoral provocation for voters to judge on the basis of taste – they have managed to deviate the general discussion from that of politics and policies. Unable to formulate serious discussion about a choice between policies we have been reduced to discussing which politician has the best sexual/social life – and which one has constructed the best family unit. It was inevitable that at some point the focus would shift from politicians to other public personas.
We also refuse to sit on a high pedestal in judgement because we should never be able to do so. What measure will we use to judge the private lives of the saints that have been brought to a very public attention? And to what aim would we be judging them if not to stoke the useless fires that have been lit in the first place? True, we have been told before by some of those under fire that chosing to be a public person includes the risk of having to face this kind of heat. At what price and for what reason? We can admit that certain allegations doing the rounds, if substantiated, would have serious repercussions on the lives of politicians. It’s been an ugly battle that has shaken the foundations of this home-grown omertà. Again, for the first time since the Arrigo case – “public knowledge” became really public only when it was a useful weapon in the cross-fire of mud-slinging argumentation.
We cannot, and will not, sit in judgement of the private facts that have been unearthed over the last week. In answer to those who have badgered J’accuse to “join the fray” as though this was some kind of World Wrestling Federation special we can only say look elsewhere. What you are reading here is Malta’s oldest established (and with the demise of Thermidor) most popular political blog (my very carefully chosen bold). J’accuse deals in politics not gossip and pink news. Voyeurs and voyeuristas will happily (and unfortunately) find their own share to feed on elsewhere on the net – facebook or otherwise.
Which leads J’accuse to the final consideration. As the dust will settle sooner or later, an important reflection we have been making for some time now will probably have hit more people in the face. This massive mess has unearthed (as if it was really necessary to show it) an intertwining of interests (mostly private) between sections of the two parties – the PLPN. The unaccountability and lack of transparency of the two parties when it comes to funding, commercial and other interests was already worrying as it was. The need for a clear, tangentopoli style, sweep of our way of doing politics is (hopefully) now written in black on white. That it should surface after a tiff between the dominant “marketing” wing of the parties should say much about where such a sweep should start.
It’s about time we get back to the boring, unattractive business of real politics.
16 replies on “Apologia pro inertia mea”
Well said. It is hard to see how much further into the gutter some can go. To be honest, my revlsion at the disgusting display of some of the PN cheerleaders has me considering voting PL for the first time.
‘To be honest, my revlsion at the disgusting display of some of the PN cheerleaders has me considering voting PL for the first time.’
Watch Super 1 lately? When the official media of one party is so toxic, it seems banal to vote against the other party because of the other party’s toxic unofficial cheerleaders.
The need for a clear, tangentopoli style, sweep of our way of doing politics is (hopefully) now written in black on white.
Indeed. In fact it has long been written. the question is who will carry out such long-overdue exercise? there is no way that this present government will oblidge. Does the LP have the mettle to attract commited reformers that will overcompensate for the loss of support from that part tied to the mlpn bandwagon? and how significant is this part?
‘Does the LP have the mettle to attract commited reformers that will overcompensate for the loss of support from that part tied to the mlpn bandwagon’
Why even ask a question to which the answer is so obviously ‘no’. We haven’t seen anything of the sort from the LP. Asking the question gives the impression that the LP provides some glimmer of hope, which it does not. What is needed is a complete clean-up of the dirty political system, but none of the present stock would even dream of rocking the boat or challenging the system that made them. Let’s not pin our hopes on a party whose highest potential is the worst of its opponent.
I tend to agree with Anon. There is little or no hope for change from within. Forget the seismic changes promised frivolously by young opposition leaders, forget the minor tremors provoked by backbenchers – unless there is a radical change we can only expect more of the same. And it all boils down to the voter opening his eyes. Unfortunately the voter is as intermeshed and awed with the system as are the “power”-brokers and we definitely cannot corrupt powerbrokers or voters with a turnip, no matter how gigantic and tempting it may turn out to be for prospective Baldricks.
Oh no?
So we cannot sit in judgement on Bill Clinton’s games with Monica?
Or Berlusconi (a clown, but then all Italians are clowns) cavorting with prostitutes;
Or John Edwards fathering a child with one of his staffers and trying to get one of his aides to take the fall for him.
And so on and so forth.
According to you, politicians (and magistrates) should be immune from public scrutiny of their private lives. After all, us plebeians should not be privy to information restricted to patricians like you.
Get off that stool Jacques. Before you fall off.
CC, to the extent that public persons allow their private lives to affect their ability to exercise their public functions, then this is most certainly open to public scrutiny.
This seems to be why Jacques emphasised the ‘need for a clear, tangentopoli style, sweep of our way of doing politics’. Perhaps that line was hidden in a concluding paragraph, but the gist of this post seems to be that the private is private until it affects the public. The ‘intertwining of interests’ is certainly of public interest, as Jacques noted.
Still, this is a far cry from a week-long tirade of personal vendettas, intimidation, playground jabs about oral sex, the size of one’s manhood, and the dragging in of an entirely private person who failed to protect her facebook profile.
Thank you for the clarification, Anon. My apologies if I missed out on that concluding paragraph. For me this is usual with Jacques’ writing. I like, although I do not necessarily agree, with the gist of some of what he writes. The trouble is that I become exhausted wading through all that verbiage.
The fact is that apart from the unfortunate choice of language used, people like me would have remained completely unaware of the connections, links and relationships between the persons involved in this tirade. You must agree that such interconnections need to be exposed to the bright light of day, even if we have to sift them out from all the, maybe, unnecessary flak.
Couldn’t have said it better Anon.
@ “Charles Cauchi” – Aparti li ma nemminx li inti Charles Cauchi imma psewdonimu li jintuza minn xi hadd li ghandha blogg – il-kwistjoni ma ticentrax fuq jekk il-pubbliku ghandux dritt jikummenta u jkun jaf fuq l-imgieba ta nies li ghandhom rwol importanti. Da zgur li ghandhom ikunu jafu. Imma biss sal-punt li jista jaffettwa il-mod li jaqdu l-kariga taghhom. X’ghandu x’jaqsam il-hxuna, il-kruha u l-insulti personali li qed jintefghu bhat-tajn – mal-argument centrali? U ghaliex harget b’din l-expose issa DCG – jekk kienet taf bihom xi 8 snin ilu? Mhux ghax ghandha xi kawza ta libell quddiem il-magistrata u trid tohrog minnha? Jew biex tiddevja l-attenzjoni mill-incident ta tfigh ta platti? Taf x’nghid? Li meta il-MaltaToday kienu qed jirappurtaw li l-ex Kummissarju tal-Pulizija kien qed imur mal-Polakka (haga li zvela hu fil-kawza li beda hu) – Daphne damet tqaqqi li il-gazzetta “was putting his wife through the most terrible torture”. Allura ghaliex dan l-argument m’ghadux jghodd Daphne (sorry Sur Cauchi)? Ametti li din biss vendikazzjoni u m’ghandha x’taqsam xejn mal-iskrutinju ta public officials
@Sully. Jekk ghandek xi haga li trid tghid jew tistaqsi li Daphne nahseb ahjar tmur tistaqsiha fuq il-blogg taghha.
Thank you Jaques.
Will you please tell these people that I am not Daphne. Not even the same gender. Or age.
Yes indeed, Malta cries for a ‘tangentopoli’ style sweep of how we do politics.
Now this is, in itself, a sweeping statement, since the ‘tangentopoli’ style did include an element of witch-hunting that fed on summary appraisals. Craxi could have been a semi-victim.
A Malta sweep should, perhaps, avoid the excesses of a ‘French Revolution’ gone nuts and be more of an evolution, british style, warts and all.
Now, the all-consuming question is who will lead this sweep?
Feet on the ground, I see no momentum coming from anywhere that can take on such a task. It would be naive to an extreme to think that such a task can be undertaken by a new energy that that will just walk in through the mist.
The ‘sweeps’ (pseudo?) in Russia, the ex-communist countries et all were carried out by their own mlpn versions who timed well their leaps onto the bandwagon.
Italy was slightly different. In Italy we had the left who acted as some kind of crude catalyst because they were systematically kept out of power for decades. This circumstance was underpinned by specific circumstances in the magistratura.
That is why I do feel that the LP, not in its present format of course, may have some kind of capacity to carry out an effective sweep.
It is, for example, pushing for some kind of party-funding structure. This reform should be an important element at the heart of this sweep. I have no idea as to the kind of reform being sought by the LP and I do get the feeling that the mlpn tentacles are floating close by. It can ultimately be just the kind of reform that simply enhances party finances without ensuring absolute transparency. It all depends on the kind of authority that the mlpn loose coalition currently enjoys within the LP structures.
But yes, I do sense that there exists a sufficiently robust critical mass within the LP (also because it has been away from power for such a long time) that is remote from the mlpn tentacles and that may have the vision and momentum to carry out such a sweep if the mood of the country calls.
I do believe it will be a grave mistake if we penalize youth for its own sake or in response to natural ‘envy’-sprinkled competitive instincts. I can understand such reaction, but I feel that times call for us to grasp logic and avoid emotion.
I do not think that the goodies forming part of the critical mass for genuine reform within the LP would be able to do it on their own. Yes it may be the largest group wanting such a reform, yes it could call upon healthy portions of existing structures, but it will need to be joined by so many significant pockets ‘of good will’ that presently do not trust the system and do not like the looks of the preset LP.
In my books, it is all up to the LP. It can take the easy route and just patch here and there, remaining entrenched in the establishment-matrix, in search of a possible victory by default (sorry for such a stomach-churning cliché’) that will just keep us tied to the jetty with some exception of a divorce law and the like… or it can really go for the honest sweep, knowing that this may give sufficient energy to a present-decrepit-status-quo-apology-for-an-establishment to organize itself again for a month in five years to garner yet another tragic-for-Malta pyrrhic victory of sorts.
When a Machiavellian victor wins one victory too many, the prospect of ‘burning Rome’ does become a source of partial relief from said boredom.
But than, Nero may not have been as mad as we make him out to be. It could have been that the wholesome np led mlpn equivalent of decadence made it too late for evolution to work, and could therefore only resort on the excesses of a ‘French Revolution’ gone nuts.
Despite the obvious decadence that reeks through our imploding system, I still hope that Malta does have a potential for a big-enough bloc of good will that can bring about managed reform.
In the meantime, all we may do is just enjoy the spectacle, as the protagonists keep insisting on making fools out of themselves.
re Gossipgate
As tactful as a turd:
A smart journalist should know how to differentiate between bringing out facts “for common good” vs to personally damage someone.
A well written piece, exposing out all these connections, maybe even referring to the various new media, would have been a real hit. It could have even been a multi episode gossip saga. It could have started a domino effect….. better (then) taste??
The way it was done, it will be regarded as just a personal attack against many people… even (officially) unfounded for the other “demimonde”.
“Hamalla Inside”:
On the otherhand people often show themselves in their true colours when they are upset, which helps us younger generation understand why the connotation with the hulk’s wife.
Besides, the the insults and verbage are those you would expect from a “demimonde with a lower social class”.
Sometimes it is better to zip it:
Had not such a HUGE fuss been made for the opposition + some columnists simply mentioning a family court issue (with not much detail anyway), we would all have forgotten about it and thought it was silly. Now we are all left thinking, that it hurts too much for it to be a blatant lie. (fattarta int stess … cuc!)
The Conclusion
Someone with a conscience should ask himself ..how many “innocent people” (wives, children etc.. )have been affected by this vendetta?
One last comment …or rather.. even better:
sit down, don’t worry, relax, tuen up the volume and just click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyjmfDlp9yI
What was hilarious was Daffy`s bare-faced hypocrisy in her Independent article today: all about how journalists aren`t public figures so their private life is no-one`s business!! After she spent the whole weekend talking about Saviour Balzan`s private life, including references to his deceased wife! I would love to see Daffy try to defend her utter hypocrisy in a truly democratic forum – on a televised debate rather than in heavily censored blog. I guess she kind of prefers that Democracy-lite though.
I don`t really care what anyone says – I am not voting PN again while this sort of thing is part of their box of tricks. Super 1 is far from perfect but I just can`t align myself with this sort of rolling around in shit.
@Steven I think Anon already answered this one. Not voting PN only equates to voting PL if you fall for this fallacy of democratic alternation PLPN style.