Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Politics

Malta Post Franco (IV) – Labour

Never commit to writing a series if you do not have the time to write it. That should be a number one rule for bloggers. I find that having committed to a series I either finish it off or else I end up postponing about blogging in general. Anyways… in order to break this “writer’s blog” I thought of adding a sort of intermezzo for the series. I wanted to write about Labour after Franco. Joseph’s party was left with bad taste in its mouth when the result of confidence vote was clear. No rush to the polls. All that “Jiena lest biex immexxi” was futile in the end and Joseph was reduced to yelling “Bring them on!” for the Local Council elections.

Labourites and disgruntled voters alike were royally pissed off that’s for sure. One interesting aspect is the viciousness with which they attacked anyone like myself who had begun to remind them that electability is not about the other parties deficiencies but also about your party’s plans for government. “Don’t start with your unelectable Labour bullshit again” I was told. It must be so painful to be told that again… four years after your dear leader has supposedly had enough time to build a winning team with a plan that should breeze into Castille the day after a formality of an election is really announced. But that’s the point isn’t it? Labour’s “Hope” is built on a mysterious “vision” that is shared with no one.

Much like gonziPN in 2008, Labour are fashioning a campaign around the promise of one man: Joseph Muscat. Once you get over the noise about “Instability”, “gonziPN’s dismantlement”, “Inefficiency” etc, once the whole fracas surrounding Franco’s last hold on government is over… you will be left with the naked truth. Two parties geared up for election. What is Labour promising? Joseph Muscat that’s what. Peel away the complaints and the only inkling of a plan you have is a “vision” held closely to heart by Joseph Muscat. They tell us they trust him. On what basis? Because he SAYS he can run a country? On what principles? With what reference point?

After Franco we got a Labour party beating its chest ready for action. Franco’s shenanigans required that parties showed themselves prepared: just in case. To the observer on the sidelines – not particularly bothered with partisan flag-waving – it was evident that Labour was nothing but a party of words and slogans. I know you won’t believe me so here are three random interventions from Labour’s General Council. Chris Fearne, Chris Cardona and David Farrugia Sacco take to the podium. Do they mention one… just one… idea they might have as a basis for change? Honestly… beyond the plaudits for Joseph and the list of grievances (legitimate as they may be) is one of these potential election candidates telling us anything except that they trust in Muscat’s vision?

Lawrence Gonzi’s ridiculous show of leadership challenge and defence (the Soviet acclamation?) might have bought time for the nationalist party to get its act together for the eventual battle. Meanwhile Labour could do well to keep the public opinion momentum going with the drum beating it loves to impress… but it would also do well to come up with some homework pretty soon because if we were into voting for visions then we’d have Angelik as Prime Minister.

Here are the three interventions: (Cardona, Fearne, Farrugia Sacco) I could add more but you get the gist.

 

Categories
Politics

Malta Post Franco (III) – GonziPN

I really do not find Joseph Muscat’s constant referring to the Nationalist Party as GonziPN productive or palatable. Probably Muscat thinks the same of anyone who still refers to him as “Inhobbkom” Joseph. But this is not about Muscat. This post is about the party that made it to government in 2008 against all odds and got to govern with a one-seat majority. The one-seat majority is Malta’s version of the “majority prize” that adjusts the parliamentary distribution of seats in order to just about have a majority of parliamentary members who were elected on one party ticket. Yes it is important to make that distinction. I did say “elected on one party’s ticket” and not “who support the party”.

It is not too fine a distinction and it is the distinction upon which the current uncertainty of governance lies. Its roots pass through the recruitment stage for candidates in 2008 by the Nationalist party and pass further down through the last leadership battle won by Lawrence Gonzi and lead at to the very bottom of the party’s recent history when the faction based on marketing, polls and pragmatic results started to eat away at the values that defined what the nationalist party represented and most of all that had forged the choices that were at the basis of visions for the future.

The Context

It was a domino effect that resulted from the party’s adaptation to the realities of post-Berlin wall politics – a reality that was only postponed for two reasons. Firstly, in the immediate aftermath of “the End of History” when the continent’s politicians were dabbling with the discourses of Fukuyama, a Nationalist Malta was busy reconstructing a nation from the badly managed socialist heritage of the late seventies and eighties. The “Xogħol, Ġustizzja, Libertà” and “Solidarjetà… dejjem.. kullimkien” slogans were not simply populist mating calls wooing the electorate but building blocks for a new society. There was promise and a set of values around which to plan the future. The nationalist party had no time for internecine squabbles between 1987 and 1994. It was busy.

Then came the second reason for the postponement of any need to adapt to “the End of History”. The challenge to drag an unwilling nation (there never was unanimity in this matter) into the EU proved to be an energy sapping exercise. The mission to join the EU club provided the necessary “value-driven” campaign that could keep the nationalist movement that had been constructed around Eddie Fenech Adami together for a while longer. Last election I wrote many a time that these choices (modernisation, construction of a democratic nation, EU membership) were “obvious choices” for which the PN should not be blowing its own trumpet too often. They may have been obvious to me and to many an educated gent and lady who had lived through the socialist period and longed to join the Western world but they were not obvious for Alfred Sant (and Joseph Muscat at the time) and his freezing of the EU membership bid in 1996 was ironically the freshest breath of air for a nationalist party that had been badly bruised by the electoral result.

In an ironic twist of the historical narrative Dom Mintoff proved to be the saviour of the nationalist party’s renewed bid to join the EU. From the hara-kiri of Sant’s short-lived government to May 2004 the Nationalist machine – party and government  – had one obsession, one goal, one direction that did not allow for any distraction (let alone dissension). And then, starting from the infamous Luxol Ground speech by Eddie Fenech Adami the nationalist party lost its reference points and the downward spiral began. Bereft of the main challenges that had kept its clock ticking the PN suddenly discovered that for the first time since 1981 it was a party without a cause. All too suddenly it had become a mirror image of its greatest enemy: all noise and no substance.

All the Men that made GonziPN

This was the party that Lawrence Gonzi inherited after the war of attrition with the Dalli faction. Sure, the rot of many years in power had begun to set in. Sure, the cliques and favors that would eventually translate into media stories of nepotism and friends of friends networks continued to eat at the foundations of a party that had lost its compass. These were effects though, not causes, of the great decline of the PN machinery. 2008 was the benchmark year. In order to win at the polls again the PN dropped any remaining travesty of being a party with a plan and transformed into a Presidential movement. PN became GonziPN and the party machinery ditched the value-driven inspiration in favour of the marketing machinery and the dogs of war.

Having an opposition that puts up a feeble fight did not help obviate the redundancies in the policy category. After all who needs ideas when you can win by simply saying “Don’t vote for the other?”. The race for number one votes on the ballots meant that the web cast for potential candidates was as wide as possible (and with the only consideration being vote pulling factor). Errors that had already been committed at local council level with unpalatable candidates being preferred in favour of statistical and numerical victories were now repeated at national level. How did the Pullicino Orlando’s, the Mugliett’s and the Debono’s end up on the nationalist benches in parliament? Ask the 2008 “successful” campaigners – they will tell you. All that GonziPN needed was a slogan – a dream that might link its quest to past substance – and even for that it went and filched it off Monsieur Sarkozy. “Ensemble tout est possible” became unshamefacedly “Flimkien kollox possibli”. The die was cast.

Few would deny that the 2008 victory was a victory by default. GonziPN did not win the election, it was Sant’s Labour that lost it. Before long heroes such as JPO were bouncing up and down on their seats – not content to have survived the travesty of marketing and bitching that could have very well meant the downfall of this kind of politic had Sant played his cards properly. There can be no doubt that the downfall of this government was fashioned within the halls of Dar Centrali back in 2008 when the decision was made to transform a movement of social values and economic well-being into a presidential party honed for power without a back up plan.

Such short-sightedness was also the result of an unwillingness to engage with its own roots and to take up the unfinished business of creating a post-Berlin Wall raison d’etre.  It was a mixture of laziness and excessive confidence that combined with a new generation of Young Turks who had been bred to unquestionably blend in to the echelons of power without engaging with new ideas. The PN born out of the 2008 election was the final death stab at the inspirational party that had read the national narrative so well for so long. From the moment GonziPN’s disparate motley crew took its place in parliament to govern with its artificial relative majority, “uncertainty” was a time bomb waiting to happen.

Dealing with Franco

Delaying writing this post has had its advantages. By now the General Council has ended and we all know how Lawrence Gonzi has chosen to deal with the hot potato that is Franco Debono. Can it be surprising that the party that opted for the Presidential-style mould will try to solve this latest challenge by reinforcing the presidential image? The end-of-term leadership race will in all probability turn into a victory by acclamation by Lawrence Gonzi. Who will dare stir the boat any further? Inevitably the leadership “challenge” will buy the PN time in government. Franco can no longer legitimately yell his lack of confidence in Lawrence Gonzi – even he will have to bow to the nationalist party’s vote.

Buying time also means buying time for the government projects that were coming to their end to be finalised. There will inevitably be accusatory fingers pointed at projects and laws finished and enacted on the eve of an election. Honestly speaking most would have been end-of-term projects anyway and would have suffered the same fate. That is not the biggest problem for GonziPN. The biggest problem is that this  “leadership race” is the last-ditch reaction by Lawrence Gonzi and worse, an insistence on engaging within the “presidential” context dynamic. What remains to be seen and what is of paramount importance for the party is whether it is learning from the past mistakes. To do so it has to acknowledge them humbly and prepare to rebuild from scratch.

2012 is many political light years away from 1989. It might still not be too late for the nationalist party to make an appointment with history and use this latest borrowed time to take up real politics (not realpolitik) once again. For that it needs less noise, less drama, less taste-based propaganda and bull and to concentrate on the substance. Values, policies and a bottom-up realisation that this is the time to face new challenges within new parameters might only just make it.

Will fate throw another lifeline for the PN and spare it the (by now very necessary) years of rebuilding in opposition? We can only hope that if it does then the Nationalist party gets down to the real business of politics.

Categories
Politics

Malta Post-Franco (II) – Franco

There could be no other place to begin than with the main protagonist. Franco Debono kept the whole nation waiting with bated breath for the unfolding of whatever his plan might be. Notwithstanding his declared agenda it was hard to second guess where he may be going with it – especially since the timing of most of his decisions seemed to be misjudged and more importantly because whatever plans he had were constantly outshone by his ego.

It could be that in order to fight the establishment you do need balls the size of Mosta dome and it is also a fact that in Malta short of renting an applaud-me crowd of hacks and elves you end up having to blow your own trumpet. It could be all that and more but there seemed to be more than one point where Franco Debono seemed to have lost the plot.

To be fair most of the contents of Franco Debono’s list of grievances survive the test of political sanity. They are far from being a Norman Lowell style list of anachronistic or loony policies. Taken individually some of the minor points (cassette tapes in court) tend to remove  the shine from a plan that includes wholistic institutional reform and a strong direct challenge to the PLPN lifeline of unregulated party financing. Franco Debono has done more for the cause of highlighting the problems of our duopolistic rush to mediocrity than anyone else in the last twenty years. So what  went wrong?

Well beyond the egomaniacal self-aggrandisement and the scattered presentation of the grievances, Franco Debono’s biggest problem was one: timing. It is always a pertinent question to ask when analysing the news: Why Now? Why indeed did Franco rock the boat when he did? Franco’s edginess became pronounced following the divorce vote in parliament – Dr Gonzi’s vote against the popular vote seems to have done the trick. The problem is that judging by what Franco has to say nowadays there is no real correlation between the divorce vote and the problems he highlights.

From day one, this government has always been at risk of being at the mercy of a one-seat renegade. As I pointed out early after last election, GonziPN might have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat but this was done at a the expense of stability. It was not just the one seat-majority but also the pick’n’mix of candidates that were virtually an undeclared coalition of disparate ideas and agendas patched together simply to garner votes.

So why does Franco wait till the dying moments of this legislature before dropping the big bomb? The urgency of institutional reform and of electoral reform did not occur overnight. The question of “cliques” running our political parties – a direct consequence of their internal systems adapting to the parallel mechanisms of power on a national scale – were also there from Day 1. So why now?

The outcome of last Thursday’s vote might point to a compromise having been reached. Did Franco get a promise that the legislation he wants will be passed through parliament? That’s highly unlikely. You do not prepare a “wholistic change” to constitutional structures in six months. Even the much taunted Party Financing bill risks running into a 3/4 majority parliament wall should it attempt to introduce crimes for violations of electoral law.

So if that was not the compromise what was? The hunch we have is that Franco is attempting to change the power hierarchies of the nationalist party by threatening the stability of government. The hints are there – his calls for PM Gonzi’s resignation are qualified with additional calls that he should change his ring of advisors and that a number of ministers’ heads should roll. Ironically Debono sees the strongest justification for filling the party hierarchies (and Ministries) as being popular support : universal suffrage.

So Debono’s timing for the party financing and reform laws blew the wind out of his sails as to whether or not he is the great champion of reform. Instead the timing of his abstention and all that surrounds it points to the real battle he seems to be engaging: an internal one within the PN hierarchy. Either Don Quixote has chosen the wrong windmill to battle or he has identified the wrong priority.

Again Debono stands as living proof of the wrong perception that PLPN politics has of our nation’s constitutional construct. Oftentimes we use the word “arrogant” to describe politicians. Well the arrogance of PLPN political thought lies in the fact that to them the constitutional institutions and the rules governing them are there to serve the party and its need to fit in a duopolistic system of alternation.

Which is what leads a backbencher who is suddenly thrust into a chair of dizzying slim-majority power in parliament to take on the whole system with the simple aim of improving his stance within the Nationalist party hierarchy.

To get at Austin Gatt, Joe Saliba, Carm Mifsud Bonnici, Richard Cachia Caruana and others Franco Debono decided that the best option was to threaten to topple government. He had had enough waiting in the sidelines for his opinions and ideas to be heard and for a place in the decision making clique that counts. So he refused to play.

The honourable aims of reforming and improving our constitutional and institutional framework, of changing our electoral laws and rules of party financing became a club to be wielded clumsily in the hands of a very angry backbencher who believed that he had been overlooked one time too many.

What next for Debono? It remains to be seen whether the nationalist party will play out their part of the deal that won them a temporary respite from the Debono tsunami. His role within the party is imperiled if he fails to obtain the right to present himself as a candidate for the next election. Technically his career should be over: “sacrificed” as he likes to put it, for the greater good. Ironically he might be a magnet for the kind of voter that liked his shit-stirring antics and who would rather vote a maverick than vote labour. That kind of voter believed Franco’s promises of reform and is the kind who would have loved Franco’s swan song in parliament.

Debono’s fate is intrinsically tied to the decisions that the party that he claims he loves will take in the near future. If the PN once again will be in the business of assembling a rag-tag group of disparate candidates then he might be in on the off-chance that his Champion of the Disgruntled image wins him a few number 1s. It will be a hard struggle though and until the next elections Debono might still have the last word in precipitating a Nationalist party decision to go to the polls.

The Age of the Generalissimo is, in all probability, almost over.

 

Categories
Politics

Malta post-Franco (I)

Don’t feel guilty if you are still reeling from yesterday’s anti-climax in Parliament. Everybody (and I mean everybody) had different expectations and most of them were based on short-term assessments that were themselves based on a mixture of emotion, curiosity and differing levels of partisan intrigue. Insofar as the live unrolling of events was concerned you could not have written a better script. Christian Peregin of the Times could report every step as is without the need to colour the news. Classics abounded – Herrera’s Twistees, Franco’s phone, the MP’s reading the step-by-step account from the Times, the whips’ frenetic calls, the packed strangers gallery. This year’s Panto was not at the Manoel or Ta’ Qali… it was wired straight to your TV set, radio or computer.

Not many of us yelled “Look behind you” during the actual debate but we did get the full panto “booing and clapping” shortly after the session finished (see video) and the outcome was clear. The biggest surprise for J’accuse was that many people were surprised at the outcome. That there were many (many) men in the street still crossing their fingers rooting for Franco to vote in favour of the confidence motion was acceptable. That it became increasingly evident that the Labour party actually had hoped for this to happen exposed new levels of naivety within the party’s strategists.

There were less sighs of relief from the Nationalist party end but this was probably more due to the fact that they were fully aware of some sort of deal with Debono that had avoided the worst. The nationalist party would live to govern another few days but the exercise of damage limitation had not avoided multiple bruising and the attempt to portray any sense of triumphalism that Joseph’s side had been “defeated” would only expose a shallowness and falsity that aggravated matters further. The cracks had just got wider and hell did they know it.

That was the day that was. In the next few posts (later this afternoon) J’accuse will take an in-depth look at all the participants and try to analyse what this means in the long and short term.

In the first part we will look at the parties and take stock of their current position: Did Franco abstain because of his reluctance to gift Joseph Muscat with what he wanted or was a carrot dangled before him? How far into election mode are we? The parties were evidently unprepared for election mode – will the race without a warm up be advantageous to any of them? Will the No Confidence Saga leave any dents in any of the parties’ armour? Can Alternattiva Demokratika ride the wave of evident disgruntlement at the PLPN methodology? Will this election  lead to another Victory by Default?

The next part will focus on voters and their reasoning. Is the voter prepared to make his vote count? What are his criteria? Will the voter consider the possibility of breaking 50 years of PLPN duopoly? Can he? Are the signs of “two-tribes” politics subsiding or are they being reinforced with the new digital pepper added on?

All this and more in J’accuse’s “Malta Post-Franco” analysis starting today.

If you have not subscribed to our email updates then this is probably the best time to do so. Enter your email address (right column subscription box) and you will receive an email update every time a new post has been added to J'accuse. Also do not forget to check out the other blogs in our Akkuza Soapbox (also right column) who are also actively commenting on the current political situation as it unravels. 
Categories
Politics

Iacta Est?

The nation seems to be caught between two distinct feelings. On the one hand its holding its breath for some massive occurrence such as the demise of GonziPN while on the other hand the deja vu sense of “Yeah right, pull the other one” has begun to take over many a level-headed observer. Last night’s curtain raiser in the “Great Motion of No Confidence” debate did nothing to lessen either of the two camps’ expectations and we were limited to such ancillary gossip surrounding the VIP MP.

What book was Franco reading in court? How many government MPs visited Franco in his impromptu backbench confessional? How many opposition MPs were left sitting by the end of the debate? Above all, what the hell did Francis Zammit Dimech say?

Meanwhile Joseph Muscat continues to strut around as a Prime Minister in all but form. We have long left the realm of the surreal and entered the psychedelic frontiers of the dysfunctionally deranged that defy any sort of pundit interpretation. In order to have an opinion on the actions and reactions of our political clan you have to be on some form of drugs. At least.

How else can you explain that in a week when the Eurozone president confirmed that Malta’s economic performance was good and that we would not be needing further tweaking during these crisis moments we have a nation obsessed with the “Malta Falluta” spiel? The way J’accuse sees it, this parade risks only getting worse. You’re not reading it here first but the way things are going the man with the most tomatoes on his face at the end of this week risks being Joseph Muscat.

It is evident that Franco has been moved towards abstaining (again – we told you so what seems like ages ago). Which would leave Dr Gonzi at the head of a government that has undeniably shifted to pre-election mode and will stay as such – a bit of embarrassment there no doubt but still with the support of a majority in parliament.  That is crucial.

After the vote, Joseph is left with a party that has moved a motion of no confidence gambling on the fact that it will succeed. He either believed it will succeed or just wanted to stir the waters. If the no-confidence motion fails then his political noux has once again failed him. It will also mean that Labour’s only motive for such a motion was to yell crisis where there is none. And this is the ugly part.

Yes. Hard as it may be to swallow for those who already believed Joseph’s principle-free party had one foot inside Castille, the sudden shift on Monday night by “il-mexxej” to the position that “beyond the numbers government is in crisis” is telling on how Joseph’s real motives can no longer be hidden behind empty words. What the flying progressive donkey is  “beyond the numbers government is in crisis” supposed to mean?

Because either the government is in crisis – and the numbers based on the constitutional rules of support in parliament prove it – or it isn’t. In which case the Labour party’s opportunistic motion backed by a Mexxej who claims to be “lest biex immexxi” is uncovered for what it is. There is no economic crisis in Malta. The performance of this government’s economic management compared to that of its EU peers passes many an exam – and it is not J’accuse who says it.

So what crisis is left? Is the maladroit Donquixotism of Debono at any point equiparable to a crisis? Is it Tahrir Square style crisis? Is it Athenian and Madrid style crisis? We all know it isn’t. Joseph knows. But Joseph doesn’t care. Joseph does not give a flying progressive donkey about whether the ship is relatively stable notwithstanding the stormy seas. Joseph will not stop jumping opportunistically at every opportunity to destabilise this government if that means an earlier chance to grab at the Castille seat.

I’d like to think that Debono had this legerdemain in mind when he kicked off this confidence motion bluff. I’d like to but I don’t. In any case his move, intentional or otherwise, has shown Muscat up for what he is. To many of us it has become evident that Muscat will put his unbridled ambition before the interests of the country – will it be evident to the disgruntled voters, to the reformists within PN and most of all to Franco Debono. 

Crucially, the dice have not all been thrown yet. Hold your breath there is still some time before we can yell “alea iacta est”.

Categories
Politics

That Speedy Legislation

So Franco has now slipped his much touted bill on the financing of political parties into parliament in the form of a Private Member’s Bill. Should we wait before unpacking the fireworks? This must definitely be the last move by the Honourable Member of Għaxaq that proves to us that his seemingly interminable duel with power is not based on anything remotely resembling a coherent plan. Worse still it shows up the greatest deficiency in Franco’s actions: the apparent lack of clearly definable targets. Coupled with the Beppe Fenech Adami revelations Franco’s period as a rising star of Maltese politics has been transformed into the dying moments of a supernova. Why?

Let me tell you why. If, as Franco has often stated, the sick state of our party system is at the core of our political inertia and of what he claims to be our failed democracy then why wait for the dying moments of this parliament to present an all important private member’s bill that hits at the heart of the matter? While he danced, tangoed and sashayed in matters such as public transport Franco never tired of reminding us of his ultimate crusade. Meanwhile he was using the PN government’s one seat weakness to constantly attract attention to his immense capabilities and ultimately to the fact that GonziPN’s web of evil was guilty of putting this man with many solutions on the backburner for too long. Here was your typical example of the nagging footballer who evidently cannot stomach being left on the (back)bench for too long.

So a crucial question must be asked of Franco. Why now? As JPO showed very well with his own Private Member’s Bill on divorce, a timely proposal could have stirred the waters earlier on and shifted the national discussion to the crux of the matter. If let’s say sometime before or after the divorce saga you opted to present this law and switch the whole party system into the limelight then surely you would have been doing your duty as a responsible representative of the interests of the demos. For some reason you did not. I know for a fact that you have been working on it for a long time – who doesn’t?  Then why?

Surely you do not expect to now switch the condition of saving the day for government to the enactment of one law drafted by one person (you may be brilliant but I’m sorry it will take more than one lawyer to finalise a proper draft)? Is that your idea? To have brought the government and two political parties to the verge of an election only to tell them at the last minute to forget it and to concentrate on enacting a law first that practically threatens to handicap them in the future? Really? Seriously?

There is one issue and aside that needs to be considered. I got the impression during the last round of EU elections that many MEP candidates were very angry at their fellow candidates (even from the same party) who, according to these disgruntled candidates, bore false witness as to the amount of electoral expenses that they dispensed. Many of the “weaker” strand of candidates – those who are not in the frontline Ministerial seats or decision making committees of parties with sufficient exposure – would be desperate for a law that (rightly) puts the competition on an equal playing field during pre-electoral battles. Your minister with his deep pockets and incumbent powers might be too much of a match for backbench politicians attempting to get their backside back onto a parliamentary seat next time round… hence the probable eagerness for stricter regulations of electoral spending.

Somehow I may be wrong but I get the hunch that a couple of elections battling it out with heavyweights like Louis Galea might have taken their toll on Franco’s ability to face another round. Hence the need to propel himself to the front come what may. (A reason among many of course). Hence the last minute bill that will probably not see the light of day before the next legislature when district battles will have been fought, lax electoral rules on financing will have been flaunted and the same, same but different voting system will have triumphed.

Franco, I heard you say that the reforms the country needs should be made in a holistic manner. I’m sorry but this bill has everything but “holistic” written all over. Such a shame, the PLPN get their way again and we’ll have to wait quite some more time before anyone seriously tackles the matter.

Thanks Franco. But no thanks.

 

Video: (top right) La Lista Laqualunque