Thinking in 2D in the 21st Century

It’s been a week on the island and as you can see from the lack of blogging it has been a busy one. Any time I may have away from planning is dedicated to the sun and sea (or the sun and swell during the last two days). The most “politics” I get during this time is a chance to hear people out away from the comments boxes in the various blogs and online papers and so I get to compare the ethereal with the reaHave I got some (non) news for you…

There’s a lament doing the rounds out there that is worthy of Pietro Caxaro’s darned best. It is sung by each and every person who you meet and who you da provoke into talking about current affairs. There may be variants but the highlights of the lament go something like this:

1. An extreme displeasure and disgust at anything PN. Apparently the monsters of “widespread corruption”, “nepotism” and “hofor” are back with a vengeance. The general idea among nationalist card carriers is that the PN might as well vanish in a cloud of smoke – as they have become a corrupt bunch of spendthrift nincompoops who are also hell bent on installing a police state. As one ex-nationalist (yes, they are back) gently put “it: “We do not need another five years of democratic dictatorship. Conclusion: PN does not get their vote. (Inzabbu)

2. So you try to get something out of these disgruntled nationalists about o they intend to vote for. The answer is obvious. They will vote for Inhobbkom Joseph and his merry band. Fair enough I say. After all fairness is oft invoked by the intelligent (that’s sarcasm by the way) voter to justify the need of alternation in government. But do you know what kind of policies PL has? Do you know how they will be applied to, for example, shield us from the dark clouds of the economic crisis? I am not a tough client. I ask for one (that’s 1) policy that promises to improve things from the lament-inducing state of affairs. Just one. Apparently though Joseph has promised an electoral manifesto three months before the election. And anyway that is not the point it seems. It seems that the point is that the vote is not really for PL but against PN. You see? Intelligent voting is back. Apparently the new think is “better the incompetent devil you have no clue about than the thieving, host-swallowing, conniving, power-nibbling devil you’ve had enough of”. Or summat like that. Conclusion: Viva l-lejber! (Who? boqq… basta mhux PN u hi).

3. And then you plug the innocent question. So if you are telling me that the nationalists have fooled you for too long and that you do have an inkling of a suspicion that PL running on the same polluted petrol why won’t you consider for an instance using your sacrosant right to vote positively and elect a party that deserves giving its damned best shot at having its policies represented in parliament? In other words : why not vote AD? (after reading their political proposals and seeing what they have to offer). Well we know what the answer to that on is don’t we? It’s Daphne and Patrick’s Wasted Vote… the one that makes you irresponsible for risking getting one of the other devils elected. Of course if Daphne convinced you not to waste your vote last election you probably voted for the government of one-seat majority in which Ad is not a king-maker. Hold on…. but what does that make JPO? What does it make obstinate Franco Debono? An unruly Austin Gatt? Let me guess… that is the most responsible vote of the highest order. Conclusion: Vote AD? Don’t be ridiculous. (Biex jitilghu xi PN bi zball… mhux hekk)

So three and a half years after the battles of 2008 when we tried desperately on the net and in the papers to convince people that the time had come to break the stronghold of the alternating valueless devils in this country by voting in a third party nothng much has changed. This is a country that still thinks in stupid terms. Yes, stupid. Becuase if you know that voting PN again would only encourage more of the same, and if you know that voting PL would only bring about the same, same but different and you are only voting PL because you want to spite PN then you can only be damn stupid. Very damn stupid if you ask me.

a J’accuse article in The Times of Malta from February 2008:

Win or lose we go shopping after the election

So there’s this campaign going on. It pits two candidates head to head against each other. The other contestants are sort of morphed away into the background as the two personalities fight the battle in each and every quarter. They pitch the battle from their home ground where they feel most confident attacking their opponent to the shrills and cries of banner waving supporters. Occasionally they will consent to a battle of wits before a general audience. It is such battles that bring out their fortes and their weaknesses. On the one hand the man who has already surprised everyone once by getting as far as he could get and on the other the smart confident lawyer with the plan to save the nation. They battle through the stereotypical labels, they justify past records and voting trends and they are both convinced that it is with them that the nation will start its new beginning.

It’s going to be a long, drawn out campaign as early polls had already indicated. No horse is a sure bet and every little battle waged is important for the achievement of the final result. They are determined to put on a good face to the crowd. They want to be the answer to the needs of the people. “Each candidate behaved well in the hope of being judged worthy of election”. It doesn’t take Machiavelli to notice that politicians will willingly change shape in order to best suit the image that the people want to elect. A recent article in The Boston Globe asked the question whether we should really be so angry that hypocrisy is a common trait among politicians. After all does it not mean that they are trying to be more pleasing for the electorate, the author asks.

On the other hand, in this campaign, the votes against are almost as important as the votes in favour. Often the old political adage, that men and women vote chiefly against somebody rather than for somebody, is proven right. More and more campaigns are run on why not to vote for the other candidate than why to vote for your own. It is a sorry state of affairs wherever this happens and reflects a dearth of positive ideas and policies. The same applies to the mud-slinging scenarios that have become habitual. This campaign has not been spared.

One candidate accuses the other of having supported a wrong policy in the past – the immediate repartee will be on how a policy backed by the accuser had been so ineffective and hopeless. And so on it goes. Was it not once said that during a campaign the air is full of speeches … and vice versa?

The media machinery focuses as much on the glamour aspect of the politician as it will on the substance being offered. Personal background, musical preferences and how the candidate spends his spare time all form part of the wider media circus of this campaign. Meanwhile, while one side will accuse the other of being incompetent, dishonest and incapable of fulfilling its promises, the other side will retort with the same arguments. To cap it all up the independents or third parties will agree with both – giving you quite an idea of how varied and contradicting opinions can weirdly fall in the same basket.

In the middle of it all lie the voters. They are awed by the language of the demagogues, by the special effects of the presentations and by the charisma of this or that candidate. They will watch in a drunken stupor as the more arguments are piled up the more they are mollified into one or another candidates’ camp. As the song and dance goes on they are led to believe that the choice is the only one before them that counts. Everything else is yesterday and the past. Tomorrow is another story where a new beginning and a new world exists… with your candidate of choice of course. Privately the voters’ main reflection remains that democracy is being able to vote for the candidate who you dislike the least.

But Barak Obama vs Hillary Clinton will be just another chapter in the history of viciously fought campaigns. I’ve just finished reading the book Imperium by Robert Harris which chronicles the life and times of Marcus Cicero. It chronicles events close to the end of the Republican era in Rome. Elections were order of the day between circus games and foreign campaigns. Bribery, corruption, calumnious accusation and all forms of no-holds-barred campaigning seem to have been normality in that age. Thankfully it is probably no longer possible to buy more than half the representation of the senate and the tribunes as attempted by Crassus and his co-conspirators.

Bribery and politicians who sell their soul to the highest bidder are a thing of the past even though many a Michael Moore will say otherwise. Politics are made for the good of the people. Wars are waged to export democracy and not to retain control on the oil lines, building permits are given in the light of regulations and not twisted in accordance to the needs of party backers and so on and so forth. Whatever the case the US seems set to have a woman or a black man in the White House (should the Democrats make it) over 200 years after the birth of a nation. The election will be over and we will return to our daily lives. As Imelda Marcos once famously said, win or lose, we go shopping after the election.

Facebook Comments Box

Clueless in Opposition

Joseph Muscat is gracing the headlines of the timesofmalta online pages. A Sunday headline is a great “catch” in marketing terms since it keeps the potential voters up to date with Muscat’s policies and positions. We have learnt recently that what Muscat thinks and believes does not necessarily reflect his party’s position but we also learnt that this has little effect on his popularity ratings with “the people”.

The Times post stresses two issues mentioned by Inhobbkom on One Radio this morning. Here is the J’accuse précis on what Muscat thinks:

1. Decisive action needs to be taken by the European Union on the unprecedented economic and financial situation the world is facing, Labour leader Joseph Muscat said this morning

2. Dr Muscat expressed shock at the release from prison of Charles Muscat, known as il-pips, after serving 15 of 25 years. Mr Muscat had been jailed for  double murder. (…) he could not understand how this could be allowed by Malta’s judiciary system (sic). It was worrying to him as a father, as a politician and as a citizen. It was also a matter of national security, he said.

Now, given that this was not a Sunday coffee morning with an open subject and that this is Malta’ Opposition Leader going about his daily work that involves reminding people that this government is bad (very bad) and that as a direct corollary his party is the best solution since sliced bread we have to look at these two statements in that very light. EU policy and Criminal Policy it is then.

1. EU Policy

And here comes the first bomb. Before even seeing what Muscat (Inhobbkom not il-pips) is proposing, we have to actually look at what the problem is that Muscat is highlighting. Well, thankfully, Muscat seems to have been alerted to the ginormous economic disaster that is threatening the Western world. He gives a nod to the US downgrading of the credit rating. Then he informs the world that the EU needs to take decisive action. Here are the thoughts that rushed through my mind in between the ringing of alarum bells and flashing of lights:

(a) Our PM-to-be still speaks of “the EU” as though it is an extraneous entity when it comes to economic affairs and budgetary management. It’s the old Daily Mail and Daily Express business of blaming “the Europeans” for the fictitious regulations on the length of sausages. Does our PM-to-be know that the problem in this case lies with the 27 nations and with their management of National Budget in defiance of the strict rules that the EU imposed?

(b) Here’s some news for Muscat. President Sarkozy is pressing for a G7, G8 and G20 meeting in order for them to discuss the economic crisis ahead of a G8 meeting. “The EU” is merely part of a huge chain of decision makers that can suggest concrete action…and here comes the biggest surprise for Muscat…

(c) Decisive action will and has to begin at home. Austerity measures – the kind of which  the Greeks and Spaniards have already got the bitter taste – will need to be taken by national governments. What we have seen Labour’s FreeVote proponents do is generally criticise government intervention to reduce public debt and spending. We have seen for example Marie Louise Coleiro (or was it Justyne) declare that only a Labour Government can guarantee free health care. So to put it blandly, Muscat’s posturing on radio about abstract entities taking “decisive action” is only a populist statement designed to tell the people that he has absolutely no intention or plan to take such measures himself. Neither does he seem to be able to acknowledge that the current government should be taking those measures already – and that he should be backing them to the hilt.

2. The Judiciary System (sic)

“The people” are angry. They are angry that the pederast priests got punished with so little time in prison. They are angry at dog killers getting off leniently. You do not expect the man in the street to understand the reasons behind “we are servants of the law that we may be free”. The idea behind the rule of law is that it provides certainty – for the accused, for the victim and for the condemned. It does so by providing clear rules as to what elements should exist to find someone guilty and what the metre of punishment is.

Our PM to be is so eager to ride the wave of current public discontent with regards to crime and punishment that he rushes to blame the “judiciary system” (yes, the Times in all its infinite wisdom and eagerness to publicise Muscat’s latest banter translated “sistema gudizzjarja” literally). Muscat fails to note that this kind of problem emanates from parliament – if the crime is not well defined, if the punishment does not fit the crime and if the calculations for early release are too lenient then the source of the problem are the lawmakers – the gaggle of freevoters in Valletta.  The laws have been there for quite some time … some of them even survived the period of the Great Leader whose Birthday Everybody Celebrated on Facebook yesterday.

Conclusion

Muscat continues to show signs of populism at its worst. The greatest exposure is his inability to identify  the source of a problem and proceed to identify the solution. He is blinded by the need to resort to simple PLPN Grammar and Rhetoric. It’s the kind of rhetoric that resorts to simplistic reasoning aimed at reaching one conclusion: PN are hopeless managers in this day and age. The sad thing is that the people did not need reminding that the PN has taken more than a few twists for the worse in recent times.

What Muscat does manage to do is to also remind us that the alternative to the current unpopular government is absolutely devoid of concrete policies and ideas. That’s what happens when you are too concerned about riding popular discontent and throw any available mud in random directions in the hope that some of it will stick.

Sadly for us and as we all know… stick it will and how… here’s to a future headless government – all for the greater good of alternation.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

J’accuse: Plebiscites in the age of clicktivism

The mass is a weird being. I am not referring to the Eucharistic celebration in Catholic rites but to the “mass” as a collective of human beings that can be formed either randomly or purposely within a particular context or aim.

At worst a “mass” is a loose connection of humans, each going about their independent lives that happen to have a common element at one particular moment − the best example are commuters on public transport. Think, for example, of the mass of commuters at peak hour in a metropolitan city. At its most effective the mass is a flock, a herd or a gaggle of humans who assemble with a particular intention − such as famously assembled on the morning of the 14th of July 1789 in Paris with the very clear intention of taking possession of the arms in the Bastille.

Apart from the religious connotation, we are used to hearing about “mass meetings” on this island. It’s a national sport that has grown since the formation of political parties and for a few decades (possibly still nowadays) these “mass meetings” have been attended with such religious fervour that one would be forgiven for confusing the religious with the profane. The nineties brought us the full explosion of “mass marketing” − that ended when the personal and different became exalted (see the great Desigual campaign) − before that the mantra of maxploitative products would be capturing the attention of as large a part of the mass as possible.

The social network

In this day and age, the principles underlying successful Internet companies also rely on capturing the masses. Social networks such as Facebook and Google Plus rely heavily on the basic building block of a particular form of mass connections. Having lured the masses into their fold with the bait of “connectivity”, the social networks proceed to fence them off from the rest of the net and to attempt to keep them in their corner of the virtual world.

A problem that both companies like Facebook and Google or parties like our political behemoths may face is the unpredictable frivolity of the masses. A mass is fickle and oftentimes misrepresented. Its power lies in sheer numbers and it is a very rare mass that is constantly clear and uniform on what it wants unless there are very clearly defined rules to calculate its wishes.

Take modern democracy, as envisaged mainly in post-war constitutions, as an example. We had taken the Greek city-state idea of a demos (the mass described as a people or commonwealth) and created a set of rules by which the people through majority voting entrusted a part of them to enact laws in their name and for their better comfort.

Even if we were to set aside the cliché of “the least of all evils” that is often bandied around when talking about the democratic system of government, we would have to acknowledge that the tyranny of the majority business is limited to periodical assessments of the general political orientation that the mass might prefer. In our case we vote every five years. In matters of utmost importance (or in our case when the representatives do not have the balls to legislate the obvious), the ball is thrown back into the mass’ court for it to decide by way of what is commonly known as “the referendum”.

I heart populism

But, as I said in the beginning, the mass is a weird being. There is an increasing tendency to talk in terms of masses. To assume that some kind of majority idea exists about this or that idea. The tools of the net I mentioned earlier have served to exacerbate this tendency and encourage it to the point of legal fallacy and sublime foolishness. The language of engagement in a country where every person is a politician born can only make matters worse. In a perfect utopia (allow me the tautology) the marvels of the Internet would be harnessed to be able to accurately gauge the thoughts and ideas of the masses. But is it a good idea? Should we be governed, judged and policed by the masses?

Ironically, when viewed through the eyes of the press, the noise from Malta’s society presents an inherent contradiction. On the one hand there are the conspiracy theorists − those who assume that anything (from the naming of a bus stop to the arraignment of an individual in court) is decided in some control room by an elite of Freemasons, networked politicians and whatever other label the conspiracy theorist may fancy. On the other hand there is a trend of speaking for the masses: you know the kind that generalise their thoughts as though they represent a huge chunk of the community.

The mass-stirrers are the latest trend in our desert of political values. Having ditched their respective ideological grounds for the fluid umbrella approach, our political parties are now victims of their own populist trends. I have bored you to death with the example of the non-policy of the Labour Party in the divorce debate. It will not be the last time that you will see Labour (and possibly even the PN) operate in this manner. The basic building block of their modus operandi is the pandering to the masses − which is after all what populism is all about. We risk having a government run on vox pops and referenda.

A brave new world

Did I hear you say not bad? Well, let me put it this way. The danger of “the mass” and its frivolous wills can only be appreciated when you look back at the way “the mass” has acted in recent past. Take for example the sad case of the pederast priests. Sure, what the priests did deserves a shower of opprobrium and condemnation of the harshest kind. Which is what the courts of law are there for. Had it been left to the masses and the mass reaction (as stirred by the media) we would have most probably witnessed a lynch mob.

It’s not that the deeds of the two men do not stir feelings of anger and disgust in me but that I would rather entrust their fate in the hands of a clear law with clear punishment than in the hands of a jury of the masses any day. A mass thinks with a hot head. It does not factor calmly and has a short-term rationale. Which is why the only details a mass is worried with is “how high is the tree?” and “is the rope long enough?” or “is the straw dry enough for the fire?”

Mass fail

With Internet activism (or clicktivism) you risk running away with the idea that there is a huge interest in a particular idea or principle. There’s a lot of noise on comment boards and “Likes” being clicked like there is no tomorrow.

When push comes to shove matters may not turn out to be as noisy or likeable as we may have thought. A Facebook friend pointed out two separate incidents that seem to confirm this trend.

First there was the huge online fuss about “The Oasis” development that could have given the impression that all Malta was against the desecration of another green corner of the island. It turns out that when the developer invited the online “complainers” for a meeting to air their complaints only two people turned out. That’s a slap in the face for clicktivism.

The other story was that of the Eritrean Ashih, who had recently lost his life tragically while saving another person from drowning. It seemed that notwithstanding all the bla and rhetoric acknowledging the man’s ultimate sacrifice, when it came to donations to a special fund, the masses were nowhere to be seen. The figure representing “private donations” out of the sum of €6,673 collected was a mere €50. The rest came from various funds and from the hotel where Ashih had worked. I’m not being a bean-counting Scrooge here but it does say much about the much trumpeted “generosity and open heart” of the Maltese public does it not?

Politics for the masses

The populist politicians have fashioned a symbiotic system that guarantees a fast track to the pinnacles of power. Modern day Neros do not fiddle while Rome burns. They are instead so engrossed with the micro-management of pleasing the peasants and keeping their pitchforks at bay that they lost the plot on the real business of responsible government away from the whimsical frivolity of the masses. I’d like to say that that is the case only in our little corner of the world but I would be lying.

The US credit rating downgrading for the first time ever and the imminent clouds of doom that are hovering in the European economic skies (and that’s ALL Europe, including The Cocooned Republic), are in a way the result of the modern day fiddlers. For a long time now they have been busy manufacturing politics for the masses while faking obeisance to the economic rules that bound a still fragile Union. Now the disparate leaders of the European Union are reluctant to break up their holidaymaking as their economy burns. What could they do anyway? Ask the people how to solve the woes? The masses are already gathering in Greece and Spain. The Spanish “Indignados” are “summoning the spirits of ’68” in order to express their disappointment with the current governors. Meanwhile, further south the protracted Jasmine Revolution has reached the bloody confines of Syria… and history, as they tend to say, seems to have gone full circle.

Ite, missa est

We get the word “mass” for the liturgical celebration from the Latin “missa” which originally meant “dismissed”. It’s from the phrase at the end of the celebration when the celebrant invites the congregation to leave. In this day and age mass movements seem to have the power to install and dismiss the leaders of nations at their will. It is an intelligent nation that learns from past mistakes and distinguishes between the frivolous, immediate and spontaneous will of the masses and the informed guidance based on long-term planning and values.

Do we have what it takes to tell the difference? And more importantly, are our representatives investing enough thought and time to develop the right value based policies? Or are we to be saddled with more headless politics for the masses? Ite, missa est.

www.akkuza.com has moved to the island of mass beaching for the next two weeks. Here’s to hoping there’s no mass jellyfish invasion.

Facebook Comments Box

A nation of stone-throwers

The judgement in the case of the two paedophiles Godwin Scerri and Charles Pulis has justifiably leapt to the top of the most talked about news stories on the ether. There is no doubt that any normal human (anybody who does not have a Breivik streak anyway) will have passed through a mixture of emotions when hearing about how these two beings (they do not deserve to be called men) abused of the position of trust and responsibility with which society had entrusted them. Indignation, disgust, anger, sadness (for the victims) and the strong primitive desire to punish that hides the even more primitive need for revenge and retribution surely played a part in all of this.

While there is no doubt that Godwin and Charles deserve society’s strongest of reprimands and punishments that should be meted out in proportion to their heinous crime, it is also true that society – particularly the “instant liberals” need to put a damper or two on their enthusiastic attempts  to throw everybody and everyone in the same basket. Sure Godwin and Charles operated under the guise of (and abused the name of) priests. Does that justify the sudden lynch mob directed towards priesthood in general? Is the institution so base as to suddenly equate it with “assassins” or “necrophiliacs”?

Let me state this differently. Our criminal law contains an aggravation (a factor that means that the crime committed will be punished more harshly) in the case of a policeman committing any crime. If a policeman steals something for example, his punishment is aggravated because he is committing a crime that he was duty bound to prevent. The crime is the same (theft) but the penalty is harsher (aggravated) because of the person who committed it. For a very logical and sound reason (that most people can get to without outside assistance) there is nothing written in the Criminal Code about punishing the whole police force whenever a policeman commits a crime.

Now “the Church” (and not only the MSSP) is a vast institution and I never tire of reminding people that it has an important social role to play within the fabric of many societies let alone ours where it has been a mainstay of society for at least a thousand years. We may suddenly have a lynch mob that has emitted the verdict of GUILTY on all priests and all MSSP members in particular but they conveniently tend to forget that the operation of orphanages in this country of ours (not to mention other social support structures) is entirely dependent on the Church. It is a service that goes on every day unnoticed (and mostly untrumpeted) in  much the same way as your postal service works daily away from the limelight.

There can be no doubt that Malta’s Church requires a period of reflection and introspection : it has to ask itself which parts have gone wrong and why. It is not just the rotten apples that need seeing to but much more. From a lay point of view, the Concordat with the Maltese State has done the Church (and Malta) more harm than good and would best be disposed of as soon as possible. But this is not the time to stone the Church to death. The rotten part of the Church must go. For the sake of the Church and for the sake of our society that still depends on many of its valuable services.

Unleashing the lynch mob of “anti-papists”, “anti-clericals” and “liberal extremists” who won’t rest until they have the metaphorical blood of the Church on their hands will lead us to nowhere. Believers and non-believers might find that they have the same duty and social responsibility to help the Church redirect itself and its flock to living in a more tolerant world where abuse of trust does not happen so easily.

Hopefully it will not happen at all.

Facebook Comments Box

Cocks, Debts & Plans

Cocks

Living in the countryside is a lifestyle choice associated with the fresh air, the greenery and the calm. When we chose to move into a converted chateau a while back (it’s converted into apartments mind you) we had the idea of rural countryside bliss in mind. What I did not count on is the cock (tee-hee – note: this bracket has been included to fit with what counts as trendy in this day and age) that is a permanent fixture in our neighbour’s menagerie.

This morning I was unable to find the snooze button on the persistent sound that seemed to have taken over my alarm clock. The crowing of the cock was surely planned by the same devious bastard who had scheduled early morning mowing of lawns and clearing of paths on Saturdays in the Parc de Merl. I am sure that this particular rooster has a magna cum louder (sic) in statistical mechanics and opts to crow at apposite intervals designed to torture the brain of even the most innocent bystander.

Trying to catch an extra half hour snooze in the morning? Epic fail. Give me urban regularity any time. I must say though that I am definitely not looking forward to the noises of Paceville waking up in the morning come (tee-hee) next week.

Debts

I am no genius in the grander economic theories of the way things work in our lives but I follow the news enough to know that what happened last night in the US of A will have huge repercussions on the order of things in the Western World (and par consequence beyond). The lawmakers of the great nation finally agreed on a manner in which to deal with impending doom of financial meltdown. They did so by voting for the only way out – increasing debt levels and increasing spending cuts.

We might have the very wrong impression that this will only affect people on the other side of the ocean but while we are immersed in navel-gazing exercises and dabbling with redefining Maltese concepts of political correctness (wrongly, I hasten to addf) the bite of the current treatment phase of the financial armageddon will definitely be felt in Malta too. I can’t wait for the next government to reopen the whole “Hofor” speak. The really cool (it’s sarcasm Jim, but you wouldn’t know it) thing is that the two options we have: Inhobbkom J or a New Faction of PN could both choose to blindly blame it on the Gonz while navigating the economy into darker waters. Spiffin.

To Do or not To Do

I currently have the attention span of a bluebottle fly in a rubbish tip. That is probably why blogging on J’accuse has become even more sporadic than is usual in the desert of the summer months when most people do not even sit at their pc’s anyway. In any case the appointed date for the joining of fates approaches at breakneck speed (1hr/hr) my mind seems to have wandered into a capsule which I timeshare with various to-do lists that are my curse.

It’s not like I have to plan Malta’s new transport system or anything but in between little chores related to nuptial preparations, moving of houses and final touches at the workplace before the long Ferragosto, I find myself swimming in a sea of shifting deadlines that defy any attempt of self-control.

There. That has to be it for the day. We hope you have enjoyed this running commentary of random ramblings from the greyish skies of Luxembourg. Have a good one till the next post. And don’t forget we are also on tumblr for the experienced browser’s perusal..

 

Facebook Comments Box

J'accuse : You can't always get what you want

This is the J’accuse column from yesterday’s The Malta Independent on Sunday (July 31st).

I cannot stand conspiracy theories. Worse still, I cannot stand most conspiracy theorists for their willingness to accept half-truths and bent facts much more readily than keeping their feet firmly on the ground. The stubborn manner with which a conspiracy theorist will bark out his “facts” and non sequiturs, without pausing to allow some much needed oxygen to reach his brain cells, is extremely frustrating. For someone who cannot stand conspiracy theories, the behaviour of Malta’s press world (commentators included) over the past week has been crazy to say the least.

A series of curious incidents that would each merit a separate chapter in the burgeoning annals of Maltese political and social eccentricity were pounced upon by a media circus that was all too eager to fill columns and pixels with whatever qualifies as a “scoop” or “exclusive” this day. The colourful summer recipe included some amateur spinning, some hastily assembled assumptions, a dash of insinuations and (in most of these cases) plenty of blind hope in partisan savoir-faire.

Cyrus the grate

If you set aside the Norway massacres, the latest life-vest thrown to the euro and the stories about the US’s battle to avoid economic hell (or if you actually thought of those before), then you would probably be thinking of the manner in which Cyrus is getting his name slapped across the headlines. He seems to manage to do so with grating irregularity and has long surpassed the star factor that his fellow councilman Nikki Dimech had achieved with his little bit of shenanigans some time back.

The latest instalment in the record-running show “PLPN’s Got Talent (kemm ahna sbieh min jaf jarana) is a series of events that − if you believe the conspiracy theorists − was triggered off by Cyrus’ Great Switch. Incidentally, here is one for the Black Belt Conspiracy Theorists − did you know that the name Cyrus has been linked to the Indo-European meaning “humiliator of the enemy”? Now that’s some food for thought. A kiwi, almost.

I cannot bore you with all the sordid details of the step by step accounts of what happened, who phoned whom and who called for who’s resignation. I’ll let you be bored elsewhere because frankly, if you have not picked up the various truths and colourings-in, then you might as well go on living the life of the blissfully ignorant. For those of you who love to perform the weekly hara-kiri of senseless speculation I have a few questions prepared.

A series of interesting questions

The PN first. Do you ever intend to start vetting candidates in such a manner as to avoid indecent surprises once they are elected to Parliament? Do you have any mechanism that somehow tests candidate suitability on the basis of the supposed basic set of values your party used to proudly carry? Do you still think that backing JPO to the hilt in the run up to the elections was a brilliant scheme?

And now Labour. The vetting question holds true for you too. Is it really enough for someone to say “I don’t like PN anymore” for them to suddenly waltz in and become a prized asset in your roadshow? Your “Dear Leader” called for the resignation of Edgar G C for having called the police commissioner. Are you telling me that a Labour PM would not be worried about having a politically motivated police force and that therefore no phone calls would be made asking for reassurance that none of it is happening?

Worse still, it is a fact that EGC called Commissioner Rizzo upon instigation and in the presence of Cyrus Engerer. The same Engerer is under investigation for criminal offences. The worst that could have happened, politically speaking, is that such accusations and process are now public knowledge − but that does not change the nature of the offence for which he is ultimately accused. It does not in any way absolve Cyrus from the necessity to go through the due process. My question is − given the stinking web of networks and interests that seem to be weaved into the case − wouldn’t a temporary suspension from the Labour Party be the least you could do to ensure that Engerer gets to defend himself without the burden/excuse of political manipulation?

Networks

I dealt with the role of networks in the whole story before it unfolded any further. For further elucidation do pop over at www.akkuza.com and check out the post entitled “I.M. Jack − the one about Cyrusgate”. The way I see it we have a perfectly normal course of events in Maltese politics and social life that is suddenly being given a specific twist because of the convenience it has for certain parts of the partisan charade (and possibly for Cyrus himself).

Maltese social life is based on the building of networks. As I said in the blog: our PLPN society is built on webs and connections and networks. You publicly move up the ladder and before you know it you are a wheel in the power machine: sometimes you end up using that wheel’s power in complicated rituals that involve the exchanging of favours. Within that power system lies an unwritten rule that family and close friends might be given added consideration: it’s private you know. Think of the last time you saw someone getting his friend through on the VIP list in some nightclub and then think wider, bigger.

Look around you. Whether you are at the bank or at the grocer or at the public registry or negotiating a discount on your fine with a warden, there is one thing in common. You look at them beyond the normal confines of basic social interaction. You try to get to the banker who knows you or is a cousin twice removed, you prefer the grocer who treats you as a friend or the tax assessor who is married to your office mate’s brother and hopefully you are lucky enough to be dealing with a reasonable warden. These connections are crucial (as Google+ and Facebook have long found out) because the main currency on which these circles operate is the trading of power units.

Buying power

The policeman who meets a politician in the street and guarantees that a hush-hush case will probably be heard behind closed doors is attempting to wield the power he has in his sphere of influence. You find this kind of power all over the place − take civil services everywhere for example. Sometimes it is impressive what will open a door or close another. In Luxembourg, where the civil service employs mainly Luxembourgers, I learnt a crucial lesson that oils the wheels in your favour. It was simple really. Do not address the public servants in French. Short of Luxembourgish try English. Often it makes the difference between being ignored or misdirected and getting what you want immediately without as much as a huff.

What I believe lies behind the grossly inflated Cyrusgate is the wielding of multiple bits of power with the mistaken intention of upsetting or strengthening partisan loyalties. When suspicion falls on the police force about expediting or delaying the application of justice, what we are really saying is that there is a PC somewhere who holds the key to the speed of treatment of a dossier with Cyrus’ name on it. The mere fact that he can choose to speed it up is his little corner of power. Did this constable use it to ingratiate himself with one of the two parties? I doubt it. Can it happen? Possibly. And it can happen in favour of any of the two hubs of the main networks: the PL or the PN. And that is what worries me in the end.

Think also of the intricate network of lawyering that has been mentioned. Between Cyrus’ lawyer and Marvic’s lawyer we have a confusing cross-section of party and government loyalties. It’s clumsy but it’s done. That is the problem. I have long stopped blaming the policeman or the lawyer. I blame the system encouraged by voters (you know that don’t you?). Even though it should not make sense we accept lawyers shifting between their lawyer’s cap and their political cap as though it is the most obvious thing in the world. It’s not OK. It’s far from being OK but it’s how we do it in this country − whoever is in government.

Getting what you want

There’s no knowing how Cyrusgate will end. Papers like MaltaToday will go on milking the conspiracy theory dry while caught in a web of inherent contradictions. What jars most is not the need for the press to fill their papers with gossip that sells like pastizzi, but the readiness of the observers to swallow the filth without as much as a simple question that should bring the illogical conspiracy theory crumbling down. What will remain is a series of networks that are nurtured to feed the illogical partisan politics that is becoming less and less representative of value-driven politics every day.

The question on everyone’s lips once the police were suspected to be involved in Cyrusgate was “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Well maybe not in Latin but the gist was there. The phrase means “who will guard us from our guardians”? The biggest worry I have goes beyond that issue. In fact, I am convinced that our guardians only operate along the social mores that we have all become accustomed to and accept. They are the same social guidelines and standards that we continue to endorse every election year. Seen in that light, the question everyone is asking should be rephrased into one that is more simple and accurate: “Who will protect us from ourselves?”

www.akkuza.com is still dispensing highhanded advice from grey and rainy Luxembourg. We’re in Malta for August though – just enough time to remember why we still bother aye?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box