Austin & the two Emmanuels

Minister Gatt has taken note of the hunger strike announced by Emmanuel Cini. He has asked Arriva to speak to the hunger striker and try to ensure that his ends are met. We know this from a report in the Times in which Gatt’s actions were transmitted to the Times by a spokesman for Dr Gatt.

Minister Gatt did not speak directly to the press. He did not speak to Emmanuel Cini either. If the striker is even half serious you’d expect a bit more commitment from Gatt. Instead of his usual gutsy dismissive statement we get his metatron – a spokesman for Dr Gatt. Which makes you wonder what happened to the other Emmanuel, the one who was only too happy to have his name linked to anything Arriva before the fiasco began.

You know which Emmanuel we are talking about. The one who very evidently would not understand the meaning of a hunger strike.


DAY 4 OF HUNGER STRIKE: THE REAL EMMANUEL

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Creativity Punished

Theyab Awana’s team, the United Arab Emirates, were leading Lebanon 5-2 in an away friendly when they were awarded a penalty and a chance to score the sixth goal from the eleven meter spot. It was the 78th minute and the scoreline was already a witness to the huge gap between the two teams and the remaining twelve minutes bar any added misery and time would only be a formality.

In many ways the penalty promised to be the last piece of excitement for any paying supporters – and we all know how exciting a penalty at that point, with that score can be. Up steps Awana Diab (or Theyab Awana), a twenty-one year old who plies his trade with Baniyas and he makes his way to the spot. He stares at the ball for a few seconds – as many have done before him – daring it to disobey his next order that will be a direct invitation to hug the back of the net.

There is a whistle that commands Awana to go and he starts his short unimportant run to the spot. Few would have followed his approach with any interest given the statistical chances of success (unless you are Brasil in a Copa America quarter final). Books have been written about the boring, cynical and unexciting penalty. Few have managed to turn this most basic of football kicks into entertainment material – Cruyff and the Dutch played some cheeky business, Socrates would stand over the ball without running but in the end it was always kick and score or miss.

But then, half way through Theyab’s short run he spun round on himself and presented the goalkeeper with the most abnormal of views – his backside. The bored onlookers did not even have time to get over the shock before they noticed the audacious choice by the young unknown. Awana had chosen to backheel the ball towards the keeper and as the ball trickled slowly into the net even the Lebanese keeper stood transfixed and overwhelmed by the abrasive punkiness of it all.

Awana had for a few seconds made a choice to transcend the mundane and enter the Soccertheon of footballing moves. For a few infinite seconds he was up there with the likes of Garrincha, Puskas and René Higuita: those who dared defy logic with moves that dazzled and made kids dream.

There was an apotheosis for this young man. He was tugged savagely down from the heavens by his coach and team manager. Sratko Katanec the ex-Sampdoria stalwart and now UAE coach pulled off Awana immediately – the player had only been on the pitch for 10 minutes. His crime was apparently “disrespect”. You often get this philosophy in football – it is usually attributed to team who “overdo” winning: such as continuing to play attacking football when the score is already a gaping chasm.

Some teams have transformed attacking football into a philosophy – like the Catalan geniuses in blaugrana.  The UAE did not arrest its run after Awana’s goal (the sixth for the team in the game). They went on to score a seventh, without the “disrespectful” Awana on the pitch. It says much about the type of football that is expected nowadays. There is a sick feeling of political correctness that trims down genius into its place – players have to be football machines first and creative minds later.

It’s sad. Awana should be made a symbol of a fan movement calling for the return of “crazy” footballers that managed to put some colour in the game. The rules are there for all to see and Awana broke none of them with his moment of creative genius. (I personally think that the one that needed substituting was the hapless Lebanese goalkeeper). If it’s allowed then all the better if it is also dazzling. Or as the slogan goes… “If it’s in the game…. it’s in the game.”

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Veiled Arguments

The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” metaphor is back to haunt us. Only a while back we had a Archiepiscopal warning from the pulpit about the various wolves attired in sheep’s best (and they were not referring to vêtements signé Desigual) and now we have PM Gonzi accusing the Labour Party of having a lupine nature disguised as a fluffy animal. The phrase first appears in the Matthew 7:15 (that’s the bible, not an early morning Matt):

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

What is Gonzi on about then? Well I am not sure whether this report by MaltaToday and this one by the Times of Malta were from the same event  but they make an interesting reading into the mind of the One Who Many Think Committed Hara Kiri. The PM was commenting on Cyrus Engerer’s volte-face and trying to give his spin to the issue. We’d love to see Lawrence Gonzi’s credibility ratings at the moment but even if we assumed that there are still some people who take his word as the law we can find some interesting conclusions to continue to draw.

the counter-spin: wolves, the 80s and tolerance

MaltaToday highlighted Gonzi’s weak attempt at counter-spin. He pounced onto Joseph’s Muscat silent fatwa on Adrian Vassallo’s solo run and painted a picture of 80’s style intolerance in which “In-Nazzjon” was a public taboo. It’s tiring. Nauseating even. This whole business of projecting Labour’s past onto the future milked to some success for the 2008 Taste Campaign is long past its sell-by date. Gonzi is evidently clutching at straws with this argument. It is only made worse with his stress on “tolerance” – fresh from his monumental “NO” and spitting in the face of the vox populi (see “Drawing Conclusions”). There are inklings of the dire need that Dr Gonzi has for some intelligent (new?) advice before speaking to the press when he then opts to couch his ideas in biblical metaphors : triggering the very red lights that have made him lose so much in the popularity polls. Fail.

the ideas on switching parties

The Times report is more concerned with Gonzi’s opinion on Engerer’s choice to switch parties. According to the Times:

” Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said he respected the decision of Sliema deputy mayor Cyrus Engerer to resign from the Nationalist Party and join Labour but disagreed with his reasons. Mr Engerer did not resign because of the PN’s stand on divorce but pinned his decision on one issue: Dr Gonzi’s No vote against divorce legislation in Parliament on Wednesday.”

Much is being made elsewhere about Engerer’s Damascene switch (including questions being asked about whether it was not so sudden). Dr Gonzi is here “respecting” the decision made by the young turk. Many will confuse “respecting” with “agreeing with ” or “accepting” Cyrus’ switch. Gonzi does neither. He disagrees with the motivation (His own No vote) and above all he has a problem with the assessment of principles.

anchors

It’s the last bit that is very telling. Principles. Here is how Dr Gonzi reads the latest crisis:

“I fear we are reaching a situation where people are no longer anchored to their principles.”

People and principles. Is Gonzi, like almost everyone in the political arena, missing the woods for the trees? We have written elsewhere that the biggest problem is the lack of principled backbone within the major parties – their choice to not commit. Gonzi is pointing his fingers at “people who are no longer anchored in their principles” using Engerer as an excuse. His fingers are pointed in the wrong direction. It is the parties who have abdicated from representing clear cut principles and sacrificed these principles on the altar of populist convenience.

Wolves, Pots & Kettles

The biggest demonstration of this dog-eat-dog unprincipled world was the exchange of accusations by the PM and leader of Opposition. While Gonzi was accusing Joseph of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Joseph was busy spinning the line that “Labour had never changed its position throughout the debate”. Nobody can deny that. The point is that Labour had no position to change. It had no position on divorce. That is what Gonzi should have told Cyrus Engerer – that he was joining a party that did not have the balls to take an official position on divorce.

There’s another question I need to ask Joseph. How come “Labour not changing position” is good but “Gonzi not changing position (and always standing for the NO)” becomes bad? It’s stupid, stupid, stupid all over the place. It’s like two people tossing a coin ten times and the result is 7 heads and 3 tails. Joseph is suddenly “right” because he backed heads while Gonzi is wrong because he called “tails” all along?? Meanwhile Labour chose not to call heads or tails but wins prizes for being constant in not taking a position. Is this a crazy world or not?

Engerer

Will Engerer manage to change Labour into a real progressive party? Does he have the clout? Will it matter? It won’t to the token voters who just see Labour as the new lesser evil away from GonziPN. The question is “what will it take for them to notice that MuscatPL is same, same but different?” How long till we will be discussing how MuscatPL failed to take leadership on civil society issues, or worse still how its attempts to play the populist led to a hodge podge of botched legislation? We’re kicking off with “kids’ right to maintenance till they are 23″…. quite a good start to raise unprincipled, spoilt brats whose concept of politics is waving the blue/red flag whenever duty calls….

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle – j’accuse 2011

Facebook Comments Box

J'accuse: Drawing conclusions

Some time before “The Divorce Debate” went into overdrive, I had pointed out that this would be a good litmus test for the way our society sees itself and its politicians. That big mirror has been held up against our faces for some time now and I find myself in an unenviable situation of still not seeing eye to eye with most sides of the political spectrum. The most obvious conclusion would be that my understanding of the goings on is fatally flawed. Then again there is a possibility that the J’accuse perspective still resides resolutely outside the dualistic-partisan way of thinking. Which is why I cannot see “victors” or “losers” in the aftermath of “Civil Rights Debate Mark I”, I can only draw a number of conclusions. I thought I’d share them with you (sharing being a très social network concept). Feel free to “Like” or “Dislike” (or as the new Google+ lingo would have it: to “+1”).

*The 44 consciences*

I was called a “non-gentleman” on Facebook this week. This was because apparently I could not get myself to “admit” that the divorce bill had got through Parliament “thanks to Labour”. This is just the kind of “Right/Wrong” argumentation that allows people to lose their perspective. I have been arguing for some time that the PL-PN have abdicated their representative duties by not working with a party position on the divorce issue. When it came to voting in Parliament, both PN and PL chose the same formula: “conscience”. Both Muscat and Gonzi gave their members a “free vote” (a term brought into the debate by the Labour leader incidentally).

From that point on neither Labour nor the Nationalists could claim ownership of any votes in Parliament when the day of reckoning came. Neither could, for the sake of argument, the Vegetarians, the Smokers, Gozitans, Qriema (people from Città Pinto) or the Federation of Openly Homosexual MPs. We could play a statistical game and see which YES votes were cast by veggies, tobacco addicts, Gozitans, Qriema or gays, but at no point in time would our eccentric (and purely illustrative) choice of venn diagram material justify the statement “it was the Non-Smoking Ayes that made the difference”. There was no common stand by smokers as there was no common position for Nationalist or Labourite MPs. The vote was personal. You may disagree with that but it is a fact.

The parties did not perform their representative function in Parliament throughout the divorce vote. Which is why J’accuse has for some time now accused them of abdicating their responsibility. When Joseph Muscat dismissed questions regarding Adrian Vassallo’s “NO” vote, he implied that Vassallo would have to face the consequences of his vote with the electorate. There was nowt else Joseph could do because, very importantly, Labour had no position on divorce and had actually aided and abetted Adrian Vassallo’s “conscientious” vote in much the same way as it had done with those who voted in favour. Incidentally, it is also all Labour “YES” voters who have to face the consequences of their vote. Implying that Labour has some collective responsibility for a positive or negative outcome is a gigantic non sequitur and should not be confused with the next point: the people’s voice.

*Vox Dei and Gonzi’s Nay*

Vox Populi, Vox Dei is the Latin maxim that underpins one of the essential elements of democracy in this day and age. “The voice of the people is the voice of God” is the kind of logical conundrum that would have titillated the likes of Pierre Abèlard and Bernard of Clairvaux. If Abèlard and Bernard’s problems were great (google them… it’s a fun read), Lawrence of the Nationalist’s dilemma was even greater. On the one hand he is at the helm of a party struggling to deal with its conservative vestiges and on the other hand he is the Prime Minster of a nation that had yelled its acquiescence to the introduction of a bit of 20th century legislation.

Then there was the matter of “conscience” − or as Gonzi’s predecessor in Castille had described it, “moral matters that require a vote of conscience”. In Gonzi’s mind, as in the mind of many others, Vox Dei spoke rather clearly through the precepts of his religious and moral formation. In the end, Gonzi’s interpretation of Vox Dei won over the Vox Populi and he cast the infamous “No” vote − condemning him to the same circle of hell as others before him who spat in the face of the will of the demos.

What made the matter all the worse was Gonzi’s “calculated” vote: one that made sure that the divorce bill would actually pass before casting the symbolic “No”. In that way Gonzi’s “No” rang out a doubly-defiant note: firstly it was the ugliest of nays from a Prime Minister refusing to serve the will of the people once they had spoken (and after being consulted upon his insistence), and secondly it was Gonzi’s “Eppur si muove” moment − flying in the face even of those in his party who had advocated a wider, liberal approach to society.

*The Birth of MuscatPL”*

Joseph Muscat rushed to swing the hammer and ring Gonzi’s death knell. I have no doubt that as other commentators have aptly put it, this was Gonzi’s hara kiri moment by any standard. He may survive for some time yet, but the emphasis is on “surviving” and there is no end to the damage wrought to the PN in the public polls. I do find Joseph’s choice of words to announce this death particularly interesting, though (I must remind you that my analysis comes without the blinkers of partisan subjugation.) Joseph chose to state that “Gonzi lost the moral leadership of the party”. Funny that, coming from someone who has still to prove that he has the moral leadership of his own party. Partisan voters can look away tut-tutting at this point but if you are “gentlemen” or “ladies” enough do consider this…

Labour’s moral position during the divorce debate was not one of leadership of any kind but one that can be summarised as “To each his own (conscience)”. What we had during the divorce campaign are Pro and Anti Divorce Movements. Labour did not take a position on divorce (no morals there) and very clearly left it to each and every MP to make a “conscientious” choice of his own. What Labour is now highlighting is Joseph’s statement of his “personal” view that divorce legislation is necessary. Now that view is commendable but it remains a “personal” view nonetheless. I did not, and still do not see Joseph “morally leading” his supposed progressive party.

In other words, we still have to see Labour snap out of its “wait-and-see” fence sitting mentality and become pro-active and committed (as a party please, no free votes) to civil rights legislation in order to become progressive. What we have right now is a clumsy forming of “MuscatPL”. If Joseph’s position is popular then PL will spin it as the party position − which it is not. The biggest loss will be that to the Civil Right Voters, who until now wrongly assume that Joseph’s PL can be their rightful representatives.

*Chaos Theory*

The Nationalist Party is in disarray. This particular conclusion was confirmed in the aftermath of the parliamentary vote. The schizophrenic attempt to combine opposing value-driven interpretations under one “umbrella” party was doomed to backfire in the long term. It seems that Lawrence Gonzi had neither the patience nor the power to slow down or change course of a party rushing towards impending doom so he stepped on the accelerator. Gonzi’s “No” had the “liberal” fringe up in arms and Cyrus Engerer’s defection was the culmination point. Here is Robert Arrigo writing in the Independent on Friday, making it clear which side of the Vox Populi fence he sits on: “If I voted no, I would have made fools out of the electorate and I would have made a mockery out of the oath that I had taken. (…) I do believe that the Nationalist Party will read the writing on the wall, and will start heeding the people. Arrogance has been thrown out, and the people’s will must be sovereign.”

*Luck of the Draw*

Beyond the oath and the vote there are a number of conclusions to be drawn. The Nationalist Party has for some time tried to experiment with “umbrella politics” and is now reaping the consequences of this short-sighted, unprincipled approach. In 2008 people voted for gonziPN, not bothering to look beyond the Gonzi smokescreen. When gonziPN’s glue no longer held together we began to see the fragile face of a fragmented party − most vulnerable on social issues when faced with “progressive” civil rights. The reason for this fragile face is the lowering of the barrier for candidates: an anything-goes, vote-catching criterion. Surely some part of the PN is rueing Joe Saliba’s (and all the spin-doctor’s) backing of JPO and his antics back then?

The Labour Party is only delaying its own cracked picture thanks to the temporary euphoria and high it is getting by interpreting the divorce vote as some sort of victory. What Labour does not realise is that it is taking the first baby steps towards a “muscatPL” − a clone of PN’s 2008 doomed formula that held together for two years on a flimsy relative majority. To be fair, it might even obtain a larger majority but what might not work is the promise of progressive politics. Divorce was an easy gamble once it was clear where the wind was blowing. Will it be the same for gay rights, for IVF legislation and for the (dare we say it?) eventual raring of the ugly head of abortion? Unless Labour is prepared to commit itself in black and white to a set of principles, it remains an opportunist vehicle that not only has no moral leadership but also no value grounding: an abdication from representative politics.

Alternattiva Demokratika turn out to be the greatest losers in pragmatic and practical terms. Deborah Schembri successfully headed a progressive civil rights movement. She then had to opt for a party in which to presumably pursue her objectives. That she chose Labour might mean that she knows something that we don’t about future Labour commitments on civil rights. That she did not chose a home that would be obvious given her recent political activism: Alternattiva Demokratika − only goes to show how unattractive is the option, long before the people go to the polls.

Then we had Cyrus Engerer. I suspect that the Sliema deputy mayor’s move was based firstly on anger and frustration when faced with the gargantuan battle of converting the conservative base in the PN fold. Whether out of spite or out of principle, Cyrus reportedly switched allegiance but never considered the AD option. It is ironic that two high-profile figures of our temporary civil rights movements did not consider joining Malta’s one political formation that has always been clear and outspoken on civil rights and would have fit the party political programme like a glove.

The voter − the source of the vox populi − is fast turning into a mixture of angry, frustrated or disillusioned people. The tendency to stick to old habits is as strong as ever. It is hard to explain to Labourites that their joy lies in a decision and vote that had little to do with their party position. They may know who to vote for come next election but do they know WHAT that vote will translate into? It is even harder to explain to Nationalist voters that they are reaping what they have long sown by relying on “lesser evil” propaganda and drowning the possibility of a more open and representative form of politics. Franco Debono is pushing a commendable project that would give Malta a “European constitution”. It would be sad if such a debate were to be kicked off while the smoke, dust and anger of the latest battle is still around.

www.akkuza.com was almost silent last week thanks to the end of the judicial year in Luxembourg sending us into overdrive. We’ll be back – no worries.

Facebook Comments Box

5 bloggable newsitems

In full markbiwwa.com style of course. (We dig the style. We plagiarise. We acknowledge). Here goes the roundup of Monday Morning Blues & News.

 

1. BLACK CAB fury

The UHM has come out in support of the black cab taxis after it was announced that new regulations would prevent them from using the special bus lanes. The black cab taxis are right of course (I never thought I’d say this). The use of fast lanes by taxis is common in most major cities in Europe and I can see no reason why Malta should be the exception. Still more bad planning? Big Yellow Taxi

2. LAWYER TO BE PAID to watch DVDs

It’s not exactly a permanent job, neither is it a dream job but lawyer Joseph Mifsud has been appointed by the court to watch a collection of DVDs that were found in the possession of David Gatt who still stands accused of being involved in an HSBC heist. Apparently the collection includes The Godfather and “films by Bruce Lee”. All in a day’s work eh? Kung Fu Fighting

3. ARRIVA service normalising

It would seem that eight days into the launch – and once the Bus Driver Plot has been thwarted – Arriva’s service will be running on time in most places. Arriva has been obliged to subcontract minor routes for the time being. If the action of the Renegade Bus Drivers was not a sanctioned strike then I would not be surprised were Arriva to sue for damages and losses caused by the disruption. Sabotage

4. In the Net

Labour will experiment the umpteenth revamp of the notoriously error-prone Maltastar.com under the guidance of Evarist Bartolo. Meanwhile Andrew Azzopardi has added his blog to the increasing list of blogs by “old media” pundits. The signs all point to the Maltese MSM belatedly discovering the utility of blogs and blogging. Undoubtedly presence on the net will be even more crucial come next election – we wonder what role an evolved Facebook will play by the time the heat is turned up. Don’t Believe the Hype

5. Sanctioning the Illegal

Finally, the Times reports that plans are underway for MEPA to sanction a number of illegal boathouses in St Thomas Bay and Dwejra. This kind of news is always baffling and frustrating. The “legalisation” of illegally built property is an insult to the law-abiding citizen and an affront to society. Do we care? Bah. I fought the Law?

*IMAGE NOTE: The accompanying image is of Gaetano Scirea. In this day and age when the image and memory of the recently departed are being used as a smokescreen by cowards to hide from their objective responsibility we choose to put up the image of a model footballer who never failed in his line of duty and was an example to all. Storia di Grande Amore

Scirea non telefonava a Bergamo e Pairetto, ed a giocato e dato la sua vita al calcio ed alla Juventus. Quando sputi e spari menzogne sulla nostra maglia insulti un grandissimo uomo come Scirea.

JU29RO

Facebook Comments Box

J'accuse : Teeth

Although a baby’s first teeth usually develop while still in the womb, they actually start to emerge through the gums when the baby is around six months old. We call this process teething. According to the NHS online guide, early teething should not cause a baby any problems – unless it affects feeding, in which case it sucks (or rather literally, it doesn’t).

We’ve heard the phrase “teething problems” used many a time this week of course thanks to Arriva’s bungled arrival into the world of Maltese gemgem, political intrigue and hot suns that would melt even the most defiant revolutionary spirit. I’ll put forward an early caveat (warning) here: yes, I still live in Luxembourg and I have not had the opportunity to try out the system myself so I am speaking purely from an outside point of view – probably by the time I savour the pleasure of an air-conditioned bus trip to Għadira in August it will be a different kettle of fish.

Incisors

The confusion of the first few days of service cannot really all be dismissed as ‘teething problems’. Once you remove the (by now) 70 renegade bus drivers from the equation you still end up with a number of extremely disappointing facts. They range from the obvious (shelters from the sun) to the technically avoidable (ticket machines going loco) to the downright silly (bus size problems on certain routes – Balluta Hill) and to the profanely inept (bad planning of certain routes: including prime suspect Bisazza Street, Mrabat Street and more).

I am aware of the fact that I subconsciously keep trying to give Arriva a break – maybe that stems from having experienced efficient bus systems across Europe that are similar to the plans on paper in Malta. There does however seem to be a gaping absence of ‘local input’ in the planning part. Either that, or the locals involved in the planning were as apt for the job as Hitler would be as a kindergarten assistant in Jerusalem. Is it another case of the ‘ċuċ Malti’? I doubt it. Arriva must know by now that Malta’s transport system is neither that of Athens nor of Berlin or Strasbourg. I am convinced that they are engaging in a lot of listening at this point: taking note of all the tweaks that are needed to mother this baby out of the teething trouble it has. My hopes are still pinned on an eventual success for the company.

Canines

One thing I cannot really accept is Austin Gatt’s position in the whole saga. We are at pains as a people to distinguish between the responsibilities of a ministry and those of a private company that has embarked on a huge project. Gatt’s ministry might be responsible for having chosen Arriva out of a number of tenderers but after that it should be Maltese Public Expectation vs The Boys from Arriva. Gatt does not help by speaking as though he was the CEO of Arriva (vide the driver sacking business) but neither does the mentality that we have been groomed to have: that any service is ultimately given to us by government. We find it hard to understand that a faulty ticket machine is a problem we should track down to some incompetence within Arriva and not in Austin Gatt’s ministry.

I do not say this to defend Austin Gatt or his ministerial minions who have suddenly vanished from sight unable to take the flak for the bad planning. I say this because what we have on balance is a national transport grid: something that would benefit everybody by being efficient – and not just Austin’s men. We all have a duty to scrutinise Arriva’s performance as much as we have a social duty to collaborate with the company and help it through its teething problems where justified. At the end of the day Gatt and his men may push the button on penalty clauses, (just as Arriva was eager to get compensation for the Bisazza Street gaffe), but an efficient transport system is not built on penalty clauses alone.

Molars

It is part of the inevitable course of 21st century Maltese politics that party positions are created by default. The divorce issue gave us a Labour position built by default. Labour never pronounced itself in favour or against divorce. It just defined what it was not: in this case Labour’s position was that it had no party position. The ploy worked for the man in the street who now sees Joseph’s team as the champions of progressive nothingness and is happier for it. We may soon see the same business with Arriva. Joseph’s team will nurture the discontent of the public on this issue. What we will not know is whether Labour’s team are proposing a return to the old Xarabanks or whether they too would be trying to solve Arriva’s teething problems if they take up Austin’s ministerial job.

As things stand Labour need not take a position but will still win sympathy from people who want something different from the status quo. How that will solve the problems of the shelters, the bendy buses, the ticketing machines and the unruly drivers is anyone’s guess. We’ve seen it all before in the VAT-CET saga haven’t we? Same; same but different. The crisis of representation is doomed to continue and trust you me: the teething problems in this case are gargantuan. Blessed are the oblivious for they will vote PLPN and be satisfied.

Got Milk?

Francis Zammit-Dimech penned an interesting article this week in the Times (Vision of a changing nation). In it he distanced himself from the ‘conservative’ vs ‘liberal’ approaches within the PN and made a case for a modern party based on a mosaic structure glued together by values such as the common good and human dignity. It might be a working solution that challenges the clumsily assembled ‘umbrella party’ visions and ‘new liberals’ a-la-Frank Psaila. There is a case to be made here especially if the likes of Zammit-Dimech can manage to convince the party that Christian-Democrats can and will feel comfortable legislating in favour of minority rights based on the common good and human dignity.

We will need to wait and see whether this line can be elaborated further. The parliamentary legislative track record seems to still be confused and is based more on interest-based legislation than clear guiding principles. Even in the seemingly frivolous – such as alcohol sales regulation and that of entertainment – there seems to be an intellectual and ideological dishonesty and hypocrisy at work. How else do you explain that village festas have been given a carte-blanche regarding alcohol sales while a concert organiser has to adhere to strict conditions and pay an exorbitant fee as a guarantee in order to organise his event? This is a simple but effective example of the inconsistencies that are the order of the day when umbrella-parties feeding off conflicting networks try to please the world.

Ironically, the more ‘avant-garde’ (wankellectual if you like) part of the nation seems to be the one sacrificed on a regular basis. Which is why we get censorship problems and why 21st century social habits are still out-lawed (as in not legalised) in our nation. When they do try to find some balls and legislate (see for example cohabitation) they get it all so damningly wrong (not making it available for persons who were previously married).

First Ladies

Ever since Lady Di’s tragic death in 1997 we have witnessed the concept of public grief develop into a hideously impersonal theatrical show pumped up by the media and fed by the big brother syndrome that afflicts the general public. We are not the first generation to suffer from this morbid concern with the remembrance of the deceased that so often smacks of lack of real respect. The Victorians were notoriously fixated with their complicated rules for mourning and dealing with death that culminated with the huge confusion on how exactly to go about the funeral arrangements when the great Queen herself joined her beloved Albert in the sky.

Public outpourings of sentiment tend to become cringe-worthy after a while when it is blatantly obvious that the act of condolence has become automatic rather than genuine. When people start to fall over themselves in a race for the dramatic we slip into the theatrical and the hyperbolic, quickly losing every sense of decorum. In my book this smacks of disrespect to the recently departed. We have not reached the stage of the ancient Romans who would hire mourners to wail and scratch themselves behind the funeral procession but we are risking losing any sense of social decorum by following this folly that is public mourning in the 21st century.

I never met and did not know Mrs Fenech-Adami. She passed away within a day of Betty Ford, the wife of former US President Gerald Ford. Obviously I did not know Mrs Ford either. On a human level I can only offer my sincere condolences to the families of the departed. They are the ones who will feel the biggest emptiness as a dear beloved leaves them for another world.

On a public level I can appreciate the two very different first ladies of two very different nations. Betty Ford was a political animal through and through. She is remembered as a woman who battled for civil rights – pressing for abortion rights and women’s rights during her husband’s presidential period. She never shied from the public view and used her position to push political objectives she believed in. She will be most remembered for her personal fight against drug and alcohol abuse. After having confronted the demons herself in her own private life she transformed the battle into a public one – opening the now famous Betty Ford Centre in California and pressing for further awareness on the issue of drug and alcohol abuse.

Mrs Fenech-Adami could not have been any more different. Her husband’s latest public intervention – when he controversially suggested that divorce was a matter of conscience – highlighted the distinction between ‘moral’ and ‘political’ decisions. Whether or not we agree with Eddie, the stamp of Fenech-Adami’s moral compass was clear to see and it helps us understand the public face of Mrs Fenech-Adami. It is clumsy of us to try to pigeon hole Mrs Fenech-Adami’s public life into a political box. Mrs Fenech-Adami was not political. She was a strong, principled woman with a solid catholic upbringing. From what I can see, that made her the pillar and reference point of her family. We can easily confuse principles and values with humility and ‘knowing her place’, but we would be doing her a great disservice.

I like to see Mrs Fenech-Adami as a moral rock built on the no-nonsense, principled approach that you might disagree with but cannot help but admire. It is with that memory that I offer my sincere condolences first and foremost to the Fenech-Adami family and secondly to the wider family that had gotten used to having someone like Mary as a reference point – in that latter case I can see no reason for anything other than pride.

www.akkuza.com would like to extend another note of sympathy and support in what has been a sad week for some of us. A huge hug goes out to Mark and his family after the loss of a young, vibrant sister, daughter and friend. “Oh heart, if one should say to you that the soul perishes like the body, answer that the flower withers, but the seed remains” (Khalil Gibran).

This is the J’acccuse column from the Malta Independent on Sunday of the 10th July 2011.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box