Why Free Vote is not a position on Divorce

I’ve been active on Facebook today trying to spread the J’accuse list of indictments on the divorce debate in Malta. At one point I was trying to post links to the note on the wall of any politician who ventured onto Facebook to discuss divorce. One of my posts was on Evarist Bartolo’s wall as the labour MP had added another “parable” about a married man who has seen the light and will not be an obstacle to divorce for other people. Varist is one of the Labour MP’s who tries hard to give the impression that the PL actually has a position on divorce – so I asked him. I asked a simple question: What is Labour’s position on divorce? No answer from Bartolo of course, although I did get accused by some guy that I was some kind of mouthpiece for Lou Bondi (!).

In any case, at one point I got to have an interesting discussion with Marlene Mizzi who pointed out that the PL’s stand on divorce is actually the free vote fin case of a vote in parliament. I’m reproducing the rest of the exchange (till now) here in the hope that this kind of discussion can provoke more comments on this issue.

Marlene Mizzi:

‎@JRZanmmit: this insistence for some to keep asking the PL to ‘take a stand’ reminds me of those who who are deaf not because they cannot hear, but because they do not want to listen.

The PL HAS taken a stand in the divorce issue and that is to give their MPs a FREE VOTE. It would be very contradictory for this statemnet to be credible with the PL simultaneously stating it’s position for/ against divorce.
The PN on the other hand has taken this incredible stand where declaring itsefl agaisnt divorce but also giving its MPs a free vote .Ara kif jistgha jkin it-tnejn!! Now we will wait and see how many of the NP MPs will vote ‘ freely’ and not tow the party’s line- as should be expected from them once the PN took an official stand.

I am all for political parties to take stands . It is what is expected of them. But I make an exception in this case and agree entirely with the PL . Infact i know for certain that a number of PN MPs privaelty opine that the PN should have never taken an official political stand and the insistence for the PL to do likewise is to neutralise this strategic mistake. I do not think that Josph Muscat will be falling for this one!

Jacques René Zammit:
The PL stand on a free vote is NOT a position on the divorce issue. FREE VOTE is an ABDICATION of political responsibility and an opportunist move that reads: as a party (a progressive party to boot) I refuse to take a stand because I am unable to refer to set of basic values that I represent.

There is nothing for JM to “fall for” here. It is actually a move for leadership. I am for divorce legislation because I believe divorce legislation brings into force a civil right that can be availed of by a minority. As a party that claims to be on a progressive high this “position” on divorce is a double abdication of responsibility. The pro-divorce movement should have found a natural home in a progressive party – instead it is an orphan of a party too busy trying to please everything under the sun.

Read the comments of labour supporters Marlene. They are very obviously labouring under the impression that labour means divorce and that Joseph’s party automatically means a transition away from conservative Gonzi’s policy. How wrong they are. How unable to see spinelessness of this position of Joseph’s. Does he not realise that the free vote is a usurpation of a parliamentary seat and vote?

I’ve made my position clear here:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/jacques-rene-zammit/i-accuse-an-indictm…ent-related-to-the-divorce-debate-in-malta/10150139555532744

I stand by what I said. For those who will answer me by comparing PL to PN I will simply say that they miss my point. I am angry at both PL, PN as well as other social groups involved in this referendum debacle. I am angry because they have ALL abdicated from their social responsibility – all this in the name of short term gain.

Both Joseph’s faux progressives and Gonzi’s procrastinating conservatives are doing a disservice to a relevant minority in this country who would love to have the opportunity to exercise a choice – a right to remarry.

That is a fact. Free vote is a false vote. A usurpation of parliamentary democracy, an abdication from representative duties and the biggest heist of democratic liberties yet.

Marlene Mizzi:

JRZ: you have made some valid points and some I do not agree with. If I were adn MP I would rather have a leader give me a free vote on this ‘sui generis’ issue ,than a leader who tries to take the mickey by declaring the party’s official stand AND tell me I can vote freely. Perhaps that is why the PM was having meetings one to one today at Castille– to tell them to vote as they see fit. U hallina!

I can just about imagine the converstion this morning at Castille” I called you in just to remind you that you can vote freely in the divorce issue , ta…. as long as it is a NO. Ok ?Understood? Trid li Gordon jibghatlek email ha jfakkrek?”

Jacques René Zammit:

Interesting Marlene. But that’s not the point is it? Predictably, you are lost comparing PL and PN – it’s good fodder for the circus audience used to comparing their champions but is it really what is needed for a debate on the introduction of divorce legislation? Not really is it?

Your reasoning is as an “MP” and his preferences vis-a-vis his leader’s instructions. Fine it’s a preference. But it has nothing to do with the duties of representation towards the electorate. What do we elect parties for? What do we elect MPs for? What does an MP represent? His conscience? That’s bullshit and you know it. He represents his constituency and more directly his voters. That is how our electoral system defines representation.

Political parties are our only way of identifying the values and principles of those elected on their ticket. The free vote not only cuts off the umbilical chord from the party but it also renders them unanswerable to the electorate that put MPs in parliament in the first place. You will note that this applies to BOTH PN and PL. Frankly I don’t care which is the worst position of the two – in my mind they are both hopelessly out of order.

What does a free vote tell the electorate? It tells the electorate I don’t care what you think, I don’t have a position as a party ON DIVORCE, so I’ll just leave each MP to vote as he wishes. I emphasise the as he wishes. Did you vote for Silvio Parnis, Evarist Bartolo Karl Gouder or David Agius so they can sit in our house of representatives and vote as they wish on issues related to specific civil rights?

You’re right we may disagree. But please be clear about the fact that the position you prefer is one that renders parliamentary representation redundant. Might as well have dukes and barons voting as they will…. as for the people… who cares no?

Facebook Comments Box

I accuse : a writ of summons

Over the past few weeks the intelligent Maltese voter has had the opportunity to witness at first hand the abdication of its politicians from their duty as effective representatives. Two of the three branches of an effective democracy have been all but neutered and hijacked in the name of political opportunism. This opportunism is a direct result of the constitutional interpretation of our politic by the two main parties fettered as they are by the chains that they have wrought around our constitution through practice and custom.

Government and parliament have shed aside their duties towards the electorate and engaged in a battle of confutation motivated by their eternal short-term concern for the 50+1 Holy Grail and in absolute defiance of any representative logic. The first foul committed was the turning the debate over a civil right into the cliché ridden political football we have long gotten used to. The second, greater foul, was the treating of the electorate like a cheap strumpet – easily bought and easily shed away. In this there is no distinction to be made between the conservative nationalist heritage and that of the progressive labourite – both are contriving to scrape the bottom of the barrel of zero-sum partisanism where losing out only means surviving in opposition warming the benches of the smaller side of parliament.

J’accuse would like to denounce this sorry state of our nation and its inability to maturely discuss an issue such as the civil right to remarry. I have prepared my inquisitorial accusation on the following points:

  • I accuse the partisan parties of PLPN of willfully failing to treat a civil right with the dignity and relevance it deserves, of falsely imputing moral reasons to their machinations and shenanigans when it is blatantly evident that the paramount concern is the electoral vote come the next round of elections;
  • I accuse the conservative and supposedly progressive parties of failing to assert a basic set of principles which they believe in and in which a voter could identify himself come election time, of preferring the rainbow spineless option where ‘anything goes so long as it gets us votes’;
  • I accuse the nationalist party of lack of conviction, of declaring that it is against the introduction of divorce while toying with the representative element of parliament by allowing a free vote to members of parliament who have absolutely no popular mandate on the issue – whose vote would consequently transform into a personal usurpation of a seat obtained by public vote and support;
  • I accuse the labour party of crass opportunism and of manipulation of the misinformed, of willfully misleading voters to believe that support for a referendum is tantamount to a position on divorce, of hijacking the possibility of any debate by linking a civil right issue to the making or breaking of government, of being unable to put money where its mouth is when it comes to explaining what being progressive is all about, of abusing – in the same way as the pn – of the pretext of the free vote in parliament in order to abdicate from its responsibilities;
  • I accuse the academic and informed establishment for not speaking out sufficiently on the ridiculous notion of submitting a decision on a civil right for a minority to the vote of the general public, of not having taken a reasoned position on the issue – whether individually or collectively in groups purposely assembled for the purpose – of why a civil right is not an issue for referenda in 2011;
  • I accuse the fourth estate, made up of what is left of the independent media, for having actively collaborated with the cheap thrill of “controversy” stirred up by the media machines of the partisan establishment and thus for having contributed to shifting the debate from the real point of divorce to that of “who wants a referendum” (read who is a friend of the people);
  • I accuse the third parties and movements (AD, pro- and anti- divorce) for not having come out strongly against the idea of a referendum, for not holding the partisan parties up to their principles, for not boycotting any referendum solution that allows the pontius pilates of this nation to thrive on confusion, for not insisting on a parliamentary solution – preferably after an election by popular mandate;
  • I accuse the Maltese public and voter, for whom I should have the utmost respect, for once again allowing the circus that is our representative political system to take him for yet another ride and allowing himself to be convinced that the “yes, no, maybe, depends on the majority and on how they vote” way of politics is actually a serious way of running a representative system – and for measuring the PLPN by that meter;
  • I accuse the Roman Catholic Church in Malta for not sufficiently believing in its power to convince believers to do the right thing in an open and liberal society where the door of divorce is open to whoever wants to take it but is not forced on anyone, of being unable to instill among its political flock the idea of an open and  tolerant society in which they are free not to divorce but in which others, who might not share the same beliefs (or for whom those beliefs no longer hold true) are granted the civil right to do so, of not sufficiently believing in itself and in its capability to transmit the messages upon which the idea of indissoluble marriage is built;
  • I accuse myself of not having sufficiently contributed to the debate and of having allowed myself to be disheartened by the huge wave of ignorant rhetoric and opportunistic politicking that has invested the Maltese political landscape for the umpteenth time. And yes, that is a proud and pompous statement from this blogging wankellectual.

I hereby summon those who are still willing and able to take on the gargantuan movement to join J’accuse in this struggle. It is not a revolutionary struggle that will be fought in the squares with bombs and molotov cocktails. You will need a pen, the instruments of modern democratic expression – such as this blog and social networks, and plenty (but plenty) of patience.

Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter

(your knowledge is nothing when no one else knows that you know it)

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Libya

Such is the way of the world
You can never know
Just where to put all your faith
And how will it grow

Gonna rise up
Burning back holes in dark memories
Gonna rise up
Turning mistakes into gold

Such is the passage of time
Too fast to fold
And suddenly swallowed by signs
Low and behold

Gonna rise up
Find my direction magnetically
Gonna rise up
Throw down my ace in the hole

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

J'accuse Labs

I know I’ve been absent for a while but I’ve got a couple of excuses and they come in this order (a) work (lots of that), (b) I’m getting married in November, (c) I’m moving house in May, (d) J’accuse is currently undergoing some background tweaks in the little spare time that is left after a,b and c.

Anyhoo. We’ve got a few posts coming up about representation (the divorce referendum) and freedom of expression the Farrugia vs Caruana Galizia vs role of the press and blogs. Meanwhile look around the blog and try printing some posts. We’re hoping that some of the tweaks will be working to your advantage.

Finally a big, big secret has started to take shape. A new prime address on the internet. I am not allowed to say more for now but you will not be disappointed.

First page of Areopagitica, by John Milton

Image via Wikipedia

Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

J'accuse : Fight for Your Right (to Party)

So the Rais is definitely out and has rushed off to a caravanserai off Sharm el-Sheikh. Thirty years have passed since Sadat’s assassination (and Mubarak’s rise to power), 59 since Nasser’s 1952 revolution and 92 since the first Egyptian revolution (of the modern era) of 1919. Symbolically, each revolution had centred around Tahrir Square (Liberation Square). Back in 1919, the first of two revolutions was triggered by the decision of the British to exile Wafd leaders. The Wafd party had managed to gather a movement of support in favour of independence and in March 1919 Saad Zaghlul and two other leaders were arrested by the British and exiled to Malta.

From Tahrir Square to Misrah San Gorg

Thus the paths of two nations-to-be crossed that year. In June 1919, three months after the deportation, the Maltese would have their own riots and also suffer loss of lives while in Egypt the uprisings would result in 800 dead. Zaghlul would return (via France) to be Prime Minister of Egypt for nine months in 1924 and was considered as the za’im al-umma − the national hero − by the people. Independent Egypt would coexist with what it considered to be British interference until the 1952 revolution and Nasser’s military takeover.

Fast forward to 11 February 2011 and the crowds are jubilant in Tahrir Square, glad to have freed themselves of a corrupt government. One hesitates to add “once again” since if you were to read the original messages of liberation back in 1952 you’d be forgiven to believe that the beast of corruption had been soundly beaten by the liberation forces back then. If ever there was proof needed that you can never be 100 per cent sure that this is the last change that was needed then that is Tahrir Square − the square of three revolutionary moments for a people aspiring for change. “Welcome to the New Egypt” said one poster on the streets last night. How long till the next gathering?

You wake up late for school

While historic events were rapidly unfolding along the Nile, the political parties in Malta were still unfolding the latest scene in the Divorce Legislation Drama. The PN executive gave us much to think about by proposing the agenda for the next few months. It reads (a) parliamentary discussion, (b) parliamentary vote, (c) referendum if (b) is in favour of divorce legislation. Strategists, amateur and professional alike, were out analysing what this meant and where it would take us. (Caveat lector: I type before the final PN vote on Saturday)

Politics being what it is, there is a fair amount of truth in the fact that the strategy for introducing legislation is as important as the discussion itself. It is ironic, in a way, that two different strategies could result in two different outcomes – both of which could be reasonably and legally justified as being representative of the people’s will. So in a way expect much punditry regarding the pros and cons of a “referendum before” or “referendum after” approach. Each scenario has its own winners and losers with one big loser being the divorce debate itself. The reason I say that is that the divorce debate is about politicians shouldering their responsibility and recognising that there is a moment when society (or parts thereof) is being deprived of a right − the right to remarry − and that something must be done about it.

The Nationalist Party has met this imperative half way. Its motion does entail the taking of a position on the matter: a clear no to divorce. What it also does though is succumb to the need to compensate the logic of values with the spinelessness of strategy. Hence we have the somersault logic of “desperately seeking the people’s mandate/consensus” on the one hand and “relegating popular vote to a post-parliamentary postilla” on the other. While recognising that there is an important value (to the party) at stake, the Christian-democrat party fails to put its money where its mouth is and resorts to the usual shenanigans.

You miss two classes and no homework

Meanwhile, back at Transparency Headquarters, as the work on the Victory Balcony presumably proceeds with haste, Inhobbkom’s soldiers couldn’t resemble a band of headless chickens any more if they covered themselves in tar and feathers and pulled their tops over their heads. You’ve got to pity the New Old Labour. They wait on tenterhooks for the latest fart downhill to inform them whether the “referendum after” strategy will hold true. Then you get those alarmed by the fact that Parliament will actually pronounce its position first: and they rebel − for they’d rather see which way the wind is blowing innit?

Will Karmenu Vella explain why the progressive Mintoffian government of the 70s missed out on introducing divorce legislation at the time? After all the song and dance about the 70s we witnessed during the Labour conference you’d really think he had an answer. Seriously, what is the undecided voter expected to do when he sees that charade? Take Labour with a pinch of salt? Honestly, what were they serving at the conference? From Anglu Farrugia’s tear-jerking story about the Sun King (rixtellu at Versailles?) to his dramatic Copperfield stunt complete with an imaginary Empire Station, for a moment I thought that the whole conference was one big candid camera moment scripted by Ricky Gervais.

bert4j_100213-1

Your mom threw away your best porno mag

And just to make sure that our country goes completely nuts about what rights are and how to use them, we get the very helpful pink press at work. In case you have not noticed there is an Internet battle going on. It pitches the Forces of Good vs. the Forces of Evil. Of course who is good and who is evil depends on who you read but there’s plenty going around. So while the nutters in red call for the head of the Wicked Witch (their words not mine), the nutters in blue have suddenly decided to dedicate some time to investigative journalism and patch together a story about unsolved crimes left over from the lovely Labour era.

The nutters in red, headed by an irate Saviour Balzan, are now calling for the government to shut down a private blog because of its content. They do not sue for libel; they do not make use of normal legal means in a democracy related to presumed abuse of freedom of expression. No. They expect the government of a democratic country to shut down a private blog − presumably by use of force or expropriation of private property. I am not surprised that they do not see the irony in all this. Given that among the supporters for this move are most of Labour’s press, you cannot help but link the move to Karmenu Vella & Co’s nostalgia for the “jalla immorru lura ghas-sebghinijiet” era. Freedom of expression − the red way.

For their part the nutters in blue react with visible enthusiasm. The Nationalist fold were handed reams of propaganda material on a plate what with all the nostalgic statements at the Labour conference. Where’s Everybody wasted no time in pasting a collage of the best selections that played like a set of bloopers from the Oscars. Meanwhile on Internet, the battle between Malta’s most read pink blog and its ugly spin off continued. This week we witnessed an experiment in “investigative journalism” that might have been, in any other time (preferably around 1988), a welcome stimulus to whoever is responsible for bringing criminals to justice. Instead it quickly transpired that the only interest behind the whole write-up was an attack by association on Illum journalist Julia Farrugia. The words “Why now?” echoed once again − almost a year to the day after the infamous Plategate outbursts.

Your Mum busted in and said “What’s that noise”?

In the end, all you can do is reflect that it is useless fighting for freedoms if you have no idea how to use them. Behind Nasser’s revolution in 1952 lay the hope for a new Egypt. In 2011 Egypt is having another stab at it, thanks to a people who have had enough of the old regime. Our national narrative teaches us that we have been fighting for freedom since 1919. Along the way we have gathered two tribes who laid claim to the next step along the road to freedom. The two tribes are in the middle of an identity crisis right now − both have long exhausted the bank of new ideas and are now resorting to cashing old cheques.

Right now we are all tweeting and messaging our solidarity with the people of Egypt and their happiness at smelling the air of newfound freedom. Unless we notice that for a revolution to start you don’t just need the square but you also need a freethinking people, we might just be deserving of our current state of inertia.

www.akkuza.com brought to you with headings courtesy of the Beastie Boys. We recommend Coldplay’s Viva la Vida as an after-article digestive (stream available on the blog).

Facebook Comments Box

Forget Divorce. Think Immigration.

We should resign ourselves to the fact that this boxing bout regarding divorce is a lost battle. A lost battle in the sense that for those of us who think that divorce is a matter to be legislated in parliament away from the “will of the majority” discourse in the name of a sane society this current round has nothing left to offer. We can wait, as many have begun to augur, for the next election – hoping that one or more parties puts divorce on its manifesto and bears the responsibility of doing what is expected of a party in politics.

Meanwhile a big red warning light has just lit up to the west of Malta. The calmer seas coupled with Tunisia’s governmental turmoil have now meant that getting onto one of the immigrant boats direction Europe has become as easy as catching a bus – if you have the right amount of dinars. The problem is that given the laxity of controls and the sudden higher availability of the service suppliers (no need to go underground, no need to hide, just own a boat and point it to Sicily) the price of a trip will perforce go down – and that means more desperate immigrants. Worse still if pre-revolution conditions were catastrophic what about now? What about those who have no time to wait to see if the change will really work?

It’s time for Malta to wake up and smell the coffee. Italy is already drowning under the impact of the new waves. Only last night 977 immigrants disembarked in Lampedusa. The numbers are expected to explode. Prevention and foresight is better than cure. Tonio Borg and the rest of the team must get onto the Italian business pronto and double the efforts of coordinating an EU plan and reaction to the problem. Above all someone should sit the young opportunistic upstart at Dar it-Trasparenza and brief him on the seriousness of the problem before he decides to either find a way to blame the government for this new wave or worse still, to offer to create some new Dejma or Dirghaajn il-Maltin using the immigrant travellers as unsuspecting slave labour. With the kind of advisors he has now I wouldn’t be surprised.

Facebook Comments Box