It’s been a while since J’accuse took a look at the what the world around us has to offer. Facebook killed the blogging star (oh-uh-oh) and the blogosphere is a tad bit less self-referential nowadays. At least less than it was eight years back when linking to other blogs was de rigeur. I was prompted to put up this little post by a newsletter from Patrick updating me with the news on his blog Passejn. Consider this a random reminder that there are others out there doing wonderful things with this tool they call the net.
* The above list is not exclusively a blog list. Marisa illustrates, Schlock is a collaborative project and Toni’s MMI is an institution. Also, I’ve heard rumours that the much loved Bollettino della Sfi*a is about to be revived. Don’t believe the hype, it’s a sequel.
One of the Economist’s leaders this week is entitled “Zombie democracy” and essentially discusses the concept of majoritarianism. Modern democratic governments are elected by popular suffrage and are formed on the basis of majority rule (cue the discussion on representation, majority government and coalitions). Once an election is over it is assumed that the party obtaining the majority of support will govern. Of course the essence of liberal democracy does not stop there. There are in place numerous institutional and systemic checks and balances to ensure that the government does not get too drunk with power. At least in theory this should work.
In Malta we have recently segued from a government that enjoyed a relative majority to one that enjoys a gulf of majority – at least poll wise. the first hundred days of Muscat’s government have betrayed an arrogant confidence that is cushioned by the implied thought that the massive majority cannot be wrong. Can it?
When last Thursday I voiced my agreement with what Caruana Galizia had to say on Simon Busuttil’s statement that “36,000 people cannot be wrong” I provoked quite a discussion on facebook. For the record here is the clip from Caruana Galizia’s article on the Indy:
Simon Busuttil said a few days ago at a party event that “36,000 people can’t be wrong”. Of course they can. A hundred thousand people can be wrong; a hundred million can be wrong. Rightness and wrongness do not derive from popularity of belief or opinion. To correlate whether people are right or wrong to how many people did or think the same way is a logical fallacy. Some of them already know they were wrong. They are able to see it, some even to admit it.
Do elections really give you an idea of what is wrong or right? Of who is wrong or right? Votes are won (or “bought“) for many different reasons and more often than not being right has little or nothing to do with it. A campaign such as the Taghna Lkoll campaign can act as an opiate for a large number of people and once it is combined with the accumulation of disgruntlement at the incumbent it is a sure formula for success at the polls. Alas it has little to do with that formula being a formula for success at good democratic government.
The success at the polls projected TaghnaLkoll to the dizzy heights of power and within the first hundred days we have a clear picture that the hopes of the voters were not to be matched. The latest dismal move is the dismantlement of a diplomatic set-up in order to make way for lackeys, travel consultants and comperes to be the face of Malta abroad. Also the earliest cabinet reshuffle in history was the result of Labour not having stuck to its original position (separate ministries for justice and home affairs). The musical chairs in cabinet is all about keeping friends close and enemies closer. It’s obvious. Power broking for the sake of power broking is what is going on with no place left for the national interest. Add to that the not too transparent dealings with the Chinese government and what you get is a Joseph Muscat government bulldozering over any semblance of liberal democrat checks and balances.
Here’s the Economist on how this happens:
“BUT I’ve won three elections!” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s embattled prime minister, growls at his critics. On the face of it, his case is compelling: surely, many people in Turkey and beyond would agree, popularly elected leaders can govern as they please? That’s what democracy means. Well, no. Majoritarianism—the credo of an expanding group of elected but autocratic rulers around the world, which holds that electoral might always makes you right—is not true democracy, even if, on the face of it, the two things look alike. It is worth explaining why.
The solution is in the mind of the politicians themselves. Gonzi’s government did cause much damage to the already flawed concept of democracy that existed in the popular mindset. The clinging to the seat of power was not an educational step forward and sowed the seeds for the abuse of democracy by Muscat and the TaghnaLkoll crowd. As his government became weaker and weaker Gonzi clung to the relative majority in parliament and played the actors sufficiently to last the whole legislature. At times it takes a conscious step in the mind of leaders themselves to recognise the limits that are accorded to majoritarian power – again the Economist:
Beyond documents and institutions, the difference between crass majoritarianism and democracy resides in the heads of the mighty. Democrats have a bedrock understanding that the minority (or often majority) who did not vote for them are as much citizens of their country as those who did, and are entitled to a respectful hearing; and that a leader’s job is to deliberate and act in the national interests, not just those of his supporters.
This leader could have been written for Muscat. Instead the Economist is probably still not alerted to the goings on in the European Union’s smallest member so it uses Erdogan, Lukashenko and Hungary’s Orban as examples. The adaptation of these leaders to democracy has been simply to ensure that come election time they get that crucial bulk of votes that puts them into the driving seat for the next legislature. Practices to obtain such votes may be illegal (vote-buying, vote-rigging) or borderline legal (jobs, amnesties promised). In time we have seen how even parties in the more classical of democracies have morphed into election winning machines that have no clue how to make use of power democratically once elected. They groom the zombies to vote them into power… then stick to it with no regard for the wider community. The Economist concludes:
The basic idea of a democracy is that the voters should pick a government, which rules as it chooses until they see fit to chuck it out. But although voting is an important democratic right, it is not the only one. And winning an election does not entitle a leader to disregard all checks on his power. The majoritarian world view espoused by Mr Erdogan and leaders of his ilk is a kind of zombie democracy. It has the outward shape of the real thing, but it lacks the heart.
Edward Snowden is on the run. The US government is attempting to get the former CIA employee and contractor for the NSA extradited after he shared classified material with the international press – namely with the UK’s Guardian. Snowden’s first leak activity took place in Hong Kong, safely wrapped in a series of laws and rules that govern the former UK colony. Even had the Hong Kong courts reached a decision to extradite Snowden (which they did not), the final say would still have lain with the Chinese authorities who have the prerogative of a veto on such decisions.
Snowden has apparently “left the building” this morning and has been tracked on an Aeroflot flight – direction Moscow. The Russian authorities claim to be unaware of the hot potato that is passing through their space but it is rumoured that Snowden has another final destination in mind. In fact Snowden has already mentioned Iceland as the best place to end up given the high level of personal protection that is afforded to individuals in Icelandic law.
Iceland is an interesting choice and model not just within the context of this case but in a wider political and economic context. The island nation has just come out of its own financial crisis. Although it suffered a severe blow between 2008 and 2012 it seems to have weathered the worst part of the storm and steadied its ship back on a better course. The crisis forced a blanket institutional reform and resulted ironically in a final rebuff of the EU membership that had previously been top of the agenda. In fact elected on the wind of debt disputes with the UK and the Netherlands as well as continuing tension on environmental matters (particularly fishing policy), the newl conservative government of 2013 has opted to freeze the EU membership application.
Why would Snowden go to Iceland then? This Guardian article provides much of the answers to that question. The country’s efforts for protecting freedom of expression and whistleblowers are not token gestures to appease the population in bandwagon riding politics. The Icelandic Pirate Party has lobbied for strengthening of the rights including the protection of asylum seekers. Birgitta Jónsdóttir is chairman of the Icelandic Modern Media Institute and an Icelandic MP for the Pirate Party. The Institute is currently examining the options for Edward Snowden while actively working on multiple fronts to strengthen his right to diplomatic protection.
The politics behind Snowden are the politics of individual freedom and liberty. They are the politics of direct representation and accountability and transparency. They are the politics of the 21st century that may seem to originate in the unfamiliar world of global communication and knowledge management but are just as crucial to social development and constitutional integrity as the period of revolutionary idealism that brought about the birth of consitutional liberal democracies. Parties such as the international phenomenon that is the Pirate Party are a new tool in modern democracies that operates with clear values, clear direction and that do not compromise their values for the sake of power itself.
You may or may not have heard the news about the closure (and then reopening) of the national TV station in Greece. The ERT is Hellas’ pride and joy that for many represents the Greek heritage. Samaras’ government had decided to shut the whole business down with the hope of reopening it with a much slimmer and more efficient workforce. In an equivocal decision today a Greek court held that the public broadcaster should not shut its doors after all and should remain operative while the reforms to its loss-making structures take place.
The brave journalists at ERT had continued to broadcast in spite of the order to shut down six days earlier. They also enjoyed expressions of solidarity from around the world – journalists should not be hushed up. The problem with ERT though is also that it is a behemoth – a giant with many lots of wastage. A large part of the monetary hemorrhage that jars badly with the general atmosphere of austerity is the manner with which the two main parties in Greece have used ERT as though it was their own home turf. A number of the 3,000 functionaries within the channel are political appointees and this portion should be the one bearing the brunt of a scaling down in the future.
It’s not only about functionaries though. There’s a corpus of journalists working with the national station and the shutting down of ERT has been seen as an affront to the basic principles of democracy and expression – rightly so. The focus cannot only be on that matter though. The Greek parties’ patronage and abuse of public funds to further their systems of cronyism must also be addressed.
Meanwhile in the Duchy
CSV president Michel Wolter has had to do some explaining after he commented on a case involving a private radio station. The news story in question was about General Prosecutor Robert Biever and the allegation that the Luxembourg secret service SREL had investigated him on suspicion of paedophilia. In a statement made in the Chamber of Deputies Wolter had implied that the station carrying the allegation should reveal its sources. His intervention was interpreted as as an attack on the freedom of the press and the law on the protection of sources while Wolter was seen as putting pressure on Radio 100,7 to reveal its sources.
From Wort.lu : Wolter explained on Monday that Claude Meisch and Xavier Bettel of the DP had made serious accusations that the CSV was behind this campaign to discredit Biever. Wolter added that the party could not let these accusations go uncommented.
Therefore, the party’s MPs decided together to release radio 100,7 from the protection of sources, should the source be a Member of Parliament for the CSV, as the only way to defend the CSV against the allegations. However, Wolter added that the party did not request or demand that the radio reveal its source, nor that the party exercised censorship or attacked the freedom of the press. The politician expressed his regret over the current political climate in Luxembourg, saying that rumours were being spread to discredit politicians or political parties. Enough false pieces of information would eventually add up to a wrong picture, he said, prompting his strong statement in parliament. Instead, politicians should put their energy to developing ideas and policies to help Luxembourg tackle the future in the current economic climate, Wolter concluded.
This story rang a few bells in my head, particularly with regard to George Vella’s outburst in the Maltese parliament some time ago. The biggest danger the media seems to have in today’s modern democracy is that of being able to cope with the all-pervading and all-interfering instinct that political parties tend to have. The fact that the media wield such a crucial power for the proper functioning of a democracy makes it all the more important that they are protected from such assaults.
So they set up a Foundation to organise national festivities. So far so normal. This is after all the Malta of Saints and Fireworks where every raħal worth its globigerina limestone has at least one Kumitat tal-Festi. This is the country of the xalati and illum il-festa tagħna so the setting up of a Kumitat tal-Festi Tagħna Lkollwas just waiting to happen. No surprises there. It was even less of a surprise given how Joseph Muscat has been harping on emptily about some kind of breaking of barriers insofar as the “us and them” is concerned. The fans of the PLPN crowd have long obsessed about the greatest national holiday and about how divisive their respective celebrations can be. In truth the approach to each of our nation’s dates with history simply betrays a shallowness bred out of partisan ignorance and stereotyped fallacies.
Back to the Foundation though. The news causing greatest ripples across all the media was the appointment of Where’s Everybody main man Lou Bondi to the same Foundation. Oliver Friggieri would be chairing the committee and one sincerely hopes that his current health situation will allow him to provide a decent input, whatever that may be, given the already limited (and doomed) remit of the Foundation. What really I found really jarring at the moment of the announcement of the committee members was the importance given in Malta to a new kind of professional – “the TV personality”.
Back to Bondi though. The net – especially the net – exploded with expressions of dismay bordering on angst as many a hardcore Labour supporter expressed his disdain that a member of the EvilGonziClique had been given a place in the wider court of this government’s workings.Everybody knows that Lou Bondi would feature close to the top of a Labour hate list – trumped only by the one they refer to as the Witch from Bidnija and a close competitor to Lawrence Gonzi himself. And here he was – Lou Bondi – entrusted with the organisation of the nth anniversary of Jum il-ħelsien. Horror. Surely Dom would be turning in his grave.
The beauty of it all was also the reaction from the nationalist side of the national whinge fest. Apparently Bondi had just lost his credentials as a decent journalist. Really? Caruana Galizia even attempted to twist and turn the argument on its head by affirming that Bondi was not a partial journalist and that it was his impartiality that was being rewarded. In a world gone mad it was only another hapless voice to add to the chorus of dismayed and angered oohs and aahs.
The real winner in all this? Joseph Muscat. Not only has he set up a Foundation that is basically there to perpetrate the mental masturbation of an idea that is “reconciliation through celebration of all our national days”. Not just that. He has appointed one of the most hated personas in the Labour, chip-on-the-shoulder based, psyche to the very same Foundation that is supposed to be a stepping stone towards the breaking down of the “us and them” barriers. Chapeau. Really. A magician’s hat from which to extract the rabbit.
Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called “The Pledge”. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course… it probably isn’t. The second act is called “The Turn”. The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call “The Prestige”. – The Prestige
We all saw the object. The object was the inherent contradiction. “What? Lou Bondi appointed onto a board by the Prime Minister himself? Had we missed his billboard where he expressed blind belief in everything Joseph does?” We were supposed to be awed. Stunned. The wizard behind the curtain had his eyes on a bigger picture. Most talk and criticisim in the first 100 days of Labour rule has been about the way meritocracy was thrown out of the window. Merit was scratched from the vocabulary as billboard folk were appointed to government posts and most of the Super One workforce shifted to ministerial salaries. What happened next came as a surprise. All of a sudden you had the most nationalist of nationalists – a hated journalist, friend of the witch, cousin of one of the most disliked Ministers – elevated to a government appointed position.
It’s one big distraction. The biggest yet. While everyone and everybody complained we would forget the Marshalls, the Testas, and the Micallefs of this world. Muscat became the magnanimous. Too magnanimous. Under Muscat EVEN Lou Bondi gets a blessing. We even forgot to ask what this committee is really about and how important it really is. Prestidigitation took care of that. Just like the idea of building a bridge to Gozo. Now that’s a project that could only be conceived or supported by a Baldrick or an equivalent turnip. Muscat has not built the bridge and I am prepared to wager that it will not be built. What we have is the prestidigitation – the signing of contracts with the Chinese and the illusion that “we are thinking about it”.
All you needed to complete the magic trick was the couple of hired hacks who would sell the tenuous argument that all the unmeritocratic change that has been happening is normal and should have been expected. Give them the chance to look shocked and slightly angry that Muscat went so far as to appoint Bondi – it gives them an amount of cred doesn’t it?
The truth? The truth is that a wave of politically motivated appointments should not be normal and is not to be expected, no. That’s bullshit – particularly coming from supposed pundits and ex-columnists. When combined with all the talk of reconciliation and new way of doing politics, the wave of appointments simply confirms that the Labour government is one big magic trick that only needs a not too particularly alert audience to notice the scam that lies beneath the surface.
So while you whinge and whine about whether Bondi should have been appointed to a post by Muscat, or whether he should have accepted, remember that you are wasting your time.
Try to stop looking at the rabbit and the hat or at the magician’s eyes… look at his lips instead… that smirk on his face will speak a thousand words.
“The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
A news item on a Belgian radio last week spoke of how students were turning to new forms of income to subsidise their studies. One form of income was a new service being provided whereby students agreed to perform cleaning services (the French term is “technicien des surfaces”) while wearing sexy underwear. Persons buying the service presumably got their kicks from watching scantily dressed women perform household chores. The company providing the service had strict rules including “no physical contact” and would cream 30% of the charge for having provided the contact.
The debate was obviously centred around whether this was a form of “proxénétisme” (another funky French word for prostitution). Apparently the issue of voyeurism does not fall strictly into that category. Another issue was whether this amounted to exploitation (or sexploitation) of the fairer sex and the reply by the company was that they were also planning to introduce male versions of the service.
Back on the island for a short break I have just come across a new report from the Maltese courts. A magistrate has just held (in the reported words of the press) that “Baring breasts while lap dancing not a scandal“. To begin with, it is not strictly speaking a business of the law whether or not a “scandal” exists so the title is more than just misleading in this sense. The real fact of the matter is that a court of law in Malta has finally held that what goes on in strip clubs is not exactly secret and that it is up to a mature person to decide whether or not he wants to go there or not.
In many a way this can be seen as an important development and not just for strip club issues but also in situations like drama or theatre where the question of censorship might have been brought into play. The first thing that came to my mind was the “Stitching” question which could have benefited from that kind of assessment in the first place – once you are warned that a play will have adult/mature content you should not then complain about the content being offensive to your particular morals.
In the case of strip clubs we might be spared the pathetic “my bra fell off” kind of defence that made a mockery of the very public secret of why people frequented the kind of establishment such as Steam. Such as this one:
Camilleri herself testified and said that she works as a lap dancer and the Police had gone in. She was wearing a bikini top and boxer shorts. She said that her bra had loosened a bit because she had been dancing, and when she noticed what had happened she immediately put the bra back into place.
The case in question probably does not itself solve the issue of the legality or otherwise of strip clubs in Malta. The legal twist lies in the fact that prosecution of such “offences” hinged on the notion of “public indecency” and “performing immoral acts in public”. In both cases the “public” element of the offence was crucial and what this case seems (again I only comment on the press report) to do is to confirm that the offence does not exist once it is carried out in a private establishment – where as the court report goes: “mature people should know what a type of club “Steam” and others similar are. It is the person who chooses to go in or not.”
So as far as legalese goes what we have is a confirmation of the fact that what goes on in strip clubs does not violate the provisions of public indecency or public offence to morals. What remains to be seen of course is whether the country has a policy on stripping in private places or whether the hypocritical lacuna will remain as it is. Businesses have spread across the red quarters of Paceville and there’s no denying that it is a booming trade.
The dangers of exploitation and what is called white slave traffic remain rampant and now that the traditional form of discouragement – the prosecution on the basis of public indecency – seems to have fallen there should be an informed and responsible attempt at proper regulation (which does not necessarily translate to banning the Full Monty) in order to ensure that all actors in the trade are sufficiently protected. The business of strip clubs cannot and should not remain the elephant in the room that is only mentioned to contribute to some form of voyeuristic entertainment in the media industry.
