Mediawatch

Mintoff: il-verità jekk nigdeb

Ma jtikx li terġa tikteb dwaru. Mhux għalissa għallinqas. Mhux filwaqt li kull min kapaċi iħażżeż żewġ linji għaddej jara’ kif jagħmel iżid jgħid tiegħu dwar il-perit. Imma jien proprja mhux fuq il-perit xtaqt nitkellem. Xtaqt nitkellem dwar l-idoli u dwar min jgħożżhom. Xtaqt nitfa’ il-lenti m’għajnejja bħal ma għamlu Galilew u Koperniku u niskopri dan l-univers ieħor fejn nipprova nifhem għaliex għal bosta nies id-dinja għada ddur mal-perit, l-univers beda mal-perit u li forsi anki l-amerikani ma kienux jaslu bi Curiosity fuq Marte li kieku ma kienx għal kbir Duminku.

Jista’ jkun li mhux hekk ta’. Jista’ jagħti l-każ li wara kollox din hija bissa karikatura li tinħoloq mill-ilsna ħżiena u mill-peċluqa tar-raħal li ma xtaqux ġid lill-kbir perit (il-Mulej jagħtih il-mistrieħ ta’ dejjem avolja hu lill-Mulej ma tantx tah wiċċ). Imma xi ftit suspett għandi. Suspett li l-moviment popolari bħalissa iqarreb iktar lejn il-beatifikazzjoni tal-perit, iva bħalissa hemm mewġa lesta biex issaħħaħ mit li kien ilu magħna u li issa sabet ix-xoqqa f’moxtha. Dan u l-waqt tal-metamorfosi tal-bniedem li issa ser isir divinita’ assoluta u infallibbli.

Ikun hemm postilli, caveats u asteriski li jżidu xi ħsieb żgħir dwar difetti jew żbalji kommessi mill-protoidolu iżda dawn ikunu biss makkjetti żgħar li jkomplu isaħħu l-immaġini totali tal-ġgant popolari. Bħat-tapit Persjan li jrid bilfors ikollu difett biex ma jieħux għalih il-Ħallieq (li Hu biss Hu perfett) hekk biss jissemmew l-għeltijiet f’personalita li kull ma jmur tibda tikber grazzi għal narrativa popolari għaġġelija. Aħna kollha orfni issa. Hekk qalilna l-aspiranti Mintoff. Le xbin. Jien ma jien orfni ta’ ħadd. Dan bħall-Amerikani li l-għada ta’ 9/11 qalulna li We are all Americans now. Tiġrix. Missieri ħaj għadu, u ommi ukoll, għal grazzja tal-Mulej Alla.

Naf nidħol fiż-żifna ukoll u nfakkar lill-Mintoff Aspiranti li ommi kienet tgħallem fl-iskejjel li kienu se jingħalqu minħabba l-wirt tal-politika tal-idolu tiegħu. Naf ngħidlu li missieri kien wisq għal qalbu jaħdem ma ditta Ingliża sakemm ma għoġbux ikeċċihom il-ġgant ta’ Malta. Jien? Orfni ta’ dak? Ħożż fl-ilma. Imma nixtieq għal ftit inwarrab l-għamad taċ-ċirkostanza u nipprova nifhem għalfejn għal xi nies il-perit qisu sar parti integra mit-trinita’. Qaltilhom waħda anzjana lil tat-Times (tal-Black Monday biex niftehmu) li għaliha l-ewwel jiġi il-Mulej imbagħad wara jiġi Mintoff. Dik hi.

Mhux dak biss. Trid tara l-lessiku. Jitkellmu dwar “twemmin” u “fidi”. Iva mhux qed niċċajta. Bħala student tal-politika naf forsi nindikalek il-valuri li fuqhom jissejjes il-Mintoffjaniżmu. Naf nindikalek in-nazzjonaliżmu sfrenat imħawwar b’imħabba għal poplu u fuq kollox għall-ħaddiem u għal dak l-inqas privileġġjat. Għaldaqshekk faċli. Teħodlu ritratt ċar lill-Mintoffjaniżmu – il-politika fuq il-karta ċara. Ta’ daqshekk biss lest ninża l-kappell (kieku kont liebes wieħed) u nsellem lill-proto-soċjalist li beda biex ħaddan politika tal-ħaddemin kif jgħid l-innu.

Pero. U dejjem ikolli pero. Meta nara il-firxa ta’ dak li sar u dak li għamel ma nasalx biex inwaħħad il-ħsieb mat-twettiq. Ma niġġustifikax l-idoliżżar. Għax m’aħniex nitkellmu fuq Ġgant Mondjali. Iva nasal biex ninfoska lil dawk ta’ madwari li lesti joqtlu biex ifakkruk li m’għandix monopolju fuq is-sewwa oġġettiv. Fl-immaġni filosofika bosta drabi rajna lill-Missier Etern impinġi bħala perit kożmiku. Ma nistax naraha taħdem bil-kontra.

L-ewwel bużillis li insiblu lill-perit hija dik tal-pożizzjoni tiegħu fl-istorja – l-istess storja li għad tiġġudikah. Jien insejħilha l-inevitabiltà. Fil-qosor nemmen li dak kollu li sar fi żmien Mintoff kien isir xorta għax kien inevitabbli. Irritanti ħafna bħala ħsieb imma jekk ngħidlek li Malta fl-1945 kienet gorboġ ġebel li qed tiffaċċja perijodu ta’ rikostruzzjoni (bħall-bqija ta’ l-Ewropa) tgħdili giddieb?

U  jekk ngħidlek li kif jixhed b’għemilu Boffa ir-riforma tas-sistema soċjali kienet diġa bdiet tissawwar qabel ma l-Perit ħa over tajjarni giddieb? Jekk ngħidlek li bi flus ir-rikostruzzjoni u l-Għajnuna Marshall kien hemm biex nibnu skejjel u infrastrutturi tgħidli li qed ngħawweġ il-fatti? Jekk ngħidlek li l-universita b’xejn inbdiet fl-1970 taħt Borg Olivier tipprova għallinqas tgiddibni bil-provi u mhux bit-tgħajjir? Jekk ngħidlek li l-vot għan-nisa kien inevitabbli fi żmien it-twelid tal-familja atomika – kontx Bombay jew il-Belt – se tgħidli li far fetched? Jekk ngħidlek li l-istorja qatt ma hi se tgħidilna jekk stajniex morna aħjar b’ekonomija differenti fis-sebgħinijiet u mhux waħda immirata għall-illużjoni tal-awtosuffiċjenza se tmerini?

Ma nafx. “Allura”, nistħajlek tgħidli, “Ja ġifa, Mintoff għalxejn ma kien tajjeb?”. Le ħabib. Tqiegħedx kliem f-ħalqi. Meta qiegħdt il-ħġieġa m’għajnejja ammirajt il-kariżma tal-bniedem. Ammirajt ir-rieda tiegħu u n-nuqqas ta’ biża. Fl-utopja Mintoffjana ammirajt d-dinja aċċessibbli għal kullħadd mingħajr biża u mingħajr dipendenza fuq ħaddieħor. Dak ammirajtu. Ammirajt il-fatt li bħal Obama kien jaf iwassal ħsibijietu lill-parti tal-poplu li l-iktar xtaqu jisma (u le, m’hix oratorija għal kullħadd – inqas intelliġenti, imma min qal li trid tkun intelliġenti biex tkun effettiv?). Għallinqas ma kienx jitnejjek bin-nies bħall-politikanti ta’ llum. Kien jgħidlek x’irid u kif iridu.

Mintoff miegħi jiżloq fit-twettiq. Dak l-entużjażmu, dik ir-retorika u fuq kollox dak il-patt imsawwar mad-dgħajjef u l-ħaddiem. Qaluli trid taraha mill-perspettiva ta’ min ħajtu inbidlet. Jiġifieri xiex? B’għajnejn dawk li bħal eluf oħra madwar il-punent gawdew mir-rivoluzzjoni edukattiva ta’ wara l-gewrra? Sewwa wisq. Iva importanti ħafna din. Tfal sa’ sittax il-sena jistudjaw u jitgħallmu. Daqshekk ħafja fit-triq jew fuq l-Għajn ta’ San Bastjan. U x’iktar? Ix-xogħol? Id-domanda tiegħi hi fejn waqfu l-aspirazzjonijiet tal-perit (u magħhom tal-pajjiż)?

Ma ħoloqx ħolma amerikana – fejn min hu tajjeb jirnexxi u min hu ħażin jaqa’ u jerġa jibda. Le. kien hemm mument fejn waqaf u tilef il-boxxla. Industrija magħżula skond il-bżonn u ħsieb ta’ l-elit soċjalista. Edukazzjoni post-sekondarja imfarrka u sakrifikata fuq l-altar tal-għira lejn elit ieħor tal-passat. Allura x’sewa li toħroġ il-ħafja mit-triq sur Perit jekk imbagħad ma jistgħux jaspiraw biex jikbru u jsibu oriżżonti ġodda sakemm mhux sanzjonati mill-burdati tal-Maċina?

Għalhekk forsi jien ma nifhimx u ma tinżillix din l-idolatrija kurrenti li hawn madwar l-immaġni tal-perit. Fil-verita tiegħi għandi miżien u bih inkejjel il-ħolm u t-twettiq ta’ dak li qed jissejjaħ Missier u Salvatur. Issa apparti li din tal-Missier u Salvatur ma tixraqx fil-lessiku tagħna u hija iktar idonea f’xi kultura tal-Korea ta’ Fuq per eżempju. Imma il-miżien tiegħi jibqa dejjem b’effett aħħari nieqes. Bl-ingliż kieku ngħidu short changed. Dak il-ħafna promessi, dak il-ħafna ħolm u ideal ma ssawrux fl-aħħar.

Forsi lanqas Mintoff stess ma kien kuntent. Naf ngħidlek li wisq huwa probabbli li anki hu ddarras b’dawk li spiċċa imdawwar bihom. Xi Lorry Sant (idolu ieħor f’xi inħawi) li għalaq il-ħsibijiet grandjużi u l-aspirazzjonijiet sovrumani tal-perit f’morsa fallibbli ta’ soċjaliżmu a la carte. Il-pjanijiet grandjużi sabu ħajt fallibbli tal-korruzzjoni umana, tas-sakra tal-poter, tal-abbuż tal-poter u tal-eżaltazzjoni tal-massa injuranta li ma fehmitx ir-responsabilta’ li kienet iġġib magħħa l-emanċipazzjoni Mintoffjana fl-istat teoretiku tagħha. Kien jgħidilhom il-perit li kien ser ikollhom jagħmlu sagrifiċċi biex iwettqu dak li xtaqu. Forsi ma fehmuħx u forsi wara ftit xeba’ jipprova jikkonvinċihom.

Qaluli li lejn l-aħħar ta’ żmienu bħala Prim Ministru kien xeba u spiċċa jgħix Ħal Tarxien imdawwar ma xi ftit ħbieb u jgħum kuljum St Peter’s Pool. Qaluli li kien qata qalbu jissielet mal-għedewwa ta’ ġewwa ħafna qabel ma qata’ qalbu jissielet ma dawk ta’ barra. Kullħadd jixba u jgħeja jitqabad mal-fallibilità umana. Hawn min jitlifa’ mod u min ieħor. Qaluli ukoll li l-aħħar att kbir ta’ Mintoff (minbarra l-1998) kien meta dilek lil Karmenu biż-żejt tas-suċċessur. Qaluli li kieku ma għamilx hekk appik kien ikollna Sant ieħor Prim Ministru. Kien jagħmel rebus, dak, bl-inevitabiltà.

Ma nafx jekk dak li qaluli hix storja apokrifa. Li naf hu li l-personalita kumplessa li hija Dom Mintoff ma ħaqqiex status ta’ idolu. Ma ngħidx hekk b’disprezz jew b’rabja jew b’xi spirtu vindikattiv ta’ min beda ħajtu politika fuq il-qasam l-ieħor. Ngħid hekk għax l-istatus ta’ idolu huwa biss frott ta’ eżaġerazzjoni, karikaturi, iperbole u iva ta miti u emozzjonijiet. Hemm bżonn li l-figura ta’ Mintoff titneżża minn dan il-velu idolatra.

Imbagħad forsi iva, imbagħad l-istorja taf tiġġudikah.

La verité si je mens.

Nota: Qabel ma jieħu għalih xi iblaħ, l-immaġini li takkumpanja din il-bloggata hija ispirata mit-t-shirt famużissimu li kien iħobb jilbes il-kantant tal-Guns’N’Roses Axl Rose. Il-wiċċ fuq dak it-t-shirt ma kienx ta’ Mintoff. Kien tas-Salvatur.

 

The day that Marmite died

You must be familiar with that jar of delicious liquid goo that is Marmite, or at least with its more popular beefy cousin – Bovril. Marmite’s ubiquitous presence on grocer’s shelves has divided the general public into two distinct categories that eventually became the slogan of this yeast-based product: You either love it or you hate it. The Marmite/Bovril effect is just that – spread a little of either the beef extract or its vegetarian alter ego on a bit of bread and offer it to an innocent newbie and then just watch. You will either get a an expression of finger-licking glee or a glare of absolute disgust verging on the nauseous. That’s them – the icky spreads and their effect. Both Bovril and Marmite became institutions. A quick fix in hard up times and an absolute necessity in the “economic” pre- and post- war kitchens. They ARE still institutions. Whether you love them or you hate them.

The death of Dom Mintoff brought back to the surface the Marmite effect among the Maltese. Mintoff, like Marmite, was either loved or hated. For a brief period even his most intimate of “lovers” found time to despise him when he chose to bring down a government – single handedly. I will forever remember the litany of expletives mouthed by a taxi driver in Paceville right beneath the window where I was going through my early morning revision of Criminal procedure back in 1998. This was no Mintoff-hating nationalist – this was a tattoed Mintoffian through and through – wishing that the worst of the worst would happen to the short, pipe-smoking politician following his apparent betrayal of the Socialist ideal.

Yes. I said Mintoffian. That’s because Mintoff is a large enough figure to inspire an -ism. It is a wide -ism based on a very Mintoffian cocktail of socialism and nationalism. It is a battle begun from the benches of Boffa’s government transformed into a mission that ran on slogans such as “Malta l-ewwel u qabel kollox” and “Min mhux maghna kontra taghna”. It is formed over the span of more than half a century and covers measures or interventions within a national economy supposedly intended for the benefit of the worker and the betterment of the less better off. This was no “middle class” aspiration – this was a politic that is seeded in colonial times and set out with all the intention to improve the state of the Maltese.

The whirlwind tour from the late 30’s to the mid-90s will be dissected, analysed, written and re-written. But the Mintoff effect is the same as the Marmite effect – you love him or you hate him. There are no half measures. The myth is not born today but it is definitely about to go viral. There is a party-in-waiting in Opposition that is gunning to return Mintoff cabinet members to government – it’s not exactly history that we are speaking about. Mintoffianism lives. Mintoffianism is alive in articles in last Sunday’s papers outlining how Malta can still renegotiate its deal with the EU. Mintoffianism still pulls the emotional strings of a large part of the population whose lexicon is stuck on the idea of “30 years of hurt”, on “the privileged elite vs the rest” and the new aspiration of “an open middle class”.

Some, like me, cannot get themselves to appreciate Mintoff. No matter how hard we can try to see the aspirations of the young Dom we always hit that ugly barrier come his “maturity”. Emancipation for others meant “free education” but the socialist scythe of the Mintoffian brand of politics also meant the destruction of too much aspiration. It meant continued education by godfather and the shutting down of the creative arts. It meant expropriation and nationalisation within the framework of an ever dwindling package of legal fundamental rights. More than the notorious age of violence remains the emptiness in an age when the law amounted to nothing much. The individual had no rights because the constitutional court was kept in abeyance and Malta failed to subscribe to the European Convention of Fundamental Rights.

It’s all relative some will say. Some will remain ever grateful to this tub of marmite that pulled them out of “poverty” and “gave” their sons a job and “gave” them a roof in a housing estate. Free education (with streaming first removed then reintroduced) meant more students until the age of 16. Then they would move on to what? Choice, hope and potential were all sacrificed on the all equalling altar of socialist balance. You cannot appreciate that kind of future. The hot air that was the socialist revolution petered out as would any system that attempts to dehumanise its people. Without basic rights and the possibility of expression the socialist dream fell flat on its face and was caught in its own lie. For all the talk of being on the side of the worker and on the side of the poor, the end legacy of Mintoffianism was a nation on its knees with frozen wages, nationalised dinosaur industries and an inability to contemplate the idea of meritocracy and competition. Malta’s treasury box might have been full but potential wise it was running on empty.

Yes, I am of the generation that believed the dream that came next. Our cup of Bovril was the dream of Work, Justice and Liberty of the later eighties. Comparisons are just as odious as adulations but this was our cup half full. Somewhere in this morass of political dwarves posing as giants we also were entitled to a dream. Between the campanilistic propaganda of the eighties and the mass marketing of the naughties we had an interlude of the politics that we hoped would come. Ironically Mintoff had a hand in that too and he inadvertently righted our path towards the Common Market of opportunity. Our dream too has had to subside and submit to the politics of mediocrity that have replaced the value-driven methods of Boffa’s 50s or Fenech Adami’s early 90s.

Mintoffianism is alive but Mintoff the man is dead. They tell me he was not a believer so there is no one to commend his soul to. His memory and his heritage will continue to be debated and discussed.

Until now we only have one objective certainty… Mintoff you either love him or you hate him. In the island of Saints and Fireworks there could hardly be more of a testament that this is truly one of its sons.

The Prude Miller’s Tale

One story thrown up in the Ferragosto heat is that of Miller Distributor’s refusal to carry an edition of Dazed Magazine. Apparently it is because of an osé picture of Azalea Banks blowing up a condom. This is the ultimate non-story that risks being blown out of proportion (apologies for the pun). Miller Distributors is a commercial enterprise. Not the Church. Not the Government. It’s a commercial enterprise. They import and distribute most of the international press that reaches the Maltese shelves (when they’re not printing it). So if Miller decides it will not import one magazine or another then it is a commercial decision. The basis of the commercial decision is irrelevant – it still should have commercial consequences.

An irritated consumer would probably have the ultimate luxury in a free market – that of opting to no longer buying goods imported by Miller. A boycott. Would it work? Of course not. Particularly given the lions’ share of the market that Miller enjoys. Alternatively you could switch to other ways of obtaining your fare – the internet has worked wonders for that: just look at the Newsstand app for ipads and its android equivalents. I am subscribed to the Economist and the UK Times online and do not depend on any distributor to decide what I can or cannot read.

It’s not censorship though. What Miller is doing will just reflect on Miller and that’s that. Frankly I tend to agree with most commentators – that Miller’s sudden bout of overzealousness is ridiculous. In this day and age it was inevitable that the blocked image would be given more prominence via the net and other media. So why bother with a selective ban when you are also carrying 50 Shades of Grey to your bookshelves?

I’ll just put it down to summer nonsense. Now go have fun… and blow your own condom.

Propaganda Pay-As-You-Please

Just imagine. The tax collector comes round and you tell him “Dude, I’m experiencing cashflow problems, mind if I pay you later?” No need to get that extreme. Just imagine checking out at the till of your supermarket and when the uber-bored guy at the till robotically announces the amount (and points to the five million packs of free water that you have just “won”) you tell him “Righto, I’ll pack the water but I’ll pay you next month… if I find the cash”.

It’s not done is it? You rent a place to run a restaurant or a strip joint, whatever, and you are expected to cough up the rent. Pronto. No rent and you are evicted. You don’t pay your water and electricity bills and you find yourself showering at the neighbours (if they can tolerate the mess you leave behind).

Except of course if you’re a political party. Ever since the PLPN decreed that “pluralism” (whatever happened to that word that used to be uttered like some magic mantra) would be showered on the expectant peoples, and ever since the likes of 101, SuperOne, Net TV and OneTV were unleashed on us the parties have had the lion’s share of broadcasting on the islands.

It is no secret that quality wise this increase in “competition” has been of no benefit whatsoever to the consumer. Given the talent gene pool limitations it would be hardly surprising should this island sustain one good quality TV structure (broadcasting corporation) branching out into specialised channels. Instead we have the two political channels lording it out and churning out Malta’s worst – thankfully in a language that is only intelligible to the island’s converted insiders.

Now we have the Malta Broadcasting Authority openly admitting that: “over the years, the Authority has taken cognisance of the fact that most national broadcasting stations face cash flow problems – from time to time situations have arisen on certain occasions where stations have fallen behind in their payments.”. Which is quite a polite way of saying that more often than not the public secret ends up being the factual truth: our political parties couldn’t give a flying armadillo whether or not they afford to pay the €15,000 or so needed annually for a broadcasting licence.

Why should they? Who will have the guts to shut them and their operations down? This is a country that constitutionally takes the existence of a bi-party system for granted. It encourages the obvious inefficiencies of an inexistent competition – and this battle for the mediocre ground spreads from values, to business, to ideas and creativity to markets.

As I said in a previous post – and I think this will be J’accuse’s seasonal motto:

In this country we do not solve problems. We nurture them.

Academic?

It’s unbelievable. Joseph Muscat has gone on record stating that AST’s article was “an academic exercise”. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Is it to be ignored because “academia” is just an exercise in mental masturbation? Is Anton Refalo’s article in today’s Independent academic too? Should academia be dismissed in favour of the more “erudite” rantings of Joseph and his clan?

Let’s face it Joseph. At the end of the day the political chessboard has spoken. The PN is fully aware of the fact that it cannot rely on the votes of some of its MPs for much longer. That is why it “survived” the pre-estival votes and parliament is now in recess. This recess has delivered the obvious reality that the country is in full election mode: just look at the recent Billboard War. This recess will end with a few attempts at legislating that will inevitably culminate in a vote of confidence sooner rather than later.

What does that mean in real terms? It means that the PN is very aware that the present legislature and government has its days counted. What the PN does not do is erode at the legitimacy of the rule of law and the foundations of democratic government by constantly farting spurious arguments about “undemocratic government” that betray a clear will to ignore the rules of the game. Labour on the other hand is lost repeating the mantra of the obvious – clearly more comfortable in the “non-academic” field of conjecture so long as that means staying away from presenting its plan for government should it get elected.

Now Joseph has no qualms in belittling the importance of “academic” arguments  so long as he can gain more brownie points in the land of spin, conjecture and away from the tangible battles that should be the real battleground in the run-up to an election.

Incidentally Joseph, if Sciberras Trigona’s exercise was an academic exercise in, say, constitutional law, he’d be sitting in his little study sweating out over his notes prepping up for the September resit. Yes, Joseph, even his academic piece was an abject failure.

From the Times:

Labour leader Joseph Muscat has sidestepped the implications of an article penned by his international secretary, Alex Sceberras Trigona, saying the piece claiming the government had lost its “constitutional legality” was an academic exercise.

Asked if Dr Sceberras Trigona’s analysis reflected his position, Dr Muscat said he would rather focus on the political implications of the current “unsustainable” scenario and added that it was up to the Prime Minister to make the necessary decisions.

Dr Sceberras Trigona’s was “a good academic exercise”, Dr Muscat said.

Anton Refalo & the law

Writing in the Malta Independent Today, Daphne Caruana Galizia takes another (well deserved) dig at Alex Sciberras Trigona and rightly points out the blatant incongruence of AST’s “democratic” arguments. It’s not just that AST has the barefaced cheek of calling the present situation undemocratic but also that he has got the basic constitutional principles wrong – as J’accuse has explained time and again, this government is legitimate so long as it does not lose a confidence vote in parliament. Daphne mentions the efforts of the Labour party to “rewrite history” and a quick look at the J’accuse archives points to how this effort at propagandist revisionism was predictable some time back (see The J’accuse 2011 Tag Cloud under “History Manipulation”).

The trouble (or one of the troubles) with Labour is that in their effort to counter the PN “30-years Back” propaganda they are coming up with the most brazenly offensive bits of propaganda with regard to the present government in an effort to picture its tenure as some dictatorial, non-law abiding clique in the style of an Army Coup in some tin pot democracy. Labour’s propaganda technique is simple: repeat a lie so many times that it begins to sound like the truth. We are not talking of legal nitpicking on some moot point that could go both ways but about a simple constitutional principle that yells in your face. A government is a government so long as it does not lose its support in parliament. The only way to gauge that support is by votes in parliament – not by declarations in MaltaToday or interpretations in MaltaStar or status updates on facebook. Simple.

Or it should be simple. Right beneath Daphne’s article (on the Indy Online) lies an article by Labour’s spokesman for Gozo Anton Refalo. The man’s reputation among legal circles is of an efficient lawyer – efficient does not translate to good and believe you me in this case good is very far from efficient. You see the laws of the land also include procedural elements and ethical components with regard to the functioning of a lawyer in assisting his clients. By abiding by these laws and procedures, lawyers form part of a wider system that does its best to mete out justice for all: blindly, impartially and equally. The rules of representation and chinese walls between lawyer and client in particular are very important for this functioning. I harbour strong doubts whether Anton Refalo, Gozo’s aspiring Minister even has a clue about how these should really work.

He gave us an example of his grasp of constitutional politics in today’s article. The bottom line is simple… the laws are just there for your aesthetic convenience. Follow the “social contract” (which one Anton? Should we have an Alfred Sant-like stunt every election with the Dear Leader signing some “social contract” for the fun of the people complete with Notary in attendance?) and forget the law.

The GonziPN can twist and spin the story beyond reasonable boundaries but the bottom line remains the same: That is, that the PN has lost the working majority in the House. Even if the Constitution still gives the PN the legal rights to remain in power, morally and politically it might not. There is no other way but to put an end to this situation by giving the people the right to express their view.

By refusing to take this step, the Prime Minister is putting himself in a situation where his legitimacy is being eroded. The Prime Minister must realise that ultimately any democratically-elected sovereign derives his legitimacy more from an unwritten social contract than from the written laws.

Well Anton. A democratically elected sovereign will go to the polls once it is clear that he has lost the working majority of the house. He does so when a vote of confidence is called in the house (as has been done over the past year) and when that vote of confidence is lost (as has not happened yet). In the meantime all the talk about legitimacy and undemocratic regimes is just a load of hot air, talk and bravado. It may work elsewhere Anton, but so long as the law is to be abided and so long as we have a modicum of decency in the application of that law then you’ll have to wait for the inevitable vote of confidence that will crop up in the last semester of this year.

The law Anton, we are all servants of the law so that we may be free.