Library

The Evils of a Party System

Albert Venn Dicey Vinerian Professor of English Law at the University of Oxford in the 1880s authored one of the classics on the British constitutional system entitled “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution”. Dicey’s groundwork on English constitutional history and principles may be described as legendary. In this post I would like to summarise/list part of an unpublished lecture by Dicey that was prepared in July 1898 – in the hope of provoking a discussion on the merits and demerits of the UK party system as inherited by us in Malta.

The lecture was called “Memorandum on Party Government” and he deals with the pros and cons of the party political system as developed within the British constitutional structure.

In section C of this lecture he outlines the “Inherent Demerits of Party System” as follows:

1. It makes impossible consideration of measures on merits.

2. An Opposition which cannot carry out its own policy maims & renders abortive the policy of the Government.

3. The Party system involves a waste of capacity.

4. The Party system leads to an exaggeration of the points on which the whole of one party, e.g. the Tories, are supposed to agree & to be opposed to the whole of their opponents, e.g. the Whigs.

“(…) it is still true that the party system intensifies the tendency of politicians & their followers to look upon their own side as the party of the good, & upon the opposite side as the faction of bad men, whence, among other evils, results the sort of political hypocrisy which leads men of sense & merit to overlook or palliate the decline in moral principle of a party which they have at one time held, perhaps rightly, to represent public virtue.

The patent evils, in short, of the Party system, even at its best, are that it presents men from considering measure on their own merits, that it produces the kind of vicious compromise by which an opposition maims a policy which it cannot resist, that it involves a waste of political capacity, that it exaggerates the differences which divide one party from another & promotes the idea which is often false, & at best only partially true, that one party in the State has a monopoly of public virtue.”

In the next section (D) Dicey expounds “The Conditions Necessary for the Beneficial Action of the Party System” and he divides them into four broad conditions, namely:

1. All parties in the State must be loyal to the Constitution.

2. The distinction between the two parties in the State must depend upon real differences of principle.

3. Parties must not be kept together mainly by personal interest.

4. There must if possible exist only two important parties.

5. The nation must take a real interest in Politics.

And what happens when these conditions fail? Well here is Dicey’s answer:

“(…) all these evils may be summed up under one head whenever they exist they mean that parties are degenerating into factions, that is to say that they have become or are becoming, bodies of men not bound together by community of principles but either by self interest or by the feelings of partisanship“.

Finally Dicey also suggests two obvious ways of mitigating the negative effects of the party system:

1. The judicial & administrative bodies of the country should be kept as far as possible from the sphere of the Party.

2. Large questions of general policy should whenever possible be so determined that they may be placed outside the realm of the party.

Toroq fil-baħar

Il-fekruna għażlet il-Ġnejna biex tħalli erba’ bajdiet fir-ramel qabel lebbtet lejn il-baħar frisk u nadif ta’ l-ewwel jiem tas-sajf. Ma naħsibx li jeżistu fuljetti informattivi li jitqassmu fost il-fawna Mediterranja li jgħarrfu lil klijenti prospettivi dwar l-aħjar post fejn titfa’ bajdtek u tħalli ‘l uliedek jittantaw xortihom. Is-sinjura Fekruna ma tistax tistħajjilha f’xi kont ta’ Lewis Carroll tikkonsulta l-brochures splendidi tal-Malta Tourist Association iħeġġu l-koppji fkieren żgħar jiġu bi ħġarrhom jrabbu familja (jew mill-inqas iħalluha tfaqqas) ġewwa l-gżira ta’Pawlu.

Għażlet il-gżira ta’ Franco u ta’ Richard minn jedda il-fekruna. Forsi kien att ta’ disperazzjoni – kif iktar tispjega fatt li kien ilu ma’ jseħħ mis-sittinijiet? Il-fkieren kienu donnhom ddikkjaraw bojkott tal-gżira meta raw n-nies jindifnu fil-miżbla. “Le xbin tlaqna lejn l-Ellespontu u l-gżejjer tagħha hawn m’hawnx ħlief oqbra imbajda u qniepen.” Għadda ż-żmien u l-fekruna donnha tittanta xortiha. Ilna minn żmien Rio ’92 ma nduqu soppa tal-fkieren. Issa illegali. Għaldaqshekk kolloxsew. M’hemmx ċans li t-tfal tagħha jispiċċaw f’xi bouillabaisse post-modern f’xi ristorant mibni fuq il-foreshore kifsuppost.

Kienet taf forsi bil-programmi estensivi ta’ Joseph? Saret taf li ħadd ma hu se jitħalla joqgħod lura f’Malta progressiva? Kienux is-sireni progressivi li saħħruha bil-kant ta’ Tagħlim, Taħriġ u Xogħol? Ifhem, l-Ellespontu kien ilu ma jbandal hekk minn żmien Xerxes. Għadhom sa’ llum jiddu f-widnejn il-fkieren il-ħoss tal-frosta inkazzata u rrabbjata tfaqqa’ fuq wiċċ il-baħar. Illum hemm problemi oħra. Flus ma hemmx. Futur ikreh. Aħjar immorru Malta fejn minkejja kull sforz tal-iżolani li jitfgħu il-knaten fuq saqajhom l-affarijiet jidhru mexjin sew.

Imma żgur sinjura fekruna? Tifhimnix ħażin. Wara kollox ħaqqek grazzi talli għażilt gżiritna biex tiżra t-tama u l-ħajja. Imma din mhux gżira ta’ ward u żahar. Ilna nitfgħu knaten fuq saqajna. Fil-parlament mhux talli ma kibrux fjuri imma issa intlejna kakti u tingiż. Mhux dik l-agħar sinjura, l-agħar x’ħin tara l-kilba għall-poter u d-dominju tal-assurd. L-assurd iqarrabna wisq mad-dinja ta’ Carroll u Vargas Llosa. Ħarġu l-iskieken, sinnewhom sew u d-demm iċċarċar fuq l-artal ta’ l-ugwaljanza.

Għax f’din il-gżira sinjura fekruna l-ilsna tal-bejjiegħa tal-ħolm jidilkuk bil-għasel tal-wegħda ta’ prosperita. Jgħannu l-għanja tal-ħelsien mill-jasar immaġinarju li għaġġnu f’moħħom biex bħal speċi jiġġustifikaw il-qagħda tagħom. Imma mill-kliem għall-fatti hemm baħar jaqsam. U x’baħar dak. Il-progress f’dan il-pajjiż ma jfissirx li tqiegħed lil kullħadd f’kundizzjoni li jtejjeb ruħu. Ma jfissirx meritokrazija. Il-progress għandu l-minġel f’idejħ u jekk int tajjeb iżżejjed, jekk b’ħilitek inqtajt mill-folla issibu jistennik – u b’daqqa waħda jaqtagħlek saqajk. Hekk… issa ġejt daqs ħaddieħor. U hekk kullħadd l-istess. Kullħadd kuntent. Progress achieved.

“Prosperity or egalitarianism — you have to choose. I favor freedom — you never achieve real equality anyway: you simply sacrifice prosperity for an illusion.” – Mario Vargas Llosa

Żgur sinjura fekruna li se tħalli ‘l uliedek hawn fostna? Iva ħallejna gwardjan magħhom lejl u nhar biex żgur ix-xorti xxaqleb favurihom. Bil-bouncer 24/7 fuq ramlet artna. Imma barra minn fuqhom li jikbru u jitgħallmu u jsiru intelliġenti. Barra minn fuqhom li b’ħilithom isibu xogħol imħallas tajjeb. Għax hemm isibuħ il-progress jistenna bil-minġel ileqq f’idu. Minġel ikreh li jixxejjer bid-dagħdiha tal-għira u l-inkapaċita tal-injurant. Jekk hemm bżonn nipprostitwixxu parlament sabiex nitkażaw jekk taqlax iktar mill-President . Hemm aħna sinjura fekruna… imbasta ħadnilek ħsiebhom sakemm nibtu… imma jżabbu jmorru aħjar minna.

Wara kollox x’iriduhom dal-flejjes kollha? Bil-flus tagħmel biss toroq fil-baħar, u x’iżżobb se nagħmlu bihom dat-toroq eh?

Aqdef ja bagħla aqdef.

 

Back in Time

It’s been a quiet week – away from the blog. Who am I kidding? A turtle flapped its way up Gnejna bay to lay its little eggs of hope only to be given the Kardashian treatment. Be a celebrity turtle for a day. As if that was not enough the J’accuse Prophesies all fell into place in one damned week. Columnists were made to regret their decision to back a lying politician to the hilt for the sake of winning an election. Remember the “objects of hate”? That was February and March 2008. J’accuse was asking the obvious questions: Can politics by default be successful? Is there anything shallower than the politics of taste? Does backing every Johnny Come Lately for the sake of winning a few votes pay in the long run?

Well it did not. Eerily we went back to those posting days and we noticed that we touched on much more issues that would come back to haunt certain people in 2012. It’s not so uncanny when you think of it but posts such as “PfP – What’s the pFuss?” turned out to be, how shall I say… relevant. Or take the one entitled “Theatrics of the Hard of Hearing” – also a topical issue. Only a few days previously we had highlighted the birth of a new star in “In-House Bickering“. Before that we had analysed Gonzi’s first cabinet choices in “A Cabinet for the People“… that included the following interesting excerpt:

Not something JPO can hope for seeing that his constant denial of knowledge of anything to do with Mistra seems to have exploded in his face. Small aside here. JPO’s treatment by the party had its setbacks too. He was an expendable puppet in the war with Sant. In the party’s list of priorities, proving that Sant would chicken out from confrontation was more important than harnessing a potentially damaging candidate. Projecting him into the limelight to outwit Sant meant that JPO could not limit the damage and his fruitless denial only ended up in Gonzi’s ruling out a Cabinet position for the man who garnered a voting bananza simply on the “sympathy” basis. In the process PN also showed a nasty side in its use of the media and journalists to achieve its aim. Nul points and more.

Then, as now, misinformation regarding the pros and cons of a coalition was high on the agenda for some people. Of course it did not help that they confused the actions of individuals projected to the dizzying heights of one-seat majorities with those of potential political parties that are accountable to a set of commitments. In The Real King Makers we highlighted the perils of the PN’s one -seat majority.

And yes, there was Daphne. Daphne who started the campaign planted before her PC posting comment after comment on J’accuse challenging the “objects of hate” to fall in line with the simple choice of electing PN by default … because Labour is not good for the country (sound familiar?). The tactic is well documented in the post “Seven Day Bloggists” – how serious conversation degenerated into M.A.D by blog. DCG decamped to her own blog created midway through the campaign – probably when she realised that having a blog meant controlling the content (only nice things happen on your blog). That same blog, the Runs, was the one that would back the tearful Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando to the hilt. Elect anyone but Alfred Sant. So much for rational voting….

There’s more to read in those pre-electoral months on J’accuse. We’ve been reading through to see how much of today’s mess was predictable back then. Turns out that the answer is “Quite a bit”. This blog is kicking back into life after a deserved pause (because I say so).

I.M. Jack – Sunday’s Legal

The law has become a dominant part of the news over the past year or so and not only because of the supposed reforms that are being carried out (thanks to/in spite of/to comfort/with or without) Franco Debono. Ubi societas, ibi ius or so the latins teach us – wherever there is society there is the law. A legal system is at the core and backbone of our society and it allows us to survive each other and our naked ambition and instinct. Respect for the law and its principles are probably much more crucial for the survival (and creation and promotion) of a just society than economic prosperity. We are witnessing however a complete dilution and dumbing down of our legal framework.

What we have is a combination of a full frontal assault and denigration of all things legal. We have seen columnists who assume that their appreciation of the law with all its underpinnings and implications is superior to that of any legal practitioner. We have witnessed  lawyer politicians who opt to prostitute their profession in favour of political mileage. We have seen the gradual erosion of public confidence on the law and the legal system based on urban appreciation of legal events, shoddy and sensational law reporting and opportunist political mileage. The law faculty continues to gaze at its toes as its graduates increasingly seem to be unable to engage in logic and analysis due to serious shortcomings in the linguistic department.

The judicial branch is still under fire from many quarters and is still reeling from the reputation-killer events of recent memory. The Chamber of Advocates seems to be more intent on either playing second fiddle to political interests or in getting a piece of the power cake by pushing for more control over warranted lawyers – a push that smells of control of competition as much as anything else in this country of fishpondism.

Court Detectors: The Gozo law courts now have new detectors following the appalling stabbing attack that involved among others my childhood friend Kevin Mompalao. It is ridiculous that this kind of event has to happen before the obvious – such as the installation of a metal detector is put into place. Having said that, once the detectors WERE put into place it is rather useless to complain that they were formerly used at the courts in Malta as though this makes them bad metal detectors. It seems they were only removed since they could not cope with the flow of persons at the courts in Malta. Unless I am mistaken the courts in Gozo do not exactly deal with the same number of “clients” daily. Also, much of the agitation by the lawyers in Gozo stank of political manipulation. Justyne Caruana would do better to call for better ethical screening of some lawyers who practice regularly in Gozo and run on the Labour ticket. Who knows maybe she should start asking questions how a lawyer ends up owning property that used to belong to clients he “represented” or for example how he might decide to ignore the legal institute of curatorship. They are legitimate questions – based on the respect of the law that we are all trumpeting about. Go ahead Justyne… start that kind of campaign and I’ll back you on that one.

Reforms: I was asked to take a look at the Draft Administrative Code that is presently before out committee for legal reform in Parliament chaired by the Hon. Franco Debono. This Draft symbolises all that is wrong with the current wave of ambitious reforms. This is not the forum to even begin to discuss what is wrong with the “code”. The weakness of the legal drafting is only the tip of the iceberg. The administrative code nibbles away at crucial principles of our legal system while purporting to replace them. Are we really contemplating this kind of shoddy legislation simply because one MP decided to make much noise? While we can understand how the man in the street can be appeased with talk about efficient legislation right after a bitching session about the state of the courts, length of court cases and cost of lawyers bills surely the legal minds of this nation have not been flummoxed into submission to accept anything that has been thrown into the playground of toys for ambitious reformists?

That Constitutional: I followed with interest the tennis match between Giovanni Bonello and Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici with regards to the issue of declarations of unconstitutionality by the courts of Malta. In a very small nutshell this is what they were saying: Judge Bonello implies that whenever a court decides that applying a law to the facts before it would be unconstitutional then that law should automatically be null and void. He adds that such a law should not require a parliamentary intervention for it to be rendered void thenceforth – the law would become null and void erga omnes. Judge Mifsud Bonnici on the other hand has argued that the nullity is only with regards to the facts before the court and that the law is not automatically rendered void. For what it matters J’accuse is in full agreement with the GMB version – particularly because the wording of our constitution is quite clear using the terms “to the extent of the inconsistency”.

Having said that what is truly worrying is that this kind of debate is played out on a newspaper. We do not have any serious fora for non-partisan discussion on legal developments. It is definitely a shortcoming of the faculty of laws. It is also the result of the lack of continuing education among us lawyers who prefer to concentrate on the more profitable sides of the profession. A direct consequence of this is that the biggest “academic” interests in the laws are usually intrinsically linked to professional interests. Drafting of laws – even special (especially special) laws – will inevitably end up in the hands of those lawyers who have a direct interest in the outcome. Do not confuse specialist with direct interest. The reason that the rules relating to parliamentary representation, interpretation of parliamentary procedure and the issues of separation of powers have taken on a downward spiral is because the “lawyers” busy dabbling with these laws are those who have a direct interest in the results: polticians.

Discussing this kind of legal issues and reforms on the Times and Xarabank is not exactly encouraging for the future. Kudos, by the way, to Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri for his clear unconditional explanation to the Times as to why he will not abet their efforts at sensationalising the courts and their work by replying to their queries.

 

That’s all for legal sunday.

Let the games begin

The festival of pre-summer eructation that are the European Championships will kick off at six this evening. As regular readers know, J’accuse has no real preference at national football level within the European sphere given how we were hooked onto the gold and green shirts of Brasil from a tender age. Thankfully the Olympic Football tournament will give us a chance to appreciate the likes of Neymar and Ganso but in the meantime there is this nuisance of a tournament to attempt to tickle the taste buds.

All eyes are on Poland and Ukraine. Not all eyes. Politicians are rushing to boycott the championships (the latest in line are Barroso et al) particularly because of the not too lovely record that Ukraine has with human rights and more particularly because the lady with pretzels around her head is still being ill-treated in jail. Eurovision had its Azerbaijan and Euro2012 has its Ukraine.

One of the biggest problems facing this years games is that old cliché of the “ugly head of racism”. The Dutch team warming up in Krakow was exposed to monkey chants by a group of Polish supporters. The official line of the ultra-democratic UEFA is that the chants were not racist but rather a protest against the fact that Krakow had not been awarded any of the matches. Sure. Monkey chants.

“Abba dabba dabba dabba dabba” said the Polish fan to the Dutch team. That’s fan talk for “we’ve got nothing against you it’s just that we’d have liked to hot a game or two in Krakow”. Pull the other one Michel. Platini has not been helping much either. He chided the great SuperMario Balotelli for having expressed his very natural thoughts on the whole business. Balotelli had not only said that he would walk out of a match should there be any monkey chants but also that he would kill a person who would perform such chanting.

Ok. The kill bit might be a bit over the top but surely Balotelli need not wait for a ref to work out the complicated formula that involves calculating when the level of monkey chanting and banana throwing outweighs the economic losses incurred by abandoning a match in a major UEFA tournament. We have a suggestion for Mario. Don’t walk out. Just sit down. Do a Drogba. Fly to the ground as though you have been struck by a sniper and stay down. Then when the physio is up and asks you what you want massaged say it’s your pride… because it’s being severely tested and risks major damage. We’re with Mario on this one.

Racism aside we also risk seeing a few extra boobs and I don’t mean blunders. The female activist group FEMEN is bound to make an appearance or two in order to protest against (1) prostitution, (2) spending money on the championships and (3) general lack of democracy. I wonder whether the betting companies have any odds on flashers running across stadia in the Ukraine with the policemen with funny hats running after them.

As for the football. Well. Enjoy the last vestiges of a competitive tournament. From next time (France 2016) 24 countries will qualify for the tournament. Given that there are 53 member associations in UEFA that practically means that almost half of the teams will qualify for the next event. How that will increase the quality of a tournament that gives us such exciting draws as “Poland – Greece” is beyond me. And this is someone who will eagerly watch a Serie B play-out or Serie C1 play-off match.

Expect more random thoughts on the Euros from J’accuse in the coming weeks. For specific attempts at chronicling fear and loathing in Maltese football support there is an interesting experiment going on over at Maltatoday with Wayne Flask. if anything it might make the Euro championship a bit more entertaining. (I DID say might).

Poussins et Ours (au Stade Josy Barthel)

Chez nous on nous apprend dès l’enfance à ne jamais compter les poussins avant que tous les œufs ne soient éclos. Cela n’est sans doute pas le cas partout – les équipes de foot ont d’ailleurs aussi de petites nuances. Chez vous il faudrait semble-t-il apprendre à ne jamais vendre la peau de l’ours avant de l’avoir tué.

Nous voilà alors à l’entrée du stade, quelque deux cent supporters de “l’une des plus mauvaises sélections européennes” (merci L’essentiel de nous le rappeler), vêtus de couleurs rouge, blanc et noir (rouge et blanc hérités des Normands francophones et la couleur noire, symbole de l’âge de chevalerie lorsque nous étions chargés de protéger l’Europe contre la menace étrangère).

Pleinement conscients de nos limites, nous chantons, fiers, l’hymne national. La fin de notre prière à Dieu céda la place à des cris et des hurlements de soutien. Nous sommes là à espérer l’éclosion des œufs … On ne sait jamais !!!

Les chasseurs d’ours sont là aussi. Ils sont censés être favoris dans ce combat Lilliputien. Et ils jouent chez eux, ne l’oublions pas ! Au classement FIFA l’équipe Maltaise figure 31 places en dessous de l’équipe luxembourgeoise, c’est l’“une des plus mauvaises sélections européennes”. A force de nous rappeler notre incompétence, ils risquent de réveiller l’ours qui dort en nous. Trente et un, c’est aussi la température moyenne à Malte.  C’est chaud !

C’est tellement chaud que les œufs commencent à éclore sous nos yeux. Et c’est le But! Notre moustique fantastique trouve l’entrée. Les chasseurs en perdent leur tête. Avant la mi-temps ils ne sont plus qu’à dix sur le terrain. Sans chef – pas question de tuer l’ours. Pour nous c’est le délire total. Et voilà que naquit un nouveau poussin. But! Encore Mifsud. C’est le tueur en série des chasseurs d’ours.

On y a cru, on a espéré mais il a fallu attendre que les œufs éclorent. Qui l’eût cru ? Nous, “l’une des plus mauvaises sélections européennes”, nous étions là à fêter la naissance de nos poussins. Et quand advient-il des chasseurs repartis bredouilles ?  Pas de victoire, pas de peau !!! Sans doute doivent-ils rembourser tous ces malheureux qui ont payé avant d’obtenir la peau.

À nous les poussins ! C’est l’essentiel…..