Category: Constitutional Development

Categories
Constitutional Development

Democracy Everywhere

indonesia_akkuzaJoseph Muscat’s positively progressive band of meritocratic men announce the scrapping of Local Council Elections as a cost cutting exercise and practically nobody other than the opposition bats an eyelid. Ah but the opposition is negative isn’t it? And we need to save money because this administration has turned the very business of government into an expensive enterprise by exploding the emoluments bill for the meritocratically selected mandarins that have been absorbed within its ranks (and thus artificially adjusting unemployment figures).

Muscat speaks so proudly of legislative reform and second republic and emancipation of younger voters but then takes a right royal crap on democratic representation. We should be used by now to his Carollian interpretation of all the mechanics of democratic representation and how the constitution really works. So long as the newspeak keeps the sheep happy.

Not so in the fourth most populous democracy in the world. An Islamic democracy to boot – with all the perceived connotations of a feeble grasp of how representation really work:

The Indonesian parliament voted to scrap direct elections for regional office-bearers early Friday — a decision that critics say is a step backward for democracy in the world’s fourth most populous nation and biggest Muslim-majority country.When Indonesians woke up to the news, many reacted with anger and fury. “A Democratic Betrayal,” read the Jakarta Globe headline on Friday. (TIME)

Indonesia must be replete with “negative thinkers” who are ready to pounce on and criticise a progressive and positive government. I am sure Muscat would have a word or two for the people gathering out of the Indonesian parliament: to protest the scrapping of local elections.

Wake up and smell the coffee indeed. Rather than hanging onto tired clichès about Simon Busuttil’s negativity, the electorate would do well to listen to the dangerous warning signals that he highlighted during the Independence Day speech. The erosion of a culture of democracy and democratic representation begins when the electorate is prepared to allow people like Muscat’s band to take them for a ride.

Scrapping local elections should never be on the cards. No excuse is good enough – particularly the ridiculous cost-cutting exercise that Muscat seems to be clinging to as a lame excuse.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

There Can Be Only One (Union)

union_akkuzaGordon Brown’s last minute appeal for Scottish voters to vote “No” in the referendum was the highlight of the campaign for me. It was not just that he seemed ever so passionate about the affair but also the reasoning that he gave as to why it was really “Better Together” that struck home home hard. Underlying his message was the assertion that voting against independence did not make anyone any less Scottish and that the identity and spirit could not only be hijacked by the Yes camp. Brown stressed that Scotland has always had a fundamental role in the building of the Union and that it can continue to proudly exist as a nation within such a Union. As one of the four nations.

His appeal also stressed that voting yes would be a vote that abandons Scotland’s crucial role of solidarity through which it has stuck to the Union through thick or thin and been a crucial part of the suffering as well as the achievements thereof. Sure, there may be a few tweaks to be made as to how power is divided and distributed within the Union – particularly to adapt to the modern day schizophrenic nation-state approach but there was much capital to be lost by abandoning the whole. Cliché it may be but “United We Stand” was really and truly hit home by Gordon Brown on that eve of the referendum final call.

Of course the referendum was not only about Gordon Brown – or Alex Salmond, or Alistair Darling. It was about a very defined people coming to terms about their chosen way of government. The stewardship of a sovereign people is at the heart of mechanisms of government and every Scot was being asked whether he preferred bearing the responsibilities of that stewardship alone – without depending or sharing such responsibility with other peoples. They risked abandoning the common path that had been trodden since the beginning of the 1700’s and going it alone.

The result has to be seen in this perspective too. The media hype on nationalistic sentiment as well as the hype and conspiracy theories about the subjugation to Westminster needed moderating in the sense that the Scots have (and will continue) to benefit from being in the Union. There were some telling signs from early figures in the polls. One of these was that middle and upper income voters were more likely to vote No and opt to stay in the Union. Which is rather interesting since if the myth that your average Scot would be richer and more comfortable through independence were true then the ones that would stand to gain the most (trickle down is just that, the drops trickle down but a huge part gets stuck around the waist) did not seem to be that convinced.

Without necessarily making it an issue of class, there could be some truth in the fact that the lower income brackets would be more easily persuaded by a nationalistic ticket accompanied by all the spiel of “get rid of the masters”, “stick two fingers up Westminster” and all that jazz. A young lass interviewed this morning claimed between one hiccup and another while wiping away her tears that “This vote condemns us to more austerity”. In a way it summed up the misunderstanding that somehow independence would shift Scotland into a vacuum utopia sealed away from the economic woes that has hit each and every nation in Europe.

Which brings me back to the “Better Together” theme plugged so passionately (and successfully) by Gordon Brown. In the run up to the referendum I had read an article that kicked off by reminding how kids in the Empire used to take pride in writing their address –  a representation of the concentric circles of society and power of which they formed part. It began with your house, your street, your town, your county, your nation, then United Kingdom, then Europe. Every step, every part of that concentric set of circles reflected a sense of belonging. Each and every step was  useful in its own way.

Scotland and the Scots has voted rather overwhelmingly to stay part of the Union. It is one of the “Home Nations” – a phrase that itself acknowledges the different national identities that form part of the whole. This vote is no threat to Scottish identity and national pride. Rather, it is a decision to continue to grow and function within a wider Union.

One last thing. The irony for the very pro-EU Scots is that the Union will be soon facing an in or out referendum of its own and they might be forced to follow a majority decision to get out of the EU much to their chagrin. What they can hope is that the UK electorate is made to understand the benefit of working in Union much the same way as the Scottish electorate understood this time round.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development

This State of Independence

independence_akkuzaThe festivities have begun in full earnest and Malta is soon to be proclaimed a 50 year old independent state. With the 50th anniversary we also get the reopening of the silly season. There’s a “let’s all love each other” approach by the two main parties – each proclaiming some kind of goodwill about what had hitherto been considered “the other’s” feast day. Yes, we have heard it all – over and over – Independence vs Republic vs Freedom day. Sometimes they throw in the 7th June 1919 for good measure but the heated debate had focused mainly on what are now being dubbed as the “three steps” that were necessary for Malta to become what it is.

To me someone like Muscat finally growing up and clamoring that “Independence day is a feast for all Maltese” is nothing that warms the cockles of the heart. Just because the red tribe of the Maltese jungle suddenly sees the light and begins to faintly understand the meaning behind an achievement as important as independence in the birth of a nation does not mean that we have to stand up and applaud. At most we could sigh in relief as one does when a toddler finally grasps the idea that one plus one does equal two and gives up on the horrible insistence that one plus one can equal carrot. We would sigh in relief were we not also convinced that this sudden show of magnanimous understanding and one-ness is not another show of the Taghna Lkoll style: tanto fumo niente arrosto.

How they applauded Muscat at the unveiling of the Guido De Marco memorial. “Did you hear him? He actually praised Guido. Oh Such a great Prime Minister have we.” Really? What was the alternative? Are we to clap because Muscat had the temerity to call a spade a spade? What kind of rubbish is that?

Now we have the clips being propagated by the National Festivities Commission. Independence is described and couched within terms of a series of steps that unite us. Insultingly it is put on the same pedestal as that humungous farce that is Freedom Day or Jum il-Helsien. This insistence on celebrating that non-event is incredibly naive and ridiculous. It is as though a future government were to begin to celebrate the end of the Beach Concession that the Powers of Brangelina have over Mgarr ix-Xini. Freedom from Brangelina Day could have its own kitsch monument on the beach complete with mini-Hollywood memorial.

In the legal and political growth of a nation there is no greater achievement than the assertion of self-government and sovereignty. That is what the 21st of September 1964 is all about. If you still harbour any doubts about how important a step this is then ask a Scot who will be voting tomorrow on the very issue of independence. Nobody is asking the Scots who they want as formal head of state (it will probably be Bess as Queen of Scots), nobody is getting het up about whether it will be a Scottish Republic. It will be an independent Scotland that can negotiate (or maintain) its status as a member state of the EU – the independence step is more than enough for that.

In all probability an independent Scotland will have to negotiate the rental of one of its estuaries to the English army for the latter to keep its nuclear submarines in. Eventually, at a later date that rental agreement might end but I am sure no Scot will go clowning about yelling “Freedom” like some latter day cross between William Wallace and Dom Mintoff.

No. What around 50% of the Scots are aspiring for is Independence. There is a reason for that. Independence defines the birth of a nation. It puts it on the map as a nation among nations. Inter pares – among equals.

Sure, you can feel proud that at a later stage in the growth of the nation you felt it necessary to remove the house of the Windsors from the position of head of state of the nation and opted for a president that would represent the people instead. Constitutionally though, the big change had long happened. Ridding ourselves of Bess Queen of Malta and opting for Marie Louise President of the People is a cosmetic change that alters little on the world stage. It’s not about party pique but about education and historical relevance. let’s face it, the switch from Constitutional Monarchy to Republic in 1974 was not exactly your storming of the Bastille business in 1789… to deny that would be to ignore historic truths: and that only serves ha’penny historians and the sweet sweet luvvy duvvy propaganda of this current lot.

Education, not fables and fantasies is what would make this nation stronger. Otherwise its all a load of balderdash.

 

Le Roi est mort! Vive le Roi!

Check out the Malta Independent’s vox pop among Cottonera residents.

Post by Ġensna.
Categories
Citizenship Constitutional Development Politics

Ugly Heads

ugly_akkuzaRacism. It’s a dirty word. In the past seven days there seems to have been some form of virus in the air spreading dirty thoughts across the globe. The latest manifestation came in sporting events. First there was the Diego Alves incident. Barcelona’s colourful (an unfortunate word in these circumstances but I mean spirited) winger was getting ready to hit a corner in their match against Villareal when a banana was thrown from the stands. It is a not too intelligent and unironic insult that is common among the less evolved quarters of football “supporters”. Along with the monkey calls, the banana is the unfunny provocation (are you provocating me?) that yells “You are black therefore you are monkey”.

To Alves’ credit he did not only brush the manifestation of crass stupidity aside, he proceeded to pick up the banana and eat it before contributing to Barcelona’s turnaround victory against a banana coloured Villareal team. Unfortunately the beautiful game is often tainted with this kind of racist inspired taunts (remember Boateng last summer?). Surprisingly this week we also had news of similar dirty thoughts coming from – of all places – the black dominated NBA. The sport of LeBron and Jordan  hit the headlines for the wrong reasons when a phone call by the owner of the LA Clippers was leaked by his girlfriend to the press. It turns out that he did not want her to come to games in the company of African-Americans.

Donald Sterling (for such is the intelligent beings’ name) provoked a huge backlash to the point of getting a comment straight from President Obama that is destined to become a classic: “When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t really have to do anything, you just let them talk. That’s what happened here.”  Barack, you’re so right.

It is ignorance that is at the root of intolerance. It is intolerance that is at the root of racism. In these times when democracy and democratic rights are being savagely banalised by the onslaught of relativism and populism the ugly heads of racism and intolerance are easily raised. We read in Malta about immigrants having to ask Maltese to “hail buses” because otherwise the driver would not stop for them. Ignorance. At its ugliest and worst. Rosa Parks would have a hard time in Malta, trust me. She’d probably still be stuck in some village police station on her 200th hour of “police questioning”. “What do you mean you refused to sit in the black section? There is a law you know.”

There are warning signs everywhere. Intolerance does not stop at racism on the basis of colour. In the Russian-majority areas of the Ukraine we had calls for a register of Jews. Even if we ignored the maladroit comments by Berlusconi about the Germans and concentration camp we would still have to admit that the current European Parliament campaign is unfortunately infused with not so subtle reasoning based on mistrust of the foreigner – a revived intolerance that the Europe of the universal declaration of rights was supposed to have buried long ago. (see also the recent outrage in the UK following a UKIP candidate’s comments).

Recently I learnt that the story that Adolf Hitler snubbed Jesse Owens during the Berlin Olympics was a myth. Owens himself explained that Hitler had actually taken an “official” decision not to congratulate any of the medal winners after he was told on the first day that he could not simply congratulate German medal winners. Hitler did not snub Owens. It turns out that he actually shook hands with Owens on the day before leaving the stadium.

Owens said he was treated better in Germany than in America where blacks faced segregation. Sometimes, the sources of intolerance and racism are to be found where we least expect it.

Categories
Constitutional Development

United Civics

From the moment you step off the plane and go through the average two and a half hours of immigrant screening attrition at whatever “port of call” you have reached you begin to realise that the United States of America is a rather peculiar entity that will be hard to emulate for any newborn federation in the future. Admittedly the chances of a similar structure finding its roots in the Old Continent are currently wallowing at their lowest and the surge of nationalism and mistrust of supranational entities goes no small way to creating such an infertile ground.

Looking at the US from the inside though you begin to notice that there is a clear distinction between what would be described as nationalist sentiment and culture in Europe on the one hand, and the allegiance to the national democratic system and structure on the other. You see it on a daily basis. There was no better way to experience this than an early evening stroll through (the safer part of) Williamsburg in Brooklyn. Passing by a pharmacy with a distinctly Italian name I overheard a conversation between a couple of young brats which was more of a verbal sparring match as to the veracity of their Italianite ethnicity.

“You’re not a Caprese, you’re married into the Capreses” sounded like a minor stain on the curriculum vitae of the recipient of this tirade. “I’m as Italian as you guys, no doubt” was the feeble reply. A few blocks down the local parish had an Easter ceremony in full swing. I recognised the rite from my days as an altar boy, only there now seemed to be quite a few altar girls too all dressed up for the occasion. “Ca existe encore? Les enfants de choeur?” quizzed my Belgian travel mates. Apparently these traditions and cultural stamps survived longer in Brooklyn than in Liege and Bruxelles.

Whenever you interact in New York you inevitably end up talking ethnicity and origin. A bona fide New Yorker will sell you the tickets to Woodbury Common but he’ll proudly tell you that he is Ghanaian “et c’est pour ca qu’il parle francais“. Equally bona fide (read that bonafied if you want to sound American) is the security guy posted at Times Square. Equally proud of being of West african descent. How many times did I hear “sei Italiano?” on my trip – in an attempt to find a common cultural ground from which to embark on social niceties.

Walk through Chinatown and you get to understand how you can live in the US as a fully grafted export of any world culture. You live, eat, enjoy and speak your own nationality, food, traditions and language. Don’t even get me started on the Latino. It’s all over the place.

And yet there is a beautiful symbiotic conviviality going on. You cannot miss the multiple expressions of allegiance – to the civic structure that surrounds. The Americans have turned the law into a fine art to the point of being finicky. Everything is calculated by entitlement in this nation that was founded on a Bill of Rights. The formula is weird but works fantastically. So when you do stand up at the Yankee Stadium (Ladies and Gentlemen please rise and take off your hats for the national anthem) you understand how the glue that keeps together so many differences is all in the patriotic pride enshrined in a democratic system of rule of law.

It’s how the slightly irritating habits of the multiple ethnicities become a reality. It’s how they can forget about still being Italian, Puerto Rican, German, Ghanaian, Kenyan, Spanish the moment the first notes are played. It’s how they forged an error-riddled system that works.

It’s how this becomes the land of the free and the home of the brave.

 

Categories
Constitutional Development Values

The Justice Dispensers

justice_akkuza

The Supreme Court building in New York sports a quote spread along its facade. Attributed to George Washington it states “The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government”. There are many other quips in similar vein that can be formed into a digest of civic education necessary to form a Havel-inspired backbone of society. “We are servants of the law so we may be free”, “everybody is equal in the eyes of the law” and “justice must not only be done but also seen to be done” are but a tiny sampler of a hypothetical dispenser of sayings related to the role of justice in forming a strong backbone of society.

The onset of relativism in Malta, poisoned as it was with strong doses of populism and twisting of truths in order to benefit whatever half of the population was being courted, has had a devastating effect on our concept of administration of justice and its dispensation. The institutional (constitutional) set up intended to be a fine machinery with which laws would be discussed, promulgated and implemented has been the main victim of the spread of the malaise of relativism and once the mother of all populist and relativist movements plonked itself in the seat of “power” the inevitable happened.

It began slowly. The “fairness” of justice was (rightly) made a subject of debate. Nothing wrong there, especially since society has a way of revising its concept of justice and mores on a regular basis. The problem begins when the proper channels for the revision of laws and finally the dispensation of justice are bypassed in the name of some relativist concept of fairness that operates plainly outside the codebook. There is no legal certainty, no legitimate expectation – simply an unpredictable machine churning out populist edicts as becomes the popular call of the moment. The erosion happens quick and fast by eradicating any concept of merit, of just deserts and introducing a volatile idea of “fairness” (at least perceived).

This is a society that will now reward failures (repeaters at University will still receive their stipend). This is a government that, without any legal foundation, decides to create a blanket amnesty to 1,500 persons who are blatantly accomplices in the crime of theft of public property. The example this sets is an abomination to any aspirations of a just society. The transparent reasoning behind it all – notwithstanding all the faffle from the respective Ministers and PM – is that most of these people would form part of the disgruntled who complained about the price of electricity. Those disgruntled had thrown their weight behind the current government – no wonder they suddenly find a reprieve whisked out of thin air.

Under this government though we have been told that if you consider a tax or a cost to be unfair then you are perfectly within your rights to try and avoid paying it. Committing a crime to do so is perfectly kosher – this is thegovernment that supposedly rewards Robin Hoods. There is no sense in all this other than the distortion of justice for political mileage.

“We cannot expect people to have respect for law and order until we teach respect to those we have entrusted to enforce those laws.” – Hunter S. Thompson.