Politics

The charm offensive ?

So Simon Busuttil, il-wiċċ taz-zokkor, is now officially deputy leader of the nationalist party. The last person to really care so much about the post of deputy leader must have been Guido De Marco (bless his soul) and probably that was because the post meant so much to him in terms of the position that he never obtained – that of leader of the party and prime minister of a nation. De Marco was a giant figure in Maltese politics and his political career outshone whatever disappointments he may have felt with regard to the failure to become Prime Minister – if anything Guido gave added value to the post of deputy leader.

Let’s face it. How often have we even taken any notice of the nationalist party’s deputy leader and his role within the party? Before all the hullabaloo of the Busuttil vs Fenech contest can you really honestly say that anybody anywhere gave two hoots about who sat at the right hand of Lawrence Gonzi? Look at Labour, they had a sort of big deal about their triumvirate until the two deputies became too embarrassing to flaunt and they too were relegated to token appearances. But back to the PN. The post of deputy leader was as effective as that of receptionist at Dar Centrali. In the past the PN has been all about Leader, Secretary-General and a distant third would be the President of the Party. But deputy leader? Who?

But now we have Simon. And it behoves the nationalist party’s poll ratings that Simon’s ascendancy to the deputy leadership becomes the greatest deal this Christmas. If necessary, he’s got to be bigger than Santa Claus. Jesus even (with apologies to the Beatles).

Fresh Sweep

The election for the post had been billed, for good reason, as a battle between old and new. Simon banked on the idea of change while  Tonio backed by the old guard and all the cabinet but one was the symbol of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The glossators of the PN school of thought tried to play down this dichotomy but no amount of dampening could hide the fact that this was just that – old guard vs fresh babyface.

Not that Busuttil did anything to hide this aspect of his election. Speaking to the press and at first meetings he has described his election as “renewal” and his mission as “regaining of trust”. There would be nothing to renew if there was not an element of mustiness and passé feeling around the current batch of PN exponents. You would not speak of “regaining trust” without implicitly acknowledging that this has been lost – and we all know where the fingers are being pointed. So yes, Simon’s election included the admission of the problems that the current strand of GonziPN is facing. They had to.

So far so good. Simon Busuttil, the champion of new and change trounced Fenech at the voting counter by garnering two-thirds of the vote of PN’s councillors. A message had been “sent” also to the cabinet old guard. What next though? What is this “charm offensive” all about?

What change?

Let us begin with the obvious. As we stated earlier the post of deputy leader is quite a cameo role. It has been for a long time and the first question to ask is “What clout does Simon Busuttil have as deputy leader?” On the one hand he has to fit in and “work with others”. There’s the party leader who cannot be seen as too weak himself – so Simon will speak about “working in tandem”. He speaks of combining Gonzi’s experience with his. His what exactly? Apart from the smiles and monotone affirmations of his will to change what does Simon bring to the PN? He has already been part of the “listening exercise” – having exalted the “MYChoice” and “MyVoice” experiences as being useful. Is that enough?

Simon has rebuffed Debono, Mugliette and JPO so thankfully his early entreaties to reconciliation have been banished to the bin. What will he do to win the trust of the voters? Will Simon only serve as a dilution of the GONZIPN trademark in order to save the PN from the negative connotations that the GonziPN brand has come to mean? Politically – policy wise – Simon does not seem to think that any form of change is necessary. His emphasis in the message to voters is simply that they cannot abandon a team that works: “if you do not want to put all our achievements in jeopardy – and that includes achievements in jobs, health and education – then please put your trust back in the Nationalist party“.

So what change exactly? Apparently Simon puts his finger on the issue of arrogance. It would seem that the polls within the Dar Centrali are pointing to arrogance as the number one problem within the PN. It goes like this… the policies are ok, the system is working (no matter how much Labour depicts a failing economy and country)… all we need to change are the arrogant bunch of bastards who have been there for too long. Enter Simon, il-wiċċ taz-zokkor, and he will give the machine a new wrapping. Do you think I am hallucinating? Really? How about this gem from the horse’s mouth (speaking at Tarxien PN Club on Sunday):

“People say they want change, but of faces, not of policies or results. People are happy with those. And we’re giving them exactly that,” he said.

Provare per credere – as the Italians would say. Unless Simon was misquoted by Bertrand Borg of the Times we have quite an “admission” on our hands. On the other hand you cannot fault him for thinking that way. Tonio Fenech’s budget was so good that even Labour want to adopt it. The Labour alternative insofar as economic planning is concerned is an absolute mess – just look at the abysmal performance of the Vella-Scicluna-Mangion triumvirate at the press conference. So the people want change because they are bored with the current batch? Let’s give them change – we’ll give them new faces.

Only that Simon is banking on a new army of what he calls “high-calibre” candidates that are the product of the same system of vetting that gave the nationalist party Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliette. You just have to look at the posturing of Austin Gatt’s minion Manuel Delia (last seen speaking about “intelligent transport systems” as though Arriva was a nightmare that happened to others) to see that Simon’s “new faces” are not all that tip-top as he is gearing them up to be.

In buona sostanza

And finally substance. There’s the whole business of the liberal democrat orphans that might need to be addressed. The last in a series of budgets might have been criticised for being too gracious with the haves and too little for the have nots but there is an uncanny consistency in the PN economic model that is far from being negative. Notwithstanding the political rollercoaster caused by the one-seat majority, Gonzi’s PN has managed to steer in a clear direction economic crisis notwithstanding. Budget measures and incentives remain strongly family-centred (as always) and the business model is based on give and take (to qualify for incentives you are expected to invest) which is not all that bad given the scenario. Apart from the energy fiasco you could also find it in yourself to accept a graduated approach to the utility bills.

Having said all that the social rights issues remain GonziPN’s weak point. Their association with the conservative agenda (or opting for it) means that they risk abandoning a part of what hitherto has been an important contribution to bulking up their mass of vote. They may still be lucky that such voters as give priority to their social issues (censorship, gay rights, lay model society, criminal law reform) are unable to put their vote where their mouth is. GonziPN + Simon will still bank on the endgame played out on the eve of an election – It’s either us or them (them being Labour – AD don’t count).

What with all the talk about change and European Values, Simon has failed to hint whether his “change” will also include a rapprochement with the liberal elements that have until now served to beef up that crucial vote. I doubt very much this will happen this time round because Simon probably believes that between changing faces, a bumbling opposition and a few overtures of trust and openness (known colloquially as bżar fl-għajnejn) PN might once again snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Sadly, the charm offensive might prove just right and the PN will have forfeit an opportunity for real change.

Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi.

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (II) – In-* Tagħna

Mela Tonio issa sar Kummissarju Ewropew u s-Saħħa għandha prominenza kbira fil-portfoll tiegħu. Id-dagħdiha u skambju ta’ kliem bejn elementi liberali u konservattivi laħqet il-quċċata tal-attiża nhar l-interrogatorju parlamentari tal-kummissarju deżinjat sabiex ftit wara waqqhet fuq fommha meta għadda mill-eżami tal-vot. Tħallu lil ħadd jitnejjek bikom. Il-proċess ta’ skrutinju innifsu kien neċessarju u leġittimu – biss biss a bażi tal-pożizzjonijiet li kien ħa Tonio Borg meta kien għadu politiku f’Malta. Jekk wieħed jinsa għal mument l-ammont kbir ta’ informazzjoni bażwija li iddawret dwar il-konservatiżmu Malti xorta waħda jifdallu ħafna fuq x’hiex jagħrbel dwar Tonio Borg u l-potenzjal tiegħu.

Tonio jirrapreżenta element politiku importanti fil-qofol Malti. Huwa element politiku li inbena tul iż-żmien reazzjonarju demokristjan waqt il-perijodu tal-gvern soċjalista fis-sebgħinijiet. F’dak iż-żmien id-determinazzjoni u viżjoni demokristjana kienet tinvolvi għanijiet ċari li ma jistgħux jiġu sempliċement diminwiti fi kristallizzazzjoni tas-suq ħieles u liberta. Xogħol, ġustizzja, liberta u ftit wara solidarjeta ma kienux għadhom saru il-munita dgħajfa jew “catchwords” li drajna bihom illum. Kienu sisien sodi għal pjan soċjali ġdid wara l-falliment tas-soċjaliżmu a-la-carte Mintoffjan. Kellha tkun soċjeta illi wieħed iħossu kburi li jifforma parti minnha u li jista jaspira għal (kwalita ta) ħajja aħjar.

Tonio kellu sehem f’dak il-moviment. Dak il-moviment wasal biex għaraf ir-rieda (u l-bżonn) ta’ sħubija fil-proġett Ewropew u kien parti fondamentali (iżda mhux unika) sabiex din il-ħolma isseħħ. Post Malta fl-Ewropa, ma’ l-Ewropej. Ma kienx hemm dubju. Issa u mhux imbagħad. Fuq dak ma kienx hemm dubju lanqas. Imma l-ġgant tal-libertajiet qisu tnikker u ddewwed u mal-ewwel ħjiel ta’ diskors usa’, mal-ewwel bżonn ta’ elaborazzjoni tal-għanijiet soċjali sabiex il-“just society” tolqot iktar nies u drittijiet – qisu bħal donnu beża. U kellna l-ewwel trasformazzjoni. Minn ġo Malta imsieħba fl-Ewropa żammejna sod ma “tradizzjonijiet” u “valuri” Maltin mingħajr ma azzardajna inħarsu jekk kellhomx bżonn xi aġġornament.

Il-partit li jridha li xpruna il-poplu fl-Ewropa sar l-istess wieħed li tella barrieri u ħitan biex mhux l-Ewropa kollha tidħol għax mhux kollox jgħodd. Għalhekk Tonio ma ħeliex wisq ħin qabel ma beda jikkwota trattati u eċċezzjonijiet. “Iva” stħajjiltu jgħidilhom, “ħaddanna l-Ewropa imma l-ewwel u qabel kollox inħaddnu l-prinċipji tagħna… erm tiegħi”. Hekk qalilhom fil-fatt. Hemm kompetenzi u kompetenzi u mhux kull ma hu fl-Ewropa se jidħol f’Malta. U din kienet tweġġa aktar minn kull metamorfosi li seta’ kien hemm bejn Tonio ta’ Malta għal Tonio ta’ l-Ewropa.

Tweġġa’ għax kienet ammissjoni fil-miftuħ li l-mod ta’ kif il-ġenerazzjoni reazzjonarja tas-sebgħinijiet qiegħdin jiffaċċaw il-pass li jmiss huwa wieħed difensiv u magħluq. Malta tagħna u timxi bil-pass li rridu aħna. Ma hemmx diskussjoni. Ma hemmx ftuħ għal utopja ta’ djalogu u sinteżi ta’ ideat. Tiftakruha l-Ewropa ta’ Kajjin u Abel? Kajjin u Abel ilhom li telqu… imma minflokhom għandna l-Ewropa ta’ Malta u l-Ewropa l-oħra.

Tonio komdu jiffirma li se joqgħod għal li jgħidulu – anki jekk b’xi mod tmur kontra l-kuxjenza u valuri tiegħu stess. Kellu jiffirma inkella kien jibqagħlu dubju jgħadduħx fil-klabb tal-Ewropej. Eddie Fenech Adami – missier id-demokristjani reazzjonarji tat-tmeninijiet qallu li kieku ma kienx jiffirma. Kien ikun iktar konsistenti Eddie – għallinqas hekk naħsbu aħna. Għax Tonio b’għemilu u b’ħidmietu baqa jsaħħaħ l-inkwiet li għandna. Li verament għandna żewġ “Ewropa” – dik tal-Maltin u dik li Tonio tant ħabrek biex daħal fiha issa.

 

L-Ewropa ta’ Toni u Fred (I)

Xtaqt nibda billi inkellimkom dwar Tariq Ramadan. Huwa doċenti universitarju ġewwa l-universita ta’ Oxford fejn huwa professur ta’ l-istudji iżlamiċi kontemporanji (Kulleġġ ta’ St Antony ġewwa l-istitut ta’ l-istudji orjentali). Ramadan ma hux biss professur universitarju għax hu ukoll persunalita medjatika bi preżenza qawwijja fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir dinjija (mis-CNN sa Al-Jazeera sa TV Iranjani) fejn sikwit ikun preżenti jiddiskuti l-islam fis-soċjeta kontemporanja – b’mod partikolari fis-soċjeta ewropea.  Ħafna misilmin Ewropej iħossu li Ramadan huwa rappreżentant den tal-kawżi u drittijiet tagħhom.

Jekk tfittex ismu fuq youtube issib ħafna interventi tiegħu f’dibattiti u programmi televiżivi u personalment insib li huwa tajjeb li wieħed josserva dawn l-interventi tiegħu biex ikollok perspettiva differenti ta’ kif persuna ta’ twemmin li ma hix nisranija (s’issa t-twemmin dominanti Ewropew) tħabbat wiċċa ma sitwazzjonijiet fejn il-prinċipji, valuri u morali tagħha ikollhom jinsiltu minn ġo soċjeta li trid jew ma tridx kull ma jmur qed issir iktar u iktar eteroġeneja. Ara per eżempju dan il-vidjo qasir:

F’sens liberal-demokratiku ma tistax ma taqbilx mal-konklużjoni kemmxejn relativista ta’ Ramadan. “Live and let live” tinstema soluzzjoni tajba ħafna għall-għawġ kollu imma ikun hawn min jgħidlek (bir-raġun) illi s-sinsla tradizzjonali tal-Ewropa qed jitherrew b’dak il-mod. Tħarsux biss lejn kwistjoni ta’ omosesswalita. Rajt lil Ramadan jiddiskuti l-obbligu tal-velu u d-dritt li nisa misilmin jilbsu il-velu anki fil-pixxini pubbliċi. Ħin minnhom waqt li kien qed jiġi interpellat b’mod pjuttost vivaċi minn ġurnalista qalilha ħaġa li għalijja kienet familjari ħafna. Qal: “Allura biex inkunu liberali u tolleranti b’bħalek irridu nobbligaw lil kullħadd jgħum mingħajr velu?” Hemm hi. Arma komuni dan l-aħħar, nasba li taqbad lill-liberali dgħajjef fl-argumenti imma ferventi fil-proselitizzazzjoni… bl-iskuża tat-tolleranza jispiċċa isir iktar intolleranti.

Imbagħad jgħidlek Tariq li l-Lhud kienu ilhom għexieren ta’ snin bil-ħinijiet differenti għan-nisa filgħodu fil-pixxini pubbliċi imma “ħadd ma qajjem għagħa fuqha”. U jidħlu elementi oħra ta’ tipi oħra ta’ diskriminazzjoni u ta’ tolleranza u l-kobba tibqa titħabbel.

Fil-verita il-kwistjoni qiegħdha f’għażla ta’ soċjeta. Il-kuntratt soċjali impliċitu jimplika qbil fuq tip ta’ soċjeta li trid titfassal. Diskussjonijiet dwar normi u valuri li huma neċessarji għas-soċjeta għandhom jitqiegħdu f’dan il-qafas iktar wiesgħa. X’irridu mis-soċjeta tagħna? Fejn hi sejra bħalissa? B’liema valuri irridu inrawmu lit-tfal? Jekk trid eżempji estremi issib kemm trid bħall-iSpartani antiki li kellhom sistema tagħhom ta’ l-ewġenika. Trid soċjeta li tindokra lil membri tagħha jew waħda li toħloq biss il-“level playing field” utopiku biex imbagħad titlaq lil kullħadd f’tellieqa?

Din id-diskussjoni (u għażla) ma ssirx biss meta tinħoloq soċjeta ġdida b’għanijiet ġodda iżda hija waħda kontinwa. L-irwol ta partiti politiċi u membri tagħhom huwa li jkunu katalisti f’din id-diskussjoni. Li qed jiġri hu li l-valuri u prinċipji tilfu l-importanza tagħhom u saru sekondarji għat-tellieqa għall-poter. Wisq drabi ikollhom isiru kompromessi tal-kuxjenza (jekk ikun għad baqa kuxjenza) u kull ma jmur d-diskussjoni formattiva – dik li ssawwar is-sisien li fihom titrawwem is-soċjeta ma hix qiegħdha issir. Issir biss metadiskussjoni b’dak li jissejħu “catchwords” illi huma tifkira imbiegħda (souvenir) ta’ żmien ieħor meta l-valur kien sovran u l-bniedem kien verament uman – verament umanista.

Diskussjoni ma hix ġlieda biex timponi jew tolleranza relativista li iddgħajjef imma proċess soċjali meditattiv u ta’ żvilupp li jwassal għat-tisħiħ tal-membri kollha a prescindere mit-twemmin u ħsieb individwali tagħhom. Allura iva, meta Tonio Borg iqum fil-parlament u jħeġġeġ lill-membri kollha sabiex “iħaddnu t-twemmin tagħhom” huwa mhux biss xieraq imma neċessarju. Imma dak huwa l-ewwel pass biss. Li tagħraf li twemminek ma hux universali u li tkun lest tiddiskuti, tinvestiga u tistħarreġ l-aħjar mezz kif bi twemminek u forsi ukoll bl-input ta’ twemmin ħaddieħor ittejjeb il-qagħda soċjali huwa t-tieni pass.

Dak il-pass kif se naraw ma hux ħafif. Huwa pass mimli riflessjonijiet, ftuħ għal ideat u iva… fejn hemm bżonn… kompromessi.

 

Conscience, liberally speaking

François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.

The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.

What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).

Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.

You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.

***

So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.

At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):

“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”

Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.

***

Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.

The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.

***

21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.

 

So it shall be done…

Simon says, Tonio does

The contest for Tonio Borg’s seat is giving us another very interesting glimpse into the workings of the nationalist party. Lawrence Gonzi believed that a contest would be healthy for the party, that still remains to be seen. The impression we get is that no matter how united a front the two candidates will show before the media (and the united grilling of Joseph Muscat is an example of that) this is a battle that has inevitably reopened old scars and divides within the decision making bodies of the PN. This kind of battle would have been postponed to after the election. Instead it will be held right on the eve of an election almost contemporaneously with one of the latest budgets in Maltese history. Did you say healthy Lawrence?

Simon Busuttil. The (relatively) young lawyer is supposed to be the breath of fresh air that is much needed by the PN. Like Obama he has invested much of his campaign in the concept of “change”. Unlike Obama he has a habit of hitting obvious bumps as his strategy unfurls – not the best sign for a future leader. He started with the big bump with regards to Franco Debono et al. The doors are always open he said. That made him sound like Joseph Muscat at the start of his leadership – a bit of a contradiction really because it is (Inhobbkom) Joseph’s openness that led to the PN criticism of his new team (cue billboards). It also turns out that Simon had voted against Franco’s interests in the original vote at PN HQ – which makes his appeal for inclusion sound a bit superficial.

Simon’s strong point seems to be media coverage. He is everywhere – and even gets weird boosts such as when (Greek PM) Samaras barged into an interview in order to tell a stunned Times interviewer that Simon is the best MEP. It is not clear whether the “too good” image of babyface Busuttil is sellable as leadership material in the future – I am sure the polls will help in that respect. It is one thing garnering votes on the basis of expertise in a field that has been plugged to kingdom come (viz EU) and another to suddenly become the all round politician – warts and all.

The latest forays by Simon Busuttil make a very interesting read. Judging by some media reports he seems to have been the first PN politician to give a clear indication of a time-frame for both budget and elections. Was this on purpose? Did he pull the carpet from under both the Finance Minister’s legs and the PM’s? It is no small detail that the Finance Minister happens to be his rival in the upcoming deputy leader showdown.

In the same interview on TVAM, Simon Busuttil told viewers that he was writing the new PN manifesto and that he had also written the 2008 manifesto. Where do I begin? Let me start from the end. It is ever so easy to own up for the writing of what ended up to be a winning manifesto. Nothing was mentioned of Simon Busuttil’s role in 2008 so why should we hear of it now? The only reason we can think of is for Simon Busuttil to pin the  medal of the 2008 victory firmly to his chest as being his own. Not that the manifesto had much to do with the victory did it?

Which is another interesting point. Does Simon really want to arrogate to himself the ugly baggage of PN2008? Did he form part of that strategy team that called the shots with regards to the JPO lies and the anything goes philosophy that lumped us with this rainbow value government for five years? What does that say about change?

Which brings me to the now. Simon says that he is writing this year’s manifesto. The most obvious reaction has been universal: so it’s not just Aaron Farrugia and Karmenu Vella who are late with their homework? And then a myriad questions more. Such as is this Simon’s manifesto? What about all the dialogue and consultation? What values will Simon’s imprint leave on the manifesto? We’ll need another blog post just to see the implications of this decision. One thing that we hope is that Simon is a little more creative with his slogans – from Obama’s “Change” to Sarkozy’s “Together everything is possible” there seems to be no end to the amount of leeching going on.

Also with regards to this point, the day after Simon had announced his authoring of this election’s manifesto, PM Gonzi sat at his computer for a Q&A session with voters in order to listen to their suggestions. Was this another case of Simon grabbing the limelight?

At this point we can only measure Simon by these “moves”. His novel, clean act might be just what certain disgruntled PN voters will look forward too. The danger is that it is a thinly constructed mask that counts too much on being pleasant and that continues to drag the PN into the field of ambiguity, much in the same way as Joseph Muscat has done with the PL and its non-agenda.

Tonio Fenech on the other hand is fast proving to be the champion of the old guard. His nomination to the contest was a statement in itself – getting 136 endorsements compared to Simon’s 26. The Minister carries a difficult portfolio to sell and is also responsible for the budget – which Simon reminded us that Tonio is writing. He is definitely tied to the conservative wing of the PN and is less of an agent of change than Simon Busuttil in that respect. In many ways, the vote that Tonio Fenech manages to garner within the PN council will be a clear indication of exactly what dose of change the PN wants. This is not only the result of Simon’s pitch for the “change” corner but also because Tonio Fenech has become one of the current government’s representatives of the “nothing’s really wrong” policy.

Therein lies quite a tough nut to crack. While Busuttil’s pitch seems to include an implicit admission that change is needed because not everything is right, Fenech’s pitch includes an element of continuity because “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Insofar as leadership qualities are concerned, Fenech too does not cut quite the imposing figure that we have come to expect of the nationalist party. Often in his impromptu interviews (not Q&A’s on a paper) he seems to be unable to keep his calm and manages to lose his nerve and become imprecise. Nothing that a few coaching sessions with the right people might not fix mind you but a telling factor just the same.

Round up

Elsewhere I have described the deputy leader race as an irrelevant distraction. In many ways I still stand by my original assertion. I still believe that the real race for posts within the PN will happen after the election should there be a Labour victory – and so far the polls seem to point in that direction. On the other hand, the gamble that is being made on this race might turn out to be an interesting weapon for the PN. First of all it allows them to gauge the feel of their own electorate. By creating a battle between two possible alternatives (and styles) the PN might be allowing their faithful to do the talking.

The distraction from the real election that is to come is minor, granted, but a distraction it remains. And now we also know that the race involves the two men who are responsible for two very important documents : the PN electoral manifesto and the budget. There is another point that cannot be overlooked: the PN is parading its assets with this race. This hits home hard to the undecided and the garrulous. For you see, while Simon Busuttil writes the PN electoral manifesto, the PL manifesto is written by … Aaron Farrugia and Karmenu Vella. Tonio Fenech is responsible for a financial situation that is winning plaudits from the Commission and the EU – while we still do not know how MuscatEconomy will work.

That simple contrast is more than enough to justify the collateral damage of a bit of resetting within the PN before the big war. Everybody seems to be writing something at this point and soon it will be time to produce the wares. Scripta manent indeed.

So it shall be written

It’s a juicy time for pundits out there. Try as they might to feign boredom and blame it on the infantile tactics that were manifested via the billboard wars commentators cannot ignore that the pre-election has entered an interesting phase thanks in no small amount to the sudden injection of life caused by Dalligate.

Of pigs and men

Tonio Borg’s grill-non-grill allowed us to revisit the debate about liberalism, progressivism and values. The fact that we are on the cusp of a national election does not help most of the political parties (I say most because AD are quite at ease with calling a spade a spade). The final judgement seems to be unanimous – Malta’s political scene is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, divided  along progressive vs conservative lines. The conclusion can be reached primarily because of the fact that party fidelity has proven time and again strong enough to trump any need to remove the cobwebs of value-ambiguity that the PLPN seem to be quite happy to nurture.

That your average voter does not think in terms of progressive vs conservative is an issue that is further complicated by the current battle raging about the true meaning of being liberal. It is as though the “real liberals” and the “faux liberals” cannot co-exist because of what are being described as the “wrong motives” of the “faux liberals”. A case in point is the issue of Tonio Borg where the “faux liberals” where accused of imposing their opinions on the Commissioner designate. In our view both sides are “sinning” of excessive zeal. On the one hand the “faux liberals” did fail to fact-check and went for the jugular without any chance of success.

On the other hand the criticism that I have just mentioned fails to consider that the main test for Tonio Borg is whether he is capable of not letting his personal opinions (those of Dr Borg) interfere with his work (that of Commissioner Borg). It’s not an irrelevant question and the seven extra commitments that have been asked of him only go to show how important it is.

They had to get them in writing, the commitments, because as the old latin adage goes .. verba volant, scripta manent….