Politics

Eppur' si muove…

These were the famously defiant words attributed by popular legend to Galileo. He was addressing the Pope shortly after being obliged to sign a recant of his theory that the earth spun around the sun. They are apt words today as the first news came out from the counting hall in MCC and as it gets closer to an official YES.

J’accuse’s preferred outcome for a referendum that should never have been seems to be winning with a 54%-46% result. For Malta’s voting pattern this is not far from being a resounding victory in a consultative referendum. The ball now passes to the politicians’ court.

We have to see now whether the PLPN dinosaurs will now shift given that they have a “popular” position that they can easily translate to a “populist” policy.

Austin Gatt and his like will have to think hard before moving on down the path of “conscientious” voting within the PN fold. Civic conscience would lead them to voting YES in favour of the bill. They have a condition they could exploit (the responsible divorce allows for some refining of the bill to ensure it is so) but they cannot escape the writing on the wall.

Joseph’s Labour might finally grow some balls. It is more likely to perform some logical somersault and suddenly switch to being pro-divorce as a party.It will be hard for Inhobbkoms party to do otherwise. If the parliamentary vote fails also thanks to conscience votes on Joseph’s side then the PL must bear the consequences.

The PM’s speech (now on NET) to the people seems to lean towards “respecting the will of the people”. In his statement he does mention that the parliament is obliged “biex ifassal ligi tal-maggoranza” – tfassal: to draft and to propose – is not the same as “jghaddi” or to actually pass the law.

PM Gonzi still mentions the respect of deputies who still believe that their conscience does not allow them to vote in favour of divorce. The hand washing is still there.

Will there be enough YES votes to carry the law in parliament? More importantly from a purely political point of view what will this vote tell us about the political parties and what baggage will they carry to the elections.

Austin Sammut’s first-hand analysis on NET tv just about sums it all up: “Il-free vote ghadu hemm”. They shot themselves in the foot long ago…. will they be mature enough to reflect on their civic duty or will the mysterious personal conscience trump their representative duty.

54%… Change begins at the MCC today.

Rethinking Silence

I enjoyed reading yesterday’s Independent’s editorial (Period of silence silent no more) on the “cheap flight” to Malta. Michael Carabott describes the pre-electoral period of silence as being “as useful as a chocolate teapot”. The Editor’s take is split between the uselessness of the “silence” itself and the manner in which it is apparently ignored on the web.

During the 2008 elections this blog and its related sites (the Malta Chronicle) shut down for the day – choosing to respect a law with which we disagree completely. Other blogs – notably Running Commentary – chose to blog on in defiance opting for a more hands down approach to the issue. I recall that already then the Independent had pointed a (mild) accusatory finger at the online world while highlighting the disparity of treatment.

Whatever our opinion on the matter may be there is little doubt that the archaic laws apply to any publication: whether in print or on the ether. It is the law itself that has to be changed and there is no way of circumventing the prohibition (I’d dare say even on social networks) without risking falling foul of a particularly nitpicking officer of the law (who would probably have been duly informed by a whistleblower of sorts).

Having said that today’s period of silence is interesting. We technically cannot provide any propaganda urging voters to vote one way or another come tomorrow. On the other hand it serves us as a perfect excuse to reflect on the commonalities between this referendum and the normal electoral procedure. In the absence of the usual PL/PN divide we have demonstrated an inability to think and act differently. We dug the trenches, we formed the lines and above all every facet of our approach to a national decision required the Black vs White physiognomy that puts us all in familiar territory.

So the Rules of the Game (with intentional capitals) are applied to this little mini-bout. A Chief Electoral Commissioner is stunned into a non-reactive coma the moment “foreign elements” are placed on the plate. A Broadcasting Authority finds itself applying the very same paradigms that had been nurtured and abused by the parties. We had the “cheap flights”, we had the “billboards”, and we had the mudslinging about “dirty tactics”. It was all there to see. Barring the fact that the Holy Roman Catholic Church made a guest appearance this time round we had all the trappings of the usual PLPN debacle.

Back to the silence. It is ridiculous in this day and age that we still apply laws dreamt up for the 50’s, 60s and 70s when banning the use of the word “Malta” could turn out to be a sly political move. True, we are not the only nation to have “days of reflection” but then again the reasons behind these laws have become rather obsolete. One of the main justifications for a ban on press and media chit chat was the danger of “last minute lies” being spread without the opportunity of rebuttal. Nowadays it takes two hours for a tweet to go viral and spread across the web – how’s that for sufficient time for rebuttal (coupled with a massive in-the-face explosion for the original perpetrator)?

J’accuse had half a mind to break the silence. We might still do that but for now we will be hitting the beach in order to have the right angle for reflection. Meanwhile a series of pre-programmed posts have been set to entertain you throughout the day.

Also… look out on these pages over the weekend. We’ve got a lovely surprise for you that will be unwrapped on Monday.