Politics

The Political Class

One of my current “thinking post” books (i.e. books read while spending time in the restroom) is “The Triumph of the Political Class” by Peter Oborne. The book is a damning exposure of the mechanics of the political system in 21st century Britain. As I read through Oborne’s thesis I cannot help replacing the term “Political Class” with PLPN and apply the reasoning to analogous circumstances in Malta – and I am surprised with the results. It’s a perfect fit.

Oborne uses the term “Political Class” constantly with capitalised P and C with reference to the new class of cross-party political careerists and examines their impact on the magical democracy that is Britain.

Here is an excerpt from the chapter entitled “The Ideology of the Political Class”:

For most of the twentieth century governing elites brought with them to Westminster a set of principles, tightly aligned to general party political thought and beliefs, which they sought to apply in government. When they felt the temptation to strike cross-party deals or renege on commitments, they were liable to be met with accusations of betrayal by the party membership. Today, political ideas no longer emerge from within the party structures and belief systems. They are manufactured. Rather than referring inward to the party membership, politicians look outward to the general public. Instead of engaging with voters directly, however, marketing experts and political ‘consultants’ are employed to discern popular will. Policies are constructed and later marketed in exactly the same way as consumer products and very often by the same set of experts. The evolution of ideas becomes an essentially private form of activity, associated with a specialist elite whose primary purpose is not putting into practice any system of ideologies or beliefs but rather the shaping of policy for the mass market.

Ideas in the era of the Political class are therefore converted into weapons or tools to be deployed or used for tactical convenience. The key function is the denial of territory to opponents, the strategy of ‘triangulation’ first associated with the Democrat presidency of Bill Clinton and identified in particular with his consultant Dick Morris. This technique was first used, and with especially gratifying effect, in the presidential election of 1992, and involved a series of forays into Republican issues, above all law and order.

The over-riding purpose was the conquest of the central ground of politics, forcing political opponents to take up territory which could then be labelled extremist. The overwhelming aim of this form of tactical positioning was emphatically not to win the the battle of ideas. Rather it lay in the ability to lay claim to a positional victory at the end of the day.

Oborne leads on to an analysis of the cult of “modernisation” – devised by the Political Class as “a strategic device to distance the Political Class from what it saw as out-of-date or antiquated ideologies. It was meant to appear sensible, managerial, pragmatic, in touch. But in due course it became a powerful ideology on its own. It presented the British ruling elite with a conceptual structure which was based on a dislike of the past, a contempt for traditional institutions, a unique insight into the future, and a guide to ethics”.

Oborne’s thesis has not ceased to surprise me. Above all it is evident that the path trodden by our Political Class (the class of PLPN) is the very same that has been trodden twenty years back in the US/UK. It is all there… like some latter-day Nostradamus prediction. You will find all you need to know (and foresee) about the predictable activities of our Political Class – and sadly, you will become aware that the writing is on the wall as to our future development in line with very European trends of neutering of political values, aims and ideologies: in the name of a Polticial Elite.

Foyles Synopsis:
Both an extension of and a companion to his acclaimed expose of political mendacity, THE RISE OF POLITICAL LYING, Peter Oborne’s new book reveals in devastating fashion just how far we have left behind us the idea of people going into politics for that quaint reason, to serve the public. Notions of the greater good and “putting something back” now seem absurdly idealistic, such is the pervasiveness of cynicism in our politics and politicians. Of course, self-interest has always played a part, and Oborne will show how our current climate owes much to the venality of the eighteenth century. But in these allegedly enlightened times should we not know better? Do we not deserve better from those who seek our electoral approval? Full of revealing and insightful stories and anecdotes to support his case, and with a passionate call for reform, THE TRIUMPH OF THE POLITICAL CLASS is destined to be the defining political book of 2007.

Cheap Spin by the Times

The Times of Malta has its moments of cheap spin tapping on the volatility of your average voter in order to feed on the quickfire commentators response. Shortly after couching the appointment of the new head of the EU Representation in Malta in purely economic terms (here we go again… does Martin Bugelli earn more than the President? Does he? Oh the shame!)… we now have the bestseller: those bastards earning a living abroad.

Far be it for the Times to highlight the “suggestions” that people like J’accuse have been making for ages regarding voting abroad. No sir. Instead we have to stir the shit and the sentiment against the idea of the government hitting the jackpot for AirMalta and ensuring it gets paid for a number of full flights to Malta and back. Not to mention the lack of criticism directed towards the PLPN autocracy who thrive on the state of affairs as is and would never budge a finger to change the status quo.

Does it even dawn on the brain of these nit-picking imbeciles that in order to take advantage of a “cheap flight” that is there solely for me to exercise my vote I have to: (a) take days off work in order to get to Malta and vote, and (b) spend time and money that is involved in maintaining the uselessly long and unnecessary trip to get to a polling booth that is not located in an embassy in the country where I am currently employed (but that is not my country).

Of course it does not. Here is the full article as appeared in the Times. I am giving it the TGIL annotated treatment as it deserves.

Cheap KM Flights for divorce poll

Cheap flights heavily subsidised by the government [read: your government will be allocating YOUR taxes to AirMalta with the excuse of the divorce referendum] will be made available for Maltese abroad who are eligible to vote in the May 28 divorce referendum, The Sunday Times has learnt.

When contacted, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that the scheme will be applied to this month’s vote though it is not yet clear which destinations will benefit [Benefit? A rather heavy word Mr Spokesperson. Nobody benefits. We are just told that if we want to exercise our right to vote we have to trudge all the way to Malta instead of doing the normal thing and voting in embassies or by post or (heaven forbid) on the net – not to mention that for the sizeable crowd in Luxembourg there is rarely a direct flight to be seen – which means more time spent on the redundant tripping].

It is understood Air Malta will be offering return air tickets at €35 inclusive of taxes and other charges. The flights will be valid for eligible voters, including those married to foreigners, studying, working or undergoing medical treatment abroad and their dependants. [A rather exhaustive list for one to start “it is understood” – why not say “it has been leaked to us as the unofficial government mouthpiece?”]

The government will make up for the rest of the charges so that the brunt is not borne by Air Malta. [Santi Subito! AirMalta bears no brunt. It actually gets paid with YOUR taxes to fly full flights to Malta. Why do they make it sound like the Maltese abroad are the culprits? ]

The overall cost will be borne by the government. Bringing over 3,057 people to vote at the 2008 general election had cost the taxpayer over €1 million.

It had cost the country more than €442,000 to fly 1,377 people to Malta to vote in the 2009 European Parliament election – €321 per passenger. [Cor look at that. €442,000. Now how much would a ultrasecure website with personalised codes cost the government to set up? Even if it were to choose one of its favourite website builders it would be a money-saving exercise no?]

A breakdown of the figures given by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in Parliament in December 2009 revealed that the sum included €92,600 for the operation of extra flights, €83,227 in passenger tax, €14,689 in servicing costs, and €251,828 in income lost between the normal flight costs and the €35 discounted price. [I get lost in these accounting figures but how do they really calculate the tax into the equation? I mean at the end of the day the government does not pay itself tax right? So if the government commandeers a plane to get some voters over are we saying that it would charge ITSELF tax and that therefore that is an expense?]

The initiative has been described as outdated and costly by many who believe it is high time for the authorities to opt for easier and cheaper means to vote. [Hello? Is anybody out there? Sixyears of repetitive blogging about this charade? Six bloody years.]

Suggestions that those eligi­­ble to vote could cast their preferences at a Maltese embassy, or even vote online, have never been taken on board.

The initiative is often seen [By idiots and people with chips on their shoulder] as an opportunity for a cheap holiday for those living abroad, some of whom earn high wages in the European institutions, at the expense of the local taxpayer. [Now that’s a beauty – we earn high wages in the European instituions at YOUR expense darlings… sure.. latest count per capita is a little over €1 per year contributed by you to finance the pay of EVERY EU WORKER]

When contacted, a spokesman for the ‘No to Divorce’ movement said since everyone had the right and duty to vote, the necessary measures ought to be taken to facilitate voting by Maltese people living or working abroad. Pro-divorce movement chairman Deborah Schembri said her organisation agreed flights should be organised to bring people to Malta to vote. [And of course they would. How about contacting the PL and PN crowds eh? Do your Masters not allow you a comment from the idiots behind this scheme that makes our nation look like the Hamish of Europe (with apologies to the Hamish)? ]

Asked about the cost to the economy, Dr Schembri said that if the country had enough money to organise a referendum, it should spend a bit more to enable everyone, even those working or living abroad, to vote. [Wrong Deborah (and I promise I have nothing personal against you). The country does not have money to be spent on stupid half-ass, half-brained ideas. It should be investing in a proper system of voting in embassies or by post (at least). But hey… so long as there is the European Gravy train to blame…the PLPN crowd can go on condoning stupid measures. After all Stupid is what stupid does.]

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011

Business as Usual

Once the Good Friday break from business as decreed by Mullah Farrugia is over I guess that the thunder and lightning last night proclaimed the reopening of the business season. That’s what we do best in Malta I guess and there’s plenty to learn about when combing the dailies. The only problem seems to be (for a change) that what passes for journalism here is actually provoked reporting – reporting court cases, reporting police investigations, reporting something said in a cosy office interview. Very often the potential hot story behind the story is left bubbling in the background and there is a dearth of journalists who go for the kill to unearth more “dirt”.

What is it that holds journalists back? Lack of motivation? Political allegiance? Laziness? Unprofessionalism? The only times we do get a semblance of “investigative journalism” it is so blatantly evident that there is a hidden agenda and that strings are being pulled behind the scene that it ceases to be so the moment the “sponsored by” scrawl starts to roll…

Meanwhil, back in Malta’s Gotham here are a few stories that would make the nose twitch of any investigative hound worth his salt:

1. The Pakistani Nurse Allegations
So a group of Pakistani nurses, presumably “taking our jobs” (in billboard lingo) at Mater Dei have blown the whistle on a racket linked to their job. It would seem that the company that employs these nurses  is taking a cut out of their salary in order to guarantee their jobs at our spanking new(ish) hospital named after the Mother of God. “The nurses are reportedly meant to hand over €600 from their first pay and 12 instalments of €200 to complete the sum. Following that, the company still expects payment of €85 monthly for the duration of their contract.” (Times) Now isn’t that lovely? I was reminded of another “business practice” of certain companies who are happy enough to cash government cheques earlier than their due date for the people who essentially live off these cheques – so long as a little “commission” was paid. Stories such as these confirm the commonly held belief that business in Malta is not about competition and success but more about having a well-oiled machine – with an emphasis on the oil.

2. Parties ask everyone for donations

Thus spake contractor Nazzareno Vassallo while celebrating his having survived 65 years in the dog-eat-dog world of Maltese building contractors. Were we surprised? No. Of course not. Would we wonder why his “well-known Nationalist sympathies have often worked against him when bidding for a contract.” Well yes. What does that mean exactly? Why does he bother funding both parties if his sympathies can work against him? How can he get away with frankly admitting that contracts ARE awarded on the basis of political considerations? Nazzareno is not the first to have claimed the “I oil both parties” approach. Sandro Chetcuti famously claimed it was important to have a pocket for every party (thank Mercury we only have two that count in the tendering business aye) and Vince “Holier than Thou” Farrugia has swung around the world of parties with better tempo than a grandfather clock’s pendulum.

3. SmartMalta Targets

Somewhere in the Easter readings (found it – Key Smartisland targets missed – Noel Grima, The Malta Independent on Sunday)  I also followed the result of a PQ regarding targets Malta was supposed to have set itself by 2010 with regard to Smart Malta. I hate to go back on this but among targets such as increasing the number of IT graduates there was also this silly target about having an online shopping mall with 500 shops. Yes I’m still talking about Trolleymania.com because no matter how nice the people behind the project may be I abhor the whole idea. It is the equivalent of the government deciding that in order to incentivise people to open shops it will open its own equivalent of The Point or Arcadia – imagine that… a government run shopping centre! Well we are close to having that because the success or failure of Trolleymania.com is not one of a private enterprise but is directly related to government performance. And how do you think will the government incentivise 500 establishments to set up shop in its very own online mall? Free market? Free competition?

4. There’s more where these came from

It’s not just Trolleymania you know. Speaking to people in the street and small businessmen who are faced with a wall of bureaucracy to set up a mobile fruit shop (let alone an online mall) you notice that there is a reason for that wall of bureucracy and permits… it should be for consumer safety and guarantees. Instead, every step of the way, every euro spent by an enterprising gentleman has to be paired with a euro going the way of the oil machine created to milk the system. Dog eats dog does not even begin to explain how it all works. Alfred Sant’s “friends of friends” comes to mind but it’s even worse than that. It’s a very twisted meritocracy where just desserts has nothing to do with being capable, competitive or enterprising. And it sucks.

Smartmalta? The only way you could be smart in Malta is by following the old adage… if you can’t beat them, join them. Or just get the hell out.

5. Almost forgot AirMalta

I almost forgot our beloved national carrier. Here is the Pilot’s Association President Dominic Azzopardi talking to MaltaToday: “Referring to seat ticket pricing, Azzopardi said tickets are “often sold at cost-price, or loss-making prices” to certain preferred buyers. Asked about who might get this ‘preferential treatment’, Azzopardi pointed to well-connected tour operators as one example.” The article makes for some good reading into how another sector of profitability is carved out between networks within networks…

 

Related:

Herrera alleges “rampant nepotism in financial sector” : one wonder if he’ll still be singing the same tune once it’s his party’s turn to milk the cow.

Who will love my expats?

An article penned by Nestor Laiviera in MaltaToday (Cheap flight for divorce referendum still up in the air) attempts to stir the waters with regard to the issue of whether or not Airmalta will be asked once again to foot the bill for expats coming home to vote. It’s sad really that we have to go over this business every time there is a vote or two to be taken.

You’d think that by the 21st century we’d have voting in embassies as a given – at least on a Yes/No issue such as a referendum. We don’t though and we have to hear a number of absurdities based on a twisted way of perceiving reality. Here go some of “luoghi comuni“:

1. Airmalta should never foot the bill – if expats want to vote they can damn well pay for the trip in full.

Right and wrong. Yes, Airmalta should not bear the brunt for PLPN obtuseness but that does not mean that voting should cost an arm and a leg. Actually voting should not cost the citizen anything.  So unless the PLPN movement gets its head out of its arse and agrees on legislation for ballots abroad, then all expats (myself included) will go on “abusing” of the cheap flight – even if only to make the point.

2. All expats vote PN.

Another good one that. Rewind back to Alfred Sant’s fury placing on the parliament table a list of all passengers who had used the Airmalta flights for elections. They’re all nationalist votes he thundered! Many, like Luciano Busuttil, seem to believe that all jobs at the institutions are obtained thanks to some favour with the blue eyed boys (and are sadly probably hoping for Labour to be in government to dish out such jobs accordingly). Well – they aren’t. Most jobs aren’t anyway. Unless of course we are speaking of Maltese representations in Brussels in which case it is no biggie that they are full of people who would not cause undue obstacle to the party in government. And anyway… since when does political affiliation qualify one person over another for the right to vote? What if all expats are part of the loony right? Does that give the PLPN the right to suddenly cut them off from exercising their vote?

3. It pays PN/PL more.
Not this time it doesn’t. Given as how none of the parties have a position of divorce (have I told you that before) it’s irrelevant to any of them how many of us vote in the end. Of course I’d like to hear Joseph Muscat shed a crocodile tear or two for us the expats – it’s not about divorce is it? It’s about exercising one’s opinion. I want my frijvowt too! I mean what do the 2,800 youths have that we have not got? Scratch that. I EXPECT a little video from Joseph telling me how he is doing his utmost to guarantee that my vote will be cast because it is my right. Let’s hope he does not screw up the next motion in parliament either… a ballot in Luxembourg City Hall would do nicely thank you very much. As would one in London, Brussels and probably Paris and Frankfurt. Go ahead Joseph… fight for my rights to say Yay!

 

Fault Li(n)es

Distractions, attractions and more. How easily we get waylaid by some mountainous pile of bull conjured up by the PLPN charade. Here’s the two videos made by both sides – each laying the blame squarely at the foot of the other with regards to the disenfranchised 2,800. They must both be seeing this issue as manna falling from heaven… yet another distraction to add to the referendum farce: all in the name of “consultation”. Remember – the real votes that count will be the 69 votes in parliament – and no matter what you or I say it’s the INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCES of 69 citizens that will decide whether divorce legislation is enacted or not.

PL

PN

the Beatles

J'accuse : The Lost Boys (and Girls)

For the second time in a few weeks, Joseph Muscat’s spin office has been producing promotional video clips for the divorce referendum that are about everything but divorce. This week Inhobbkom’s little video clip was about the 2,800 Lost Boys and Girls who will not be allowed to cast their frijvowt (free vote) in the referendum. Joseph says he does not care how they would vote − if and when they are allowed to vote − and his inadvertent frankness on that particular point is rather moving.

What Labour’s Peter Pan fails to stress in his little bit of propaganda is that the outcome of the divorce issue has nothing to do with whether 2,800 youths apparate or disapparate on the electoral register thanks to the latest antic from the PLPN bag of tricks. Peter Pan is right though: his party does not care which way those 2,800 votes would go. It’s not those 2,800 votes that will determine whether or not divorce legislation gets through Parliament. It’s the 69 free votes of conscience that will do the trick.

Right now it pays Peter Pan to don his best suit and shed crocodile tears for the Lost Boys and their votes. It pays him to spin the latest of fables in our Fairy Tale politics where the Evil Gonzi is depicted as the villain who taketh away the votes and aspirations of the youth of the day. It’s revolting. Peter Pan’s party is on the same side as Gonzi’s on this one. Together they have contrived to leave the fate of the introduction of crucial legislation in the hands of 69 individual consciences − even after the outcome of the divorce referendum is known. Even Joseph thinks he is dragging us into Europe will eventually “respect the vote of the people” which means that a “No” vote in the referendum is one more No vote in Parliament as far as Joseph is concerned.

I’ll repeat this ad nauseam if I have to: The Labour Party has no position on divorce. The Nationalist Party has a position against divorce. Both parties have abdicated their representative responsibility by allowing a free vote in Parliament independently of what 2,800 youths, their constituencies or the whole electoral franchise thinks about the issue. Now that should make you sit down and weep.

Tinker Bell

Then there was the business of the Attorney General’s appeal in the Realtà case. The gut reaction was one of astonished disgust coupled with rhetorical questions as to whether the AG office’s timetable is not sufficiently stocked with interesting distractions. A second, more political, reaction targeted the occupier of Castille blaming him for allowing the AG to get on with this nonsense.

Writing in MaltaToday, James Debono tried to find out who was “politically responsible” for the Realtà case. As a nation we are beginning to demonstrate an acute inability to cope with the underpinnings of the rule of law and why we need it. Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction to dismissing a coherent set of arguments as “lawyer-speak” while reverting to the chaotic world of Maltese relativism has much to do with it. Sure we know the laws are there but hey − they must be twisted to make more sense in this day and age right? And why didn’t Lawrence Gonzi do just that with the Realtà case? It’s the 21st century no − what do we need laws and regulations for?

It’s the same thing for Joseph Muscat’s beef with the referendum motion and dates. Joseph’s solution was for the electoral commission to sit on the President’s writ for 18 days, just in time for the new electoral register to come into effect. You know that type of “I’ll close an eye just for this time” suggestion. As for the AG − many speculated that the Prime Minister should have intervened and prevented him from appealing. Sure. When would that be right and when would that be wrong? Who would decide? Laws and rules are not suggestions or guidelines − they are laws for a reason. They give us a sense of order and continuity as the old cliché goes: we are servants of the law so that we may be free.

Wendy Darling

Even though I do not find myself in agreement with the AG’s arguments as made in the appeal − particularly with his choice of inconveniencing deities once again (wasn’t divorce enough?) − I am still comfortable with the knowledge that this appeal forms part of a greater mechanism of interpretation and clarification of the law that is necessary for our society to work. The alternative is chaos and anarchy based on relative values. This appreciation should be part of every body’s civic conscience and not just of those who have gone through six years of law at university.

Understanding this objectively becomes even harder every day when the paladins of representative democracy twist and turn the picture to their own needs and devices. It is useless talking of “hidden rules of society” or conspiracy theories of some theocratic plot in some quarters if we are unable to get the message across about the usefulness of the rule of law that transforms − to the best of its imperfect capabilities − the will of the people into a working social system.

Nana

It’s a fine line between on the one hand a real society based on real laws and on the other a sham set of rules behind which hides the arch-democratic dictator. We’ve been very close to the latter before; I like to think we can still aspire towards the first… despite our politicians.

“All the world is made of faith, and trust, and pixie dust.” − J.M. Barrie

www.akkuza.com − this column has been short-listed as a finalist in the Opinion Article section of the XXIst Malta Journalism Awards.