Politics

Humpty Dumpty Politics

What makes or breaks a modern political party? Can we still talk of the terms “christian-democrat” and “socialist” (or the masacara “progressive”) when it comes to the nitty-gritty of politics in Malta? Is it just Malta that has entered a Bermuda Triangle of party values?

The nationalist party might hold the “Fehmiet Bazici” (Basic Beliefs) document to its heart but how is it to reconcile that with the calculated vote grabbing net that is elaborated every five years? Joseph Muscat may have declared a new era of progressive liberals but his party is having a hard time trying to appease the weird animal that is the “conservative proletariat”.

The “socialists” were never socialist to begin with. Even at the worst of the church-Labour battles their worry over the fact of being buried in non-consecrated ground or their sacristy marriages betrayed their Peppone like interior. Beneath the wannabe socialist revolutionaries were Catholics who were really stung by the fundamentalist church moves. Had they really been convinced of their socialist, lay battles they wouldn’t have given two hoots about being interdicted from a church that was supposedly not theirs.

The nationalist party lost its moral compass right after 1987. It was on a life-saving machine all through the EU campaign having placed its bets on the right horse but once the fog of the EU War subsided (thank you very much Waste-Our-Bloody-Time-Sant) it fell apart like Humpty Dumpty – unable to string together a coherent plan of action and a victim of the Young Battlers of the EU Campaign clamouring for a piece of the victorious pie of government. The worldwide economic crisis did the rest of the trick.

So when an issue like divorce hits the parties when they least expect it, they are unable to react as political parties. Or at least it seems so. James Debono has done a(nother) wonderful job of assessing the different scenarios with regards to divorce and the two main parties: “Divorce: When principles and convenience collide“. Even if we were to set aside the issue itself (divorce) and focus on the party reactions to what is basically a “principle” or “value” changer in society the results are rather bleak.

The stand taken by Austin Gatt might be old hat but it is after all what you’d expect from a party MP. Austin’s stand is about the PN stand not about what Malta thinks. He is spot on when he says that if he (Austin) disagrees with divorce legislation then he cannot fit in within a party that actively promotes divorce legislation. J’accuse would go one further. Resign from the PN in case it decides to back divorce legislation but do not resign from parliament.

Paul Borg Olivier’s recent interview on Dissett points to a possible development for the PN. It is the possibility of acknowledging that the party itself is in favour/against divorce but leaving its members free to vote. The question J’accuse would like to ask is: Does this count as a party position on values? Is the acknowledgement that a discussion such as divorce is one that has both pro- and con- partisans within the same party sufficient to say that party values are safe?

Even Labour, with what is supposed to be a less confessional set of values (actually it claims to be progressive) has difficulties taking a stand on divorce. Granted that there is no denying that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has a proven track record of opportunistic bandwagon politics this particular nut will be a tough one to crack. Muscat has his own Gatt on his side of parliament (Adrian Vassallo) and surely other conservative proletarians will follow suit.

Which leaves us with Alternattiva Demokratika. What started off as a party with a strong green agenda at the time of its affiliation with the Verdi/Greens can now boast of a wealth of political positions in the social sphere – from property rights to gender issues to divorce. The party position is unequivocal and clear: they want divorce legislation.

The D’Hondt relative majority has done much to whittle away the party backbone for the party in government. It lives each day nervously wondering which backbencher (or government member) might step out of line and threaten the fragile structure that is at wits end. It has gone from “Par Idejn Sodi” (a pair of strong hands) to “Kuljum bir-Roghda” (everyday shaking). The PL is at sea trying to desperately loop in any possible voter and trying not to tread on anyone’s toes in case their vote is needed come d-day. Which leaves us with a gaggle of spineless politicians unable to take a clear stand on matters that count. Or does it?

J’accuse believes that for the first time Alternattiva Demokratika has a chance to assert itself as something more than a party aspiring for the third place. The l vacuum opened up by the PLPN (ironically as a direct result of their tweaking of the D’Hondt Relative Majority) opens up the same possibilities as those seen by the UK Liberal Democrats before the last elections. AD should no longer aspire to be a third party. On paper, it has every right and chance to aspire to be a major role player in the next elections and technically it should be the most spineless of the PLPN duo that suffers.

That of course does not take into account the partisan vote base. Which will stick to its PLPN guns come hell or highwater… or come divorce.

The Ignorant Masses

James Debono penned a brilliant blog post that you can read here : There’s something about Labour. J’accuse agrees 100% with his assessment (see earlier post today “Sphinxes”) but we are not here for some general agree-fest.

By browsing through the comments appended at the end of the article you get to understand what will hold this country back for ever. Given a clear, well-explained article about how Joseph Muscat is effectively betraying Labour by making it a risible, spine-less alternative unable to get the real political pulse of the moment, your average flag-waving supporter will ignore the message and instead scorn the messenger:

  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:20.You know what is the cherry on the cake James, that now you have really showed that you are another puppet of the PN. This will be the last time I bought MALTA_TODAY, because with articles like yours its becoming worst then the TOM, not independent anymore.
    gscerri
  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:14.You know James – I think there is something about you and your clear biased against Labour. Not only you are unfair but clearly seem to be pushing some agenda. Moreover, you have a disgusting condescending way to refer to the people living in the South and to Labour supporters, which I find it akin to Nats who always look down to 50% of the population like it is an inferior tribe or race of people. So why don’t you come out and say it: You want the Nats to remain in power! I have had it with you and your patronizing views – I’m stopping buying Maltatoday, which I was gladly doing until a Sunday ago.
    RJ
  • Submitted on Tue, 02/01/2011 – 14:11.Maybe if you took your head out you and remove the blinkers you would understand more. PL is not perfect but I have yet to hear you say one decent word about the party. It seems you want the PL to be exactly as you wish it was which you know can never happen with any party in the world.
    But then again, why should I waste my breathe with you, we all know who you support while trying to portray yourself as a left-leaning liberal. I enjoy reading MaltaToday very much but your own articles leave much to be desired.

    zeit

It’s about “support” or “puppets” to them. James Debono is much more of a labourite than anything Joseph Muscat can aspire to be when it comes to principles yet the “supporters” only see him as a traitor to the cause. Not for one moment will they question the contradictions inherent in the flimsy marketing (for it is not politics) in which Joseph Muscat engages. Muscat knows that this is his audience and he only has to hope that more are enticed into the anti-PN fold in order to be a beaming PM with no clue about principles, politics or diplomacy.

Meanwhile valid minds full of valid ideas are left to “wallow” writing blogs in some newspaper. I wonder what it is that keeps James going.

Sphinxes

Listening to Tony Blair’s ideas about the North African Uprisings could have the effect of making your blood boil. The Born Again Catholic is sounding more and more like George W. every other minute. He is more concerned about the possibilities that democratisation would open up to Islam and Islamic parties than about the fact that for the first time since colonisation two Arab nations are really asserting their right to appointing their own representatives. The Egyptian protests have been fascinating in many ways – they are the testing ground as to whether the fire started in Tunisia can rage through other dictatorships and break the post-colonial moulds in the Maghreb and Mashreq.

Hosni Mubarak is proving to be a tougher nut to crack than Ben Ali. While some may be joking that the Saudis might soon have a village of ex-dictators in their midst, Mubarak seems intent on getting away with a smoother “transition”, probably hoping to put up one of his anointed who could still keep in place the elite of businessmen he seconded into parliament and other important posts around him. Like Joseph Muscat with the shadow cabinet, Mubarak has been performing a bit of shuffling of his own in an attempt to appease the protesting crowds who can take no more of the arrogance and nepotism of his false democracy.

The protestors in the North African Countries are having to switch to such devices as fax machines and ham radios in order to send the news out to whoever is willing to relay it. Meanwhile, as we all know by now, tourism in the two Mediterranean (and Red Sea) paradises is once again down to its knees. Egypt had already suffered a setback thanks to the 1997 Luxor attack on tourists. It will now have to adopt a wait and see position until the political situation is clearer. Tourists are not normally so hesitant to return after coups (see what happened very recently in Thailand) but there will still be problems to revive the Sharm-al-Sheik and Hourghada business.

Which is where the glaring insensitivity (and insensibility) of Joseph Muscat’s hopeless attempt at seeming the sly player of international intrigue sticks out in all its glaring ploukism. The irony of it all is that Joseph Muscat’s wonderful idea of calling on the government to lure tourism away from the unstable Mediterranean nations is actually a call to draw the livelihood away from the mouths of millions of protesters suffering poverty, rising prices and corrupt government. Joseph Muscat might know that but he does not care does he? Neither do the potential voters for a new PL government. Who cares if their neighbour is dying for freedom and a for what he hopes is a better economy? What they worry about is their farcical marches into Valletta where Joseph can stand on some stage and sing to the ocean of unhappy people who cannot afford the petrol to fill their car or the money to pay for the electricity bills.

Following this last call by Inhobbkom Joseph we have reached an important conclusion here at J’accuse. Joseph Muscat has proven to be way out of his depth in matters international and has blown the last few chances he had of being considered a viable alternative to a tired and arrogant government by the intelligent voters among us. He should step down now and we should pray to God that Labour manages to fish out something remotely sellable as a leader.

From the Labour Press Release (thanks Fausto):

Filwaqt li wiehed irid jibqa jsegwi b’interess dak li qed jigri f’pajjizi bhat-Tunezija u l-Egittu, minhabba l-pozizzjoni taghhom fir-regjun Mediterranju, l-Partit Laburista jrid jara l-akbar kampanja ta’ pubblicita’ li qatt saret biex nigbdu lejn pajjizna dawk it-turisti li kienu qed iharsu lejn dawn il-pajjizi fl-inkwiet bhala destinazzjoni ghal vaganza taghhom. B’hekk igawdi l-pajjiz u s-settru turistiku malti li fuqu jiddependu l-ekonomija tal-pajjiz u eluf ta’ familji.

And this from Maltatoday:

NATIONAL Monday, January 31, 2011
Updated | ‘We had a good laugh’ – PL on satirical mock campaign

By Nestor Laiviera

The Labour Party’s reaction to the satirical ‘Visit Malta’ mock poster campaign was that “the issue merits not just the original touch of humour by a commentator, but serious consideration and a well thought campaign.” The Labour Party was reacting to a satirical ‘Visit Malta’ campaign circulated through facebook sparked off by remarks by PL Leader Joseph Muscat that Malta should capitalise on unrest in Egypt and Tunisia. A party spokesperson said “we had a good laugh and won’t accuse the authors of lacking ‘savoir faire’.” He added that however “the issue merits not just the original touch of humour by a commentator, but serious consideration and a well thought campaign which would attract tourists to Malta instead of other destinations which are in turmoil.”

J'accuse Tube (cryptic)

One and cross (clue) : Cut cord and vie for marriage terminal (7). J’accuse presents the breeding ground for a public discussion in graduated stages. You’ve been mentally challenged. About f***in’ time…

Think of it as a J’accuse version of RAI3’s “Blob” – the unmissable programme on Italian TV. (P.S. It’s not “me” in Gensna)

ffwd the issues

from tammy…

from billy…

from david (lynch)

rev. jennings

farrakhan (virtuous women)

Opinions… they’re divided

or unclear…

someone is collecting facts…

I.M. Jack – the one about satire

Today’s Times editorial invites readers “to get serious about laughter” and is an appeal to learn how to laugh about ourselves once more. I read a good article by David Quantick in the UK Independent yesterday in which he welcomed the return of political satire on prime time TV. ‘Twas the post-Thatcher 90’s that killed it you know – and the inability of satirists to let go of the facile spoofing of personalities and return to the dark minefield of satirising issues.

Seriously Funny

We’ve seen it all. The long arm of the law applied to carnival (priests, Jesus and his disciples), to what classifies as “comedy” on TV (Bla Kondixin‘ VIP Xow’s (thanks PG) shoe throwing stunt) and more. If the Maltese are relentless in their beliefs then there is little room for humour quoth the Times editor. M.A. Falzon, writing in the Times two years ago today had attempted to translate the local version of satire to “nejk” – a realm of “banter, jokes and jestful blasphemy” that “rarely makes it into the public sphere”.

Falzon suggested that the reason we find it hard to write (or understand) “nejk” in English is that English generally means serious business with little room for humour. Maltese – with all its “nejk” – is limited to the vernacular – always according to Falzon (and he does worry that “Linguistic nationalists will eat me alive for this”).

I’m not too sure about Falzon’s theory though there is some truth in the fact that the Maltese concept of “comedy” (and not necessarily satire) might differ radically from that of the Anglo-Saxons or French to mention but two others. Incidentally the other field that has been at the receiving end of the grossly overblown and outdated baton of the law is the field of literature. The point of overlap in the venn diagram seems to be a shady area of “taste” that somehow is qualified in terms of either “obscenity/vulgarity” or “immoral/unholy”.

In both cases what is now being waved around as a case of “Censorship in Malta” is really an outdated reaction to provoking events that could (and have been) be seen as being immoral – obscene – vulgar – unholy/blasphemous if taken from a conservative point of view. Whether that means that we are witnessing a real censorship of the “political” kind with the Maltese equivalent(s) of Solzenhitsyn rushing to exile is questionable. True there is an archaic law and perception that needs to be challenged – one that exalts a fictitious mentality of close-mindedness, religiosity and prudeness and does not take in the alternate reality of “nejk” within which we really live.

Does this seem funny to you?

Are we capable of being satirical? Is there space to caricaturise our politicians and their decisions. Can we even caricaturise ourselves in our everyday life to the point of subtle satire? We think that it is more than possible and that it is already being done in spurts. We mostly do not know how to react to it. The impression of a communist style politburo censoring every vague thought is a false one. As I said elsewhere J’accuse has never been censored no matter how critical it has been of the PLPN establishment.

Ignored? Yes. Attempts at character assassination? Of course it’s how business is done. But censored? Nope. Nyet. Sorry. And neither has any of the other variety of columnists/non-columnists been told not to speak their mind. I’m quite sure of that. We do not have censorship in Malta. We have the retarded (sic) application of archaic provisions that is distracting us from a possible development of our literature (maybe).

It’s literature that might not even intend to be funny. Take Vella Gera’s “Li Tkisser Sewwi”. I’m sure Alex never intended to be in the limelight (he says so himself) and never expected this kind of reaction (he said so too). He just woke up one day to find that his particular mode of expression is -according to the police, still to be seen by the court – considered as either obscene or vulgar in the eyes of the law that regulates our society.

Is it censorship? No. I don’t think so. I think it is the result of a society that is uncomfortable with itself when it looks in the mirror. What does that say about the future of satire in Malta.

It says it is possible. But that we have a long, long way to go. It goes beyond politicians or expected saviours (Oliver? Why Oliver?). It goes straight to the heart of what literature can be all about. Provocative, illuminating, and often a satirical exposé of the state of a nation. Warts, cunts, penises and all.

Funny that. He said “exposé”.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Honour Among Thieves

There’s nothing better than giving a Times report the “Lorna” treatment in order to really get an impartial picture of the partisan positions in the honorarium saga. Farrugia’s meeting with the PM was swell. The Cabinet took a day off to find a way out of shit creek without a paddle and an announcement is expected shortly. Meanwhile Inhobbkom J is preparing his position on the honorarium saga without wanting to wait for the new government position. Which only makes sense in a cuckoo world where Inhobbkom J can be seen as a potential saviour from that mess that is the PN government in such cases.

So here goes. For the uninitiated the “Lorna” treatment is what J’accuse used to reserve to articles penned by the much missed Lorna Vassallo when her contributions to the Times of Malta’s opinion columns provided us with occasions of mirth punctuated with goggle-eyed bafflement. Just search TGIL on the old J’accuse site and you’ll get the gist.

Labour Party to announce position on ministers’ salaries, honoraria

The Labour Party is expected to issue a formal position on ministerial salaries and the honoraria given to MPs, informed sources said this afternoon. [cue Michael Jackson: Can you feel it? – the tension is palpable… what will they come up with this time?]

The Labour parliamentary group this afternoon held an unexpected meeting [as in they all serendipitally surfaced in Hamrun by pure chance. FBI despatched a unit from Quantico to examine this supernatural occurrence] , at the same time as the issue was also being discussed down the road by the Nationalist parliamentary group at PN headquarters [It was so supernatural that they were discussing an as yet undisclosed subject referred to by the codename “the issue”… informed sources told J’accuse that this might refer to a mucuous substance exuded rabidly by the coincidental congregation].

The issue [there they go again with the mysterious “issue”] was also discussed by the Cabinet this morning. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi did not give details of the outcomes [they don’t know what was discussed, how it was discussed or what was said but they do know … with what seems to be absolute certainty…. that it’s plural] and said a decision would be announced later. However informed sources said ministers would refund part of the honoraria which they have been paid since 2008 [there go the deep throats… so the issue having been settled they moved on to tell us that there will be a form of ministerial refund of the honoraria they have been receiving since 2008].

Meanwhile, sources in the Labour Party said the party would announce its position, independently of what the government decided [since when is that news? Would they even bother with the government decision anyway?] The position would be announced by Labour leader Joseph Muscat [in the presence of white suited minions of course].

The PL had criticised ministers for having given themselves a double pay – their ministerial salary and their honoraria as MPs. As recently as last Sunday, Dr Muscat said one could discuss reviewing ministerial salaries, but he was against having a double pay [is that a general statement? would he apply this principle to the private sector? is there a double pay for discussing ministerial salaries? who writes these articles?].

Dr Muscat, who was also offered the honoraria along with the Opposition leader’s salary, had also declared that he would donate the honoraria (of €26,000 per year) to charity [still perpetuating the myth that he has refused the honorarium but ALSO AND AT THE SAME TIME donated it to charity… syou wish he could decide on that one].

Opposition MPs had been left at liberty to decide whether to accept a €7,000 annual increase to their honoraria. However a fund was set up for those who opted to donate the money. [See what we mean Joe? It’s confusing. You either ACCEPT the honoraria AND donate it to charity OR you DON’T ACCEPT the honorarium  AND it’s not yours to give.]

There you have it. We await with trepidation for Gonzi’s declaration. Will they give the money back? Will they hang on to some of it? What will this tell us about Gonzi’s control over his one-man majority party? Remember what J’accuse told you on the day after the election? Well you should. Coz you know what we hate to have to remind you that we were right.

Enhanced by Zemanta