Politics

Legatus non violatur

The big three credit ratings agencies were threatened yesterday with fines and the creation of a new state-backed competitor, only weeks after European leaders attacked them for exacerbating Greece’s problems with downgrades. – The Times (UK)

Readers will be familiar with reactions by the Maltese administration to certain reports from particular institutions. “Audit” is the byword for a scrutiny or check that was originally applied to matters accounting but is now extended to such realms as “democratic accountability” and “freedom of press” to give but non-economic examples. The auditor is supposed to be as impartial as possible and his job is simply to report on the state of affairs – the idea being that it is up to managers, politicians and lobby groups to make do with the report as best they deem fit.

Recently we have seen an increased tendency to debate the validity of the auditor rather than the message itself. In other words, in these times of economic woes that might even effect the clear thinking of (non-economic) democratic institutions, there is a growing tendency to shoot the messenger.  A concerted effort by (Commission President) Barroso and (German Chancellor and French President) Merkel & Sarkozy has recently been stepped up with the intention to undermine the credibility of a very important set of “auditors” in this day and age.

credti rating marks.jpg

Credit Rating Chart

Europe’s continental leaders have targeted the three credit ratings agencies – responsible for the rating of governments and of their ability to pay their debts. The three: Standard & Poor‘s, Moody’s and Fitch (no relation to Abercrombie’s other half) have been busy downgrading Greece, Spain and Portugal’s ratings recently and were also on the verge of giving the same treatment to France. While Merkel and Sarkozy argued that the agencies need more scrutiny – a form of supervision and regulation – Barroso criticised the three for failing to alert investors on the imminent demise of Lehmann Brothers in 2008.

Barroso asks three questions:

  • Is it normal to have only three relevant actors in such a sensitive issue where there is a great probability of conflict of interest?
  • Is it normal that all of them come from the same country?
  • Is it normal that such important entities are escaping fundamental regulation?

Now the eagerness with which the “EU that counts” shoots down the three agencies is inevitably tied to the large amount of control that they hold on the mood of the market. their ratings are not simply an auditing assessment but any move of theirs tends to have heavy repercussions on the financial and economic sectors. Shooting the messenger is only half the story.

The EU does not only intend to regulate the auditors but seems intent on creating an auditor of its own – an in-house competitor. Questions will surely be raised about the independence of such a new monster. If the current three are not above suspicion because of the possibility of conflicts of interests what then of the new monster that will be financed by the very set of sovereign nations it is supposed to vet?

Barroso’s questions begin to sound more and more like Muscat’s quickly assembled 15 point plan to battle corruption. Loads of rhetoric and flimsy legal justification. In both cases they provide little solution and comfort. Back to the drawing board José (and Joseph)

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Israel Exports Death in the Med

More than 10 people have been killed after Israeli commandos stormed a convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army says. (BBC)

The convoy of ships was carrying tonnes of humanitarian aid to Gaza from Cyprus following the Israeli embargo on the Hamas-led enclave. A number of Turkish humanitarian organisations were using three passenger ferries to transport cement, passengers and other aid to Gaza in defiance of the embargo. Israeli commandos boarded the largest of the vessels overnight and tackled the 500 people on board.

” Unfortunately this group were dead-set on confrontation. Live fire was used against our forces. They initiated the violence, that’s 100% clear” – Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev.

Right. A group of armed commandos boards a ship on international waters and considers their reaction “an initiation of violence”. Right. It gets ‘better0. Here is Danny Ayalon – Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister:

Israel’s deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said his country “regrets any loss of life and did everything to avoid this outcome”. He accused the convoy of a “premeditated and outrageous provocation”, describing the flotilla as an “armada of hate”.

Old Testament stories are full of instances where the “element of surprise” included winning wars by attacking enemies still fast asleep in their tents. Gideon would be proud.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Paragon of Democracy

Lights are out or returning back on this morning in Malta. It’s long past being a funny situation – the power station business that is – and the blackout will ironically throw more fuel into the incandescent fire that is every discussion about power stations, government contracts and governmental mismanagement.

While Malta floundered around in the dark UK Deputy PM Nick Clegg was busy reassuring his voters that the forthcoming government programme will include “the “biggest shake-up of our democracy” in 178 years”. This includes fixed-term parliaments, a fully elected House of Lords and a referendum on electoral reform.

The Liberal leader is in charge of the reform plans and has stated that he wants to “transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state”. Centralised states were on the mind of Clegg throughout his presentation and at one point he stated:

Britain was once the cradle of modern democracy. We are now, on some measures, the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta.

Now that’s a bugger innit? The contrast being made is obvious. Britain has relinquished its past as a “cradle of modern democracy” and having done so has approached – what? – Malta. Ouch. That hurts. It’s painful. But there must be a reason why Nick’s first thought when thinking of a decentralised (and consequentially distant from being a cradle of modern democracy) country leaps to Malta.

House of Lords Chamber
Image by UK Parliament via Flickr

My bet is that if any repercussions will be had in Malta all blame will fall squarely on the nutjobs at the Alleanza Liberali who have carried the “Liberal” name for quite some time now – with dire consequences on any chances that name might have if taken up by normal minded people. There might even be a photo of Nick with John Zammit (who is currently busy working on www.freewebs.com/mintoffjani) as part of his Mintoffjan/Liberal project.

It would be too easy though to blame it on the nutjobs though. Nick Clegg, deputy PM of one of the largest political realities in Europe does not think highly of our political system – were it just a voice out of the blue it would be something we could easily ignore. Instead, Clegg is simply confirming what this forum has said for ages – the PLPN duopoly has much to answer for in this respect.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Hardest Word

It all boils down to when you say it and how you say it then. As the poet said “It’s a sad sad situation, and it’s getting more absurd”. What began as a political issue on the pros and cons of a power station contract ended up as the battle of the apologies (or absence thereof). Joseph Muscat has trumped Lawrence Gonzi this time.

Both parties had been perceived to have committed a “wrong”. A foul. Apparently once you say sorry it’s all over. We have been spared the flurry of libels this time – instead we have the latest stance of concocted or real “indignation”.

Mizzi’s gaffe about Mario Galea and his condition was unpardonable. His was a heavy handed invasion of the private in an attempt to gain questionable political mileage. There are no two ways to go about it. An apology on that point can never come too soon – and need not even be asked for. The shame and guilt should suffice to bring the apology forward. We cannot wonder therefore at the gambit of Muscat’s Politically Contrite image. It has to work because it’s the bloomin’ obvious. What’s maravilious about it is that we had to wait till Monday morning.

We did not get one but two apologies. There was the private apology AND the public apology. We can only assume that one was the sincere “I’m sorry” from man to man while the other is the PR apology – a public act of contrition that includes an admission and an example: it is just as sincere but also reminds the public that these “role models” are admitting the error of their ways – do not copy this at home.

Now here is Lawrence’s quandary. The battle of apologies is a hand forced upon him in many ways. But when Tonio stood up late on a Thursday night to make certain claims about Justyne Caruana’s hushed vote in parliament he should have seen that coming. Forget the rubbish about pregnancy or non-pregancy – stuff for hysterical feminists and troglodyte chauvinists alike – the circumstantial evidence points to more than a hint of fabrication from the governmental benches.

The quandary is here. Were Lawrence to apologise contritely in a manner that should appease the baying crowds and disdained populace still coming to terms with the possibility of a “lying minister” then this would be an admission of guilt. The PN spin has until now waved the flimsy alibi of engineered soundbites and been supported by the usual suspects – it has not yet conceded the point. We all know how impossible it is to apologise for something before you admit to having done it.

That is the quandary for Lawrence. That is why he risks losing more plus points (not of the Bondi kind) among the voters. The General Council may be a placebo of pats on backs among friends but out in the street confidence in a government that cannot admit when it has gone too far is prone to wane.

For Lawrence, sorry seems  to be the hardest word.ù

***

ADDENDUM

Lino Spiteri pens a brilliant article in today’s Times about the consequences of Labour’s withdrawal from the committee responsible for electoral reform: Labour allows democracy veto.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Hard to Stomach

After spending five days of demonising the Liberal Democrats, the Daily Mail is finding it hard to stomach the idea of a coalition government. The Mail’s reaction to the share of the LibDems in Cameron’s new government is symptomatic of the “traditional” reaction to power sharing deals that result from coalitions.

It is hard for the politics of the personal to adapt to this new reality where your political adversary before the election could be sharing the corridors of power with you the next. That too is a not so often cited advantage of proportional representation. Smear mongering is potentially reduced because unless it is really justified and unless it is definitely part of the political reasoning (as in exposing criminal links or something of the sort that provides a service to the voter), every participant has to remember that his interlocutor might be part of the government forming majority come post-election day.

The Mail – caricature that it is – still contains articles calling the LibDems “harlots” and hardly manages to hide its disdain at the share of the cabinet won by the LibDems (and don’t forget that Nick Clegg is deputy PM). You’d expect a pro-Tory paper like the Mail to avoid jabs at coalition partners so early in the day. It shows an inability to adapt to the new realities of sophisticated politics where the much maligned “compromise” is really a result of complex dealing and thrashing out based on reason and not presumptious one party rule by constitutionally guaranteed (or electoral law engineered) parliamentary majorities.

A coalition partner is, in a way,  an opposition party in power – an additional check and balance to the prudent use of legislative authority by the administrative branch of government. The Mail may view the LibDems as a harlot – quite an expensive one to maintain – but my guess is that they will get used to this harlot much more quickly than they like to think (especially if the fixed-term parliament proposal is included in the Queen’s speech).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Right to think Racist

Lou Bondi has been forced to justify his choice of interviewing Norman Lowell after the BA Authority accused Bondiplus of violating the Broadcasting Act and subsidiary legislation aimed at ensuring the promotion of racial equality.

Presenter Lou Bondì insisted yesterday he chose to interview Mr Lowell in order to delve beyond his thoughts on illegal immigration and help the Maltese understand the full force of the horrors of racism. “I am convinced that the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them…,” he said. (Times)

Well. If the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them I guess we should expect many more discussions on a large number of PLPN policies in the coming weeks. Of course we did not expect Lou to inform the BA that Norman was the only subject he could think of and that the investigative minefield (administrative law, tendering procedures, interested party amnesia, party interests etc) posed by the awarding of the BWSC contract was too complicated a task when compared to just putting a man with objectionable ideas on prime time national TV and letting him talk.

This nonsense of fining, shutting up and gagging people who have different ideas must stop. If our only way of countering their arguments is by obliterating them from view then we have reached a sad point in our society. Let him speak I say. The day we elect a crazed right winger to parliament then only one thought comes to mind: we deserve it.

I cannot fathom how we can talk of representative democracy on one hand and then engineer the rules to twist the representation to obliterate ugly elements. By that standard I’d like to see less and less of PLPN in the current format: how about defining them as objectionable too?

Lou is guilty of contributing heavily to the mediocrity of national discourse and engagement. He should not pay for this via some ridiculous assault on the freedom of expression. He cannot use this as his defence but frankly I think it is much stronger than his objectionable nonsense.

***

ADDENDUM

I had almost missed this one since I stopped checking on this column some time back but hey, curiosity pays. Another opinion on the Bondiplus Lowell farce.

This time it’s a friend of Lou’s doing the run down – and you can tell the extreme difficulty Joe had in constructing a critical argument to blame PBS, the producers (not Lou?)  or anyone but Lou (you just have to love the “presenters of lesser stature than Lou” (does he mean shorter?))….

Anyways here is what Media Expert (Fr) Joe Borg had to say about the programme. Do note – PBS must publicly apologise for the mistake. Lou, the poor man, is just a cog of certain stature in the big wheels of the machinery.

What irked me most about the programme was its lack of context which could have perhaps justified the hurt caused because of some overriding public interest. A friend of mine smsed me with the question: is there a survey going on now? His is a very cynic position. Many people will accuse Lou of selling himself for ratings. I do not share this position. I am sure that the reasons Lou had for producing the programme were good and praiseworthy. I think he did it believing the programme would discredit Lowell. I do not doubt his intention but I also believe that he was totally off the mark.

I fear that now presenters of lesser stature than Lou would invite Lowell to their programme as this is how the media circus works. They would not be as prepared as Lou was and consequently Lowell would fare better in such programmes. This would give Lowell more publicity.

Lowell is a nobody. Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese. He has been given his fair share of exposure which could have then been justified by the argument that people had to be informed about the monstrosity of his ideas. To-day, I think, that argument is no longer valid. He is just a fringe politician spouting hate. There is no place for the propagation of hate on public service TV.

PBS should take an editorial decision that Lowell would not be given coverage on the station barring exceptional circumstances due to some overriding public interest.

Would I be asking too much if I urge PBS to publicly apologise for this mistake?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]