Categories
Politics

Malta post-Franco (I)

Don’t feel guilty if you are still reeling from yesterday’s anti-climax in Parliament. Everybody (and I mean everybody) had different expectations and most of them were based on short-term assessments that were themselves based on a mixture of emotion, curiosity and differing levels of partisan intrigue. Insofar as the live unrolling of events was concerned you could not have written a better script. Christian Peregin of the Times could report every step as is without the need to colour the news. Classics abounded – Herrera’s Twistees, Franco’s phone, the MP’s reading the step-by-step account from the Times, the whips’ frenetic calls, the packed strangers gallery. This year’s Panto was not at the Manoel or Ta’ Qali… it was wired straight to your TV set, radio or computer.

Not many of us yelled “Look behind you” during the actual debate but we did get the full panto “booing and clapping” shortly after the session finished (see video) and the outcome was clear. The biggest surprise for J’accuse was that many people were surprised at the outcome. That there were many (many) men in the street still crossing their fingers rooting for Franco to vote in favour of the confidence motion was acceptable. That it became increasingly evident that the Labour party actually had hoped for this to happen exposed new levels of naivety within the party’s strategists.

There were less sighs of relief from the Nationalist party end but this was probably more due to the fact that they were fully aware of some sort of deal with Debono that had avoided the worst. The nationalist party would live to govern another few days but the exercise of damage limitation had not avoided multiple bruising and the attempt to portray any sense of triumphalism that Joseph’s side had been “defeated” would only expose a shallowness and falsity that aggravated matters further. The cracks had just got wider and hell did they know it.

That was the day that was. In the next few posts (later this afternoon) J’accuse will take an in-depth look at all the participants and try to analyse what this means in the long and short term.

In the first part we will look at the parties and take stock of their current position: Did Franco abstain because of his reluctance to gift Joseph Muscat with what he wanted or was a carrot dangled before him? How far into election mode are we? The parties were evidently unprepared for election mode – will the race without a warm up be advantageous to any of them? Will the No Confidence Saga leave any dents in any of the parties’ armour? Can Alternattiva Demokratika ride the wave of evident disgruntlement at the PLPN methodology? Will this election  lead to another Victory by Default?

The next part will focus on voters and their reasoning. Is the voter prepared to make his vote count? What are his criteria? Will the voter consider the possibility of breaking 50 years of PLPN duopoly? Can he? Are the signs of “two-tribes” politics subsiding or are they being reinforced with the new digital pepper added on?

All this and more in J’accuse’s “Malta Post-Franco” analysis starting today.

If you have not subscribed to our email updates then this is probably the best time to do so. Enter your email address (right column subscription box) and you will receive an email update every time a new post has been added to J'accuse. Also do not forget to check out the other blogs in our Akkuza Soapbox (also right column) who are also actively commenting on the current political situation as it unravels. 
Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Politics

Iacta Est?

The nation seems to be caught between two distinct feelings. On the one hand its holding its breath for some massive occurrence such as the demise of GonziPN while on the other hand the deja vu sense of “Yeah right, pull the other one” has begun to take over many a level-headed observer. Last night’s curtain raiser in the “Great Motion of No Confidence” debate did nothing to lessen either of the two camps’ expectations and we were limited to such ancillary gossip surrounding the VIP MP.

What book was Franco reading in court? How many government MPs visited Franco in his impromptu backbench confessional? How many opposition MPs were left sitting by the end of the debate? Above all, what the hell did Francis Zammit Dimech say?

Meanwhile Joseph Muscat continues to strut around as a Prime Minister in all but form. We have long left the realm of the surreal and entered the psychedelic frontiers of the dysfunctionally deranged that defy any sort of pundit interpretation. In order to have an opinion on the actions and reactions of our political clan you have to be on some form of drugs. At least.

How else can you explain that in a week when the Eurozone president confirmed that Malta’s economic performance was good and that we would not be needing further tweaking during these crisis moments we have a nation obsessed with the “Malta Falluta” spiel? The way J’accuse sees it, this parade risks only getting worse. You’re not reading it here first but the way things are going the man with the most tomatoes on his face at the end of this week risks being Joseph Muscat.

It is evident that Franco has been moved towards abstaining (again – we told you so what seems like ages ago). Which would leave Dr Gonzi at the head of a government that has undeniably shifted to pre-election mode and will stay as such – a bit of embarrassment there no doubt but still with the support of a majority in parliament.  That is crucial.

After the vote, Joseph is left with a party that has moved a motion of no confidence gambling on the fact that it will succeed. He either believed it will succeed or just wanted to stir the waters. If the no-confidence motion fails then his political noux has once again failed him. It will also mean that Labour’s only motive for such a motion was to yell crisis where there is none. And this is the ugly part.

Yes. Hard as it may be to swallow for those who already believed Joseph’s principle-free party had one foot inside Castille, the sudden shift on Monday night by “il-mexxej” to the position that “beyond the numbers government is in crisis” is telling on how Joseph’s real motives can no longer be hidden behind empty words. What the flying progressive donkey is  “beyond the numbers government is in crisis” supposed to mean?

Because either the government is in crisis – and the numbers based on the constitutional rules of support in parliament prove it – or it isn’t. In which case the Labour party’s opportunistic motion backed by a Mexxej who claims to be “lest biex immexxi” is uncovered for what it is. There is no economic crisis in Malta. The performance of this government’s economic management compared to that of its EU peers passes many an exam – and it is not J’accuse who says it.

So what crisis is left? Is the maladroit Donquixotism of Debono at any point equiparable to a crisis? Is it Tahrir Square style crisis? Is it Athenian and Madrid style crisis? We all know it isn’t. Joseph knows. But Joseph doesn’t care. Joseph does not give a flying progressive donkey about whether the ship is relatively stable notwithstanding the stormy seas. Joseph will not stop jumping opportunistically at every opportunity to destabilise this government if that means an earlier chance to grab at the Castille seat.

I’d like to think that Debono had this legerdemain in mind when he kicked off this confidence motion bluff. I’d like to but I don’t. In any case his move, intentional or otherwise, has shown Muscat up for what he is. To many of us it has become evident that Muscat will put his unbridled ambition before the interests of the country – will it be evident to the disgruntled voters, to the reformists within PN and most of all to Franco Debono. 

Crucially, the dice have not all been thrown yet. Hold your breath there is still some time before we can yell “alea iacta est”.

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Politics

That Speedy Legislation

So Franco has now slipped his much touted bill on the financing of political parties into parliament in the form of a Private Member’s Bill. Should we wait before unpacking the fireworks? This must definitely be the last move by the Honourable Member of Għaxaq that proves to us that his seemingly interminable duel with power is not based on anything remotely resembling a coherent plan. Worse still it shows up the greatest deficiency in Franco’s actions: the apparent lack of clearly definable targets. Coupled with the Beppe Fenech Adami revelations Franco’s period as a rising star of Maltese politics has been transformed into the dying moments of a supernova. Why?

Let me tell you why. If, as Franco has often stated, the sick state of our party system is at the core of our political inertia and of what he claims to be our failed democracy then why wait for the dying moments of this parliament to present an all important private member’s bill that hits at the heart of the matter? While he danced, tangoed and sashayed in matters such as public transport Franco never tired of reminding us of his ultimate crusade. Meanwhile he was using the PN government’s one seat weakness to constantly attract attention to his immense capabilities and ultimately to the fact that GonziPN’s web of evil was guilty of putting this man with many solutions on the backburner for too long. Here was your typical example of the nagging footballer who evidently cannot stomach being left on the (back)bench for too long.

So a crucial question must be asked of Franco. Why now? As JPO showed very well with his own Private Member’s Bill on divorce, a timely proposal could have stirred the waters earlier on and shifted the national discussion to the crux of the matter. If let’s say sometime before or after the divorce saga you opted to present this law and switch the whole party system into the limelight then surely you would have been doing your duty as a responsible representative of the interests of the demos. For some reason you did not. I know for a fact that you have been working on it for a long time – who doesn’t?  Then why?

Surely you do not expect to now switch the condition of saving the day for government to the enactment of one law drafted by one person (you may be brilliant but I’m sorry it will take more than one lawyer to finalise a proper draft)? Is that your idea? To have brought the government and two political parties to the verge of an election only to tell them at the last minute to forget it and to concentrate on enacting a law first that practically threatens to handicap them in the future? Really? Seriously?

There is one issue and aside that needs to be considered. I got the impression during the last round of EU elections that many MEP candidates were very angry at their fellow candidates (even from the same party) who, according to these disgruntled candidates, bore false witness as to the amount of electoral expenses that they dispensed. Many of the “weaker” strand of candidates – those who are not in the frontline Ministerial seats or decision making committees of parties with sufficient exposure – would be desperate for a law that (rightly) puts the competition on an equal playing field during pre-electoral battles. Your minister with his deep pockets and incumbent powers might be too much of a match for backbench politicians attempting to get their backside back onto a parliamentary seat next time round… hence the probable eagerness for stricter regulations of electoral spending.

Somehow I may be wrong but I get the hunch that a couple of elections battling it out with heavyweights like Louis Galea might have taken their toll on Franco’s ability to face another round. Hence the need to propel himself to the front come what may. (A reason among many of course). Hence the last minute bill that will probably not see the light of day before the next legislature when district battles will have been fought, lax electoral rules on financing will have been flaunted and the same, same but different voting system will have triumphed.

Franco, I heard you say that the reforms the country needs should be made in a holistic manner. I’m sorry but this bill has everything but “holistic” written all over. Such a shame, the PLPN get their way again and we’ll have to wait quite some more time before anyone seriously tackles the matter.

Thanks Franco. But no thanks.

 

Video: (top right) La Lista Laqualunque

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Mediawatch

A Time to Gag

Anglu Farrugia will cry crocodile tears at the Labour Party General Council. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando will resort to reporting “evil bloggers” on his Facebook wall. Franco Debono will include a new law regulating evil attacks in his program of legislation (which program, having its hours counted, threatens to be the largest amount of laws proposed in the shortest time). General appeals and not-so-subtle implications will be made that the PM should do something about the bloggers and columnists who are resorting to “personal attacks”. And we all get carried away.

Your average listener or reader will not hesitate to chime in with the scarcely researched tautology of “Yes, there should be some form of decency, we have gone too far”. But have we? Or rather – what kind of legislation and control are these paladins of democracy seeking? While the general public showed the predictable kind of ambivalence when the laws dubbed as the New Censorship laws were published the sweeping statements about controlling other fields of expression than the arts multiplied.

First. A note about the new laws. They have nothing to do with such issues as libel and slander. What we have there is a new system of rating theatre and cinema that includes an element of self-discipline. This approach is highly commendable from a libertarian point of view because it emphasises (and exalts) the individual capacity to take responsible decisions. The theatre producer is invited to “censor” his own piece before any official scissors come into play. Self-control, self-censorship – an ability to assess what is and what is not acceptable in wider society : that is the heritage of an intelligent, emancipated and responsible society. Are we ready for the show?

Well, insofar as the political arena is concerned it looks like it is going to be tough. I am of the opinion that the current laws (if we DO have to look at legislation rather than policy first) are more than enough. It is a combination of publish (responsibly) and be damned. Defence in libel includes the “exceptio veritatis” (exception of truth) – the defence that is based on the idea that whatever was said about someone can be seen to be the truth. This is sometimes the reason why somebody who claims to have been libelled fails to go to court for fear of the “libel” being proven to have been the truth.

The “exceptio veritatis” is also itself controlled. While proving that a statement that is being scrutinised for libel or slander might stand strong if it is proved to be true, the truth is not a useful defence in the case of invasion of privacy. Stating that a Minister hosted a party with drugs freely available is defensible with the truth exception – i.e. if the fact is proven to be true. Saying that a Minister has the backside the side of a lorry it is an invasion of privacy and the mere fact that it is true (though even there – the exaggerated hyperbole is such that even the truth is obviously non-existent) will not suffice as a defence.

The fact of the matter is that libel, slander and defamation laws when applied constitute a solid last resort in the battlefield. On the other hand calling for more regulation is a perverse counter-productive move that demonstrates an ignorance of the law and, sadly, an intent to revert to the times of “Indħil Barrani” when our laws were tailor made to serve the interests of whoever needed to gag uncomfortable elements.

Check out again the Newt Gingrich video (top right) starting from 2’20”. Gingrich is asked a very uncomfortable question during a prime primary debate. It is an issue that is very private and Gingrich’s reaction says it all. “I would not like to answer it but I will”. Gingrich goes on to tackle the method of questioning and shoots some repartees of his own towards the press that has peddled the story. There and then. No courts. No gagging orders. Pure and simple intelligent response. And then the question is left to the voters to judge and value. Will voters give more importance to the story of Newt wanting an open relationship or to the fact that Newt was considered enough of a heavyweight to warrant a relentless barrage of mediatic coverage of the fact?

Which brings me to the question of politicians and privacy. Unfortunately the risk of reneging on most of what is private in their lives is a risk that politicians (and footballers, and actors, and prominent businessmen) take in a calculated manner more and more. When campaigns are built on family values and when consorts and children are used in campaigns to be paraded as some form of assets to the main storyline then we should not be surprised that the vultures in the press will be probing to examine whether this too is a facade. When you commit errors during a campaign and these are highlighted, parodied and caricaturised you’d be stupid to claim that these are personal attacks.

Our democracy does not need gagging orders and stricter regulation. Our democracy needs intelligent citizens and … if it is not asking for too much … intelligent politicians.

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Mediawatch

The State of Censorship (a preview)

Stop “personal attacks”. That was PM Gonzi’s appeal to the nation. “Appeal” is a keyword there. It says a lot about “oligarchies” and “power”. The newly announced censorship provisions (that incidentally deal with a fraction of what we refer to as censorship and expression in daily parlance) are not even law yet but many jumped the gun drawing conclusions between the PM’s appeal and the new laws.

So. Last night I watched “The Devil’s Double” a movie based on the true story of the real-life double of Uday Saddam Hussein. There was Uday, son of the Iraqi dictator lording it all over  Baghdad. He did what he liked and that included driving up to school gates and picking up 14 year old girls to take home and rape. In Hussein’s Iraq the only rule was “do not mess with the Hussein family” or they will mess you up.  It was not funny. In essence if Uday did not like you he turned into the horrible nightmare of Ahmed the Dead Terrorist – without the laughs. “Silence…I keel you”.

And Gonzi “appeals” to the nation. To everybody. For he cannot do more than that. He should not be able to. I cannot fathom what supposedly intelligent beings like Saviour Balzan could mean when they come up with the legal lie that Lawrence Gonzi has some power to shut people up. And by people I mean the obvious targets like Daphne Caruana Galizia. What rubbish. What delusional stupidity. I’ll have more to say and to explain as to why all this is rubbish later. Meanwhile I will ask you to watch the video that is in the top corner of this post (right). Forward it to 2’20” and watch the exchange between the debate host and Republican Primaries Candidate Newt Gingrich. J’accuse will comment on this later in the day and explain what it has to do with much of what is happening in our wider political-media circles.

For reference here is Saviour Balzan’s latest rant:

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Politics

When Daphne was right

Following the speculation in the media about possible alternative electoral methods the discussion has returned to focus on the “premio maggioranza” – the compensation of seats for the party winning a majority (even relative) of votes in an election. The “stability” excuse gets politicians thinking of mechanisms to make it less possible for a renegade “Franco” to shake the boat. It is indeed incredible how they cannot see the flaw in the premisses of their argument. First of all stability should not be the be all and end all. The cause of the current instability can be found in our constitutional articles – the famous “enjoys the support of the majority of the members”. The reason the Gonzi’s PN or Sant’s MLP had a one seat majority was because they did not get enough votes to justify more seats (don’t mention gerrymandering – it’s a case of PLPN games anyway- if that’s the problem just abolish districts).

Before I go on, remember that the “suggestion” is still that – a suggestion. None of the parties have been stupid enough to take a position official or semi-official. The Times carried an article with interviews with Joe Brincat and Ranier Fsadni  – that’s all. Still this question of “premio maggioranza” needs to be tackled once and for all. It’s nonsense. If something like an automatic three-seat margin is accepted then we might as well (as someone suggested) give 34 votes to the PM and 31 to the leader of the Opposition and then just vanish till the next election. Dynamic democracy needs a better definition and interpretation of the transfer of power from voter to representatives. It is by nature a transfer that remains dynamic and allows for scrutiny of the different branches of government that should be acting as trustees of the voter’s power.

Which brings me to this article from the past. From January 2008. The theme was the other side of the coin: the Wasted Vote. It is also another victim of a system envisaged to reward two parties excessively and to the exclusion of the rest. In this article I was replying to an article by Daphne Caruana Galizia on the Independent.

***

(Alas) Daphne’s Right

Posted on January 29, 2008

What follows is a letter that was NOT sent to the Malta Independent on Sunday for a number of reasons. It is a reply to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article entitled “Settle down and read this, please“.

It has become a weird habit of politicians to apologise to editors for the space they use up in the letters pages whenever they write in with their contribution. Now I am neither a politician nor am I the apologetic type but I do feel a tinge of guilt that the subject matter of this letter requires more space than is the norm for a letter to the editor which in most circumstances should be short and to the point.

In her article last Sunday, columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia berated the “tiresome lawyer” Claire Bonello for ‘relentlessly whining’ against all that is Nationalist as well as for not declaring her bias towards Alternattiva Demokratika. There is much to be said about the necessity of declaring a bias that is obvious for all to see but that is not why I put fingers to keyboard to contribute to this discussion. What really interests me is the issue of “basic electoral mathematics” so ably brought up by Daphne – the matter of wasted votes.

It is a uniquely magical effect of this country’s electoral laws that give us a situation where – and Claire will surely pardon me for adapting her poster – you “Vote Harry, Get Freddie”. Daphne is right. So right on the issue of these peddling Alternattiva vote-catchers who prey on the arithmetically challenged chatterers of the Sliema Bourgeoisie. Surely they are aware that the votes they crave for their leader will be flushed down the electoral toilet. A vote for Alternattiva is the electoral equivalent of Professor Refalo’s negative marking in the Constitutional law exams for first year law students. You don’t just waste your vote, it’s also less votes for PN and hey presto one more feather in Freddie’s cap.

How funny that I should mention Constitutional law. That very constitution against which the laws of the land should be tested – the kelsenian grundnorm that guarantees that we live in a democratic country and not in a Banana Republic. Daphne is right. The current electoral formula does not allow you to focus on the party you want in power. It does not allow you to say “Hey. I don’t like the nationalists. I not even vote for the MLP when I’m dead lest my vote be counted with that of the living. Then why not vote for AD?”

Why not indeed. It seems that when you think that way you choose to ignore the ominous presence of a potentially disastrous party ready to pounce on Castille. Daphne believes that asking people to vote AD means ignoring the existence of MLP. Something like the child wishing the monster away and hoping the adults will deal with it. Which could be true. Only there is a bit of twisted logic in that too. It may be a step up from basic arithmetic but I am sure Daphne could bear with me as I explain.

You see the problem is that, as the European Parliament elections proved, given the chance 20,000 or so individuals would vote for a different kind of politician. Let me be clear about this. It does not necessarily have to be Alternattiva. My interest is the breaking of the stranglehold of bipartisan politics – and Alternattiva is currently the only plausible alternative I can think of. I see it as a Trojan Horse into the fortified battlements of MLPN. Getting rid of the dichotomy means getting rid of the parochial way of thinking and governing.

So, given the chance people will change voting habits. The bigwigs at MLPN noticed that and last year they dealt the final blow to this possibility. They took away the chance for thousands of voters (even Daphne’s chance) to vote for another party when irked with the two of them. They created the mathematical formula that underlies Daphne’s argument. She is right. Of course she is right.Under the present magical formula concocted by the PN and passed unanimously in parliament, 20,000 votes spread among the 13 districts of the country can be lost. A party garnering 20,000 votes will not get one single seat in parliament. The magic words “proportional representation” have been neutered to an insulting situation where: if, and only if, two parties get elected to parliament under the present system then the seats shall be allocated proportionally to their national vote.

Daphne is right. What she is telling us is this. If you were ever thinking of changing the political spectrum in this country you have been royally screwed. The disincentive first trumpeted to the masses by then PM Fenech Adami – vote AD get Labour – is now here to stay. In one fell sweep, PN got rid of the only party that could seriously challenge its programs with an alternative vision of doing politics. It was one fell sweep that guaranteed the status quo in our political scene. What we have is an alternating chair. So long as Labour remain the band of inept politicians that the PN machinery depict, then PN’s place in government is virtually guaranteed.

Sorry Claire. You cannot go on campaigning without showing the second half of your poster. No “Vote Harry” without “Get Freddy”. I have other plans on my mind. You see Daphne, I too am one of the chatterers. I would love to not have been brutally disenfranchised by the electoral reforms. Like you I am often baffled at the way politicians in this country are ineffective because they live secure to see another day – since electoral scrutiny has turned into a PN vs. MLP farce. Our paths split the day you decided to accept the way MLPN voted to hold your vote to ransom.

I am fully aware of the repercussions of voting AD. I am fully aware of the “wasted vote syndrome” in our elections. Unlike you however I think that the responsibility is not mine to bear but that of MLPN and their electoral reform. Come election day I will exercise my right to vote. I will continue to use my vote to provoke change in Maltese politics. And the day my vote for Harry translates to a vote for Freddie I do not believe I should be the one to do the worrying… I’ll leave that to whoever came up with this wonderful idea that my vote is worthless and worth wasting.

The ball is in their court.

Facebook Comments Box