As Apple launches the iCloud (suspiciously similar to MobileMe) I thought it would be great to share this TED video. What morality should underpin our newly developed technologies? Thought provoking videos on a blog-dry day.
[DEUTSCHE COLI] German authorities are smarting from the latest discovery in the e. coli saga. Far from having been hatched in a Spanish farm during some lazy siesta, it turns out that the bacteria were unknowingly cultivated in a farm in Uelzen (south of Hamburg), Germany. The North-South cultural divide that tends to crop up in EU debates from immigration to work to money had shifted for the worse when the Spaniards had many fingers pointed in their general direction at the end of last week. Ay Caramba! There are many red faces in the German house now as the EU health ministers convene in Luxembourg today to decide how to solve this latest crisis.
[HANDOVER] In Portugal the centre-right Social Democrats delivered a sound beating to the outgoing socialists and took over the government of the Iberian state. They will not be able to do much with government other than attempt to steer Portugal to safer economic waters as their government is tied down by economic constraints of the last EU bailout.
[YEMEN & LIBYA] The Yemeni pro-democracy protesters celebrated a mini-victory when President Saleh was forced to leave the country after being wounded following an attack on his compound. Also in the Jasmine Revolution, there are no signs of change from the Libyan front. As the interpretation of the UN resolution is stretched to its legal limits little ground has been gained in the fight to remove Ghaddafi from power. Last week Malta joined the growing list of countries that recognise the Benghazi based anti-Ghaddafi government. Babysteps.
[CONSCIENCE] The unofficial ballots have it in favour of the AYES in case of a vote in the Maltese parliament on divorce legislation. The discussion has not abated though as some representatives insist on putting conscience before representative duties. The other (hidden) crisis is that of civic awareness on the part of the voters. Will the two main parties manage to realign their supporters along traditional fault lines? Will the PLPN get awat with the Great Deception that they are fulfilling their representative roles in a liberal democracy? Meanwhile former PM and President Eddie Fenech Adami has a peculiar solution for representation in the 21st century … does redefining issues as “moral” really help the functioning of representative democracies?
[HUNDREDS] turned up for an animal cruelty protest in Sliema in an encouraging popular move that could only be a good advert for Malta following the negative press in the Star saga. The Maltese people do have a heart that beats independently after all. The real question is do they have a free-thinking brain to go with it? Tomorrow morning at 9.30am will there be “hundreds” of people convening on Hastings with AD – putting that extra bit of pressure on our parliamentarians to respect the will of the people? One can only hope so.
Former President and Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami has chipped in to the post-referendum debate with an article on the Sunday Times (MP’s credibility on moral issues being put to the test). The article is bound to attract its own corner of controversy – particularly because on the face of it, it is firmly grounded on theological interpretations and principles that have come to be closely associated with pronouncements made by the retired politician.
Part I – Understanding Eddie
It would be unfair not to try to understand the constitutional underpinnings of Eddie’s (forgive the familiarity but it was Eddie for too long to be easy to drop) reasonings simply because the moral values that Eddie subscribes to are so deeply intertwined with those of a particular church. As a small aside in these days when nostalgia for “Salvaturi ta’ Malta” seems to be a new trend it would be good to remember that the moral foundation of the wave of Solidarity, Work, Justice and Liberty was inextricably linked to the christian-democrat interpretation of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine.
Back to Eddie and MP’s credibility though. The former PM is no longer in the driving seat and he can afford to assess the situation from a more principled approach without the quasi-macchiavellian calculations that tarnished his later years in power. To put it bluntly the saving or crumbling of a government is no longer a part of Eddie’s calculations so he can afford to be morally honest with regard to his guiding principles.
The former PM first distinguishes between the moral issue behind the Independence and EU referenda and the moral issue that underlies a referendum on an issue such as divorce. Those among the media (and politicians) inclined to sensationalise will point to Eddie’s reference to Pope John Paul II’s list: divorce, free love (whatever that means), abortion, contraception, the fight against life in its initial and final phases, the manipulation of ‘life’. They will rush to compare it to KMB’s meanderings pre-EU accession about AIDS and Sicilian workers etc. At J’accuse we don’t think that Eddie is in the business of cheap scaremongering this time round. His question goes deep to the constitutional mechanism this country will choose in the future for determining issues that fall heavily on the “moral” side as against the “pragmatically political”.
Part II – Parliament’s Dilemma
This is where we begin to understand Eddie. Better still. Once the noise of controversy and rash anti-clericalism subsides we can even agree with him. Not with his position on divorce legislation but on his outlook towards constitutional frameworks that we form to enact such legislation. You see, the huge problem that this parliament has is that it is unable to come to terms with the fact that no matter how many times it twists and turns this Rubik Cube of Divorce the final decision will ultimately lie in its hands.
Our parliament is designed around – and bends to – the will of a duopolistic anachronism. Once the divorce issue hit the fan it exposed the fundamental weakness of both parties: contemporaneously. No matter how much a “wobbly coalition of economic, social, religious and cultural forces” you can cobble together, no matter how far you can go with the oxymoronic faux progressives it is blatabtly impossible to retain a semblance of coherence when faced with a clearcut decision on a “moral issue”. The only party that would have been comfortable at the outset is still lying outside the closed club of our parliament.
J’accuse wrote at the outset: this is an issue for parliament to decide, not for the people to be lumped with. For parliament to decide this issue it needs to have at least one party that is committed (as a party, as a leader as MPs) to introduce divorce. This commitment must be clear at election time and the electors will have implicitly accepted divorce legislation as part of the party’s manifesto. Neither the conservative nationalists nor the pussyfooting progressives could get themselves to do that. We do get the sophistry of flags of convenience (cue PN with its token gay, liberal and ultra-cool section) or of the logistical sumersaults (cue PL with its private member bills, free votes) but no party wants to assume the responsibility of being the pro-divorce party on election day.
Part III – Why Eddie may be right (and wrong)
Here’s what our former PM did in 2003 – when Labour’s Sant insisted that the referendum result is neither here nor there:
The last two referendums held in Malta dealt with two major political developments. The people were asked to approve the proposed Constitution for Independence and Malta’s accession to the European Union. In both referendums there was a clear majority for the two proposals. Yet the Labour Party MPs continued to oppose both proposals notwithstanding the positive referendum results on those two eminently political issues.
It is worth recalling that as Prime Minister in 2003, faced with that stand by the Labour Party, I opted to advise the President to dissolve Parliament forthwith and call a fresh election in which accession to the European Union was the main issue. I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right.
On the one hand Eddie distinguishes between political and moral decisions. For political issues it is simple. If one party insists on not recognising the will of the people then the solution is to dissolve parliament and call an election. The people can then either choose between two parties and their options (yes, sadly the dualism will prevail).
Eddie does however create a vacuum – legally that is. Here is his reasoning on taking decisions on what he terms “moral issues”:
I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right. As a Christian I believe, on the authority of none other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that divorce is morally wrong and therefore wrong for society. Should one change this view because a democratic majority decides otherwise? Definitely not.
Which leaves us with a political and constitutional vacuum. Who will decide on divorce legislation for the people? The conscience of 69 parliamentarians? Elected on what basis? Eddie is being economic with the truth here because the convenient classification of a vote on civil divorce legislation as a “moral issue” effectively creates a vacuum of representation. It sabotages the very heart of representative democracy which is based on the principle that someone somewhere takes decisions “for the people”. You know the mantra: “a government for the people by the people”.
How do we therefore solve the impasse? The answer is written on the walls. Our political parties should be obliged to shed their convenient status of “wobbly coalitions”. On issues such as divorce there should be a clear position: not a free vote. I expect a party presenting candidates as future representatives in parliament to be clear about what they believe on such issues. By voting for a party I would then also be exercising my choice of or against a particular issue – and expecting it to shoulder the responsibilities in parliament.
Part IV – A parliament of representatives (with a clean conscience)
A parliament that would have been made up of representatives elected on a clean bill of ideas – and not on a mix and match of ideals in order to throw the widest net – would not have wasted the infamous €4 milllion euros finding out what was already a known fact before the debate. Such a parliament would have had a clear mandate to legislate beyond the individual member’s conscience.
Our current parliament will in all probability patch together a law of sorts that is passed with (what now seem to be) 37 ayes but it remains a parliament that is unable to come to terms with the requirements of a huge chunk of its demos. The battle for the emancipation of the Maltese citizen is far from being won.
Former Prime Minister and President Eddie Fenech Adami is right in one thing. The best solution in this kind of situation is probably the dissolution of parliament. This would allow the formation of a new parliament based on new parties hopefully committed to particular principles and policies. Hopefully too, parties will be clear with potential candidates about what the party represents and will ask them to leave their individual conscience at the front door, in the confessional or in any case outside parliament.
The greatest hope I reserve for the eventual voter : that he or she may learn a lesson from this hobbled parliament and choose to discern between false menus and the real deal the next time he or she has to make a choice.
The return of summer has meant the return of the time-slot dedicated to listening to podcasts at a leisurely pace while lapping up the sun on a beach. This week I caught up on the “History of Philosophy without Gaps” series delivered by Peter Adamson of King’s College (available gratis on iTunes). As luck (and universal karma) would have it, I had stumbled on the episode called “Making the Weaker argument the Stronger: the Sophists” (ep. 14 if you care to look it up) and it couldn’t have been a better time to discover the sophists and their school of thought.
Thanks mainly to Plato (see “Protagoras”), the school of the Sophists has had quite a bit of philosophical bad mouthing through the ages and this is mainly because they were seen as a professional class of thinkers who dabbled in the art of “spurious learning that would lead to political success”. From the sophist school (or rather from their detractors) we get the word “sophistry”, which is invariably defined as “an argument that seems plausible but is fallacious or misleading, especially one that is deliberately devised to be so”, or as “the art of using deceptive speech and writing”.
The early sophists invested much in the concept of “virtue” but would soon inject it with a huge dose of relativism − as Protagoras himself would tell us: “Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not”. The problem with sophists however was that via this relativism they were more concerned with persuasion than with the value of truth. In teaching the early politicians the art of persuasion they also thought them that truth could only stand in the way of a successful politician. Truth was not a priority − they would boast that a good sophist could persuade someone that the worse was the better reason… they could make black appear to be white.
The Sophist school lives
The Divorce Debate Hot Potato has left the hands of the people who spoke decisively on the matter and is back in the hands of the bungling lot who are still at odds trying to understand why the rest of the world calls them “representatives”. This is the short-term after-shock when the rocked establishment does what it does best and pulls out the shots for its own survival. Let me put it bluntly: We have two anachronistic parties that had been stripped bare of any semblance of principle beyond the one and only grail of vote-grabbing. Both parties are at this point busily attempting to show the people that they represent their will (Hell Yeah) while contemporaneously attempting to have officially nothing to do with it in the process (Heavens No).
A few weeks back I wrote about Pontius Pilate. His ruse of “release Barabbas” never worked. The people threw the Messiah back into his hands and all he could do was wash them. Not with our modern day Sophists though − far be it from them to wash their hands publicly. Instead they do the impossible and find themselves ditching truth in order to sell the implausible and fallacious packaged as political dogma. To me, the prize of the day, nay the millennium, must go to Inhobbkom Joseph. Sophist to a tee, il-Mexxej has wriggled his way out of Labour’s non-position to the extent that a huge amount of his supporters actually believe that the Labour party is in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation.
Muscat’s post-result speech fell just short of letting people assume that it was thanks to Joseph and his party that Yes carried the day. Nothing new there… I still meet Nationalist Party card carriers who believe the spin that the Yes movement seven years ago was a purely in-house affair. Muscat then performed logical acrobatics of an impressive kind in which he managed to imply that the Nationalist Party is obliged to vote Yes (or resign) while conveniently ignoring the fact that this paladin of progressive politics has not got the balls to tell his own party to stuff the free vote where the sun does not shine. The fallacy (Labour is a pro-divorce party) had been sold − hook, line and sinker to the electorate − while Muscat abetted anti-divorce MPs in his own party. Epic representative fail but huge sophist success.
The powers of an MP
At the other end of our poor political spectrum, the only man with a pair of considerable male attributes remains unsurprisingly Austin Gatt. Much as I disagree with his position (completely and utterly) on divorce itself, there is no doubt that Austin Gatt was clear from day one and his position is an interesting standard in the sea of wavering compromises that are the official party positions. Austin said he could never fit in a party that would be in favour of divorce and that he would resign if his party would pronounce itself in favour. His position is that his conscience trumps the voice of the people in this matter and that he is willing to face the consequences with the electorate (luckily for him he will not be contesting the next election so not much facing to be done there).
I have consistently argued that a referendum was not the right way to introduce a civil right such as divorce. One reason was that in the real world we would have clear direction from parties who could legislate responsibly and professionally with the balance between common good and minority rights in mind. The mess this referendum has put us in is not a result of the YES/NO answer (it has been pointed out that the 53/47 per cent ratio was the same as when the “debate” was officially launched) but a result of our representatives abdicating their responsibility at the start of it all. We cannot have spineless parties without a position (two sets of free votes − 69 consciences − and a collective bandwagon of shameless sophistry) suddenly being trusted with the enacting of such a delicate piece of legislation − and all the signs show that they cannot seem to understand how to do it either.
Kollox suġġettiv (everything’s subjective)
It’s now all about fine-tuning for the parties and the electorate would do well to take note. Muscat’s PL and Gonzi’s PN are about to pull one of those wool-before-your eyes tricks in which they excel. Our tendency to be card-carrying voters before being free-thinking emancipated citizens risks nullifying all the awareness that has been gained over the last four weeks. Both PL and PN want to be seen as fulfilling the will of the people while also being non-committal as parties on such an important aspect as a minority right.
Through the divorce debate we saw the gradual rise of a kernel of a Civil Rights Movement. It was one that “Stood Up” and called a spade a spade beyond the useless rhetoric and empty sophistry of the parties. It was promising − and we recognised the momentum. What seems to have been heavily underestimated though was the pulling power of the parties in their attempt to hegemonise (and in the process mollify) the political decision making in our country. Sure, eventually the Ayes will have it − and Austin will do his little tantrum − but will we revert to the spineless politics and the slow pace of opiated Maltese dualism?
The answer to this question seems to be a resounding “of course”. Deborah Schembri has done us the honours. She was a more than promising leader for the kernel Civil Rights Movement and proved her ability to argue above the noise. She surprised everyone by announcing on the people’s forum − (very aptly) Xarabank − that she would choose a career in politics over a vocation as people’s representative (my choice of words). Another one bites the dust (forgive us for being sceptical about the chances of Debbie changing Labour rather than vice-versa).
San Ċipress
And if you were wondering whether Debbie’s absorption will be a one-off distraction factor then look at the new spin from the PN camp involving another budding star − Cyrus Engerer. No sooner had Deborah announced her “career path choice” did the spin begin to portray the liberal side of PN as the new stars. Much as you might like Cyrus and Deborah as politicians who showed their mettle in the divorce debate, you might be heading towards grave disappointment as they are transformed into the latest tools for survival by the PL-PN opiates.
The boredom threshold of a tired electorate is lower than that of a prime time “journalist”. Having taken great pains to cast his decision, the voter just cannot wait for his representatives to just get a move on beyond the fuss and enact the damn law. The voters’ impatience is the political party’s boon − they will reason their way out of this mess and both will try to sell the idea that they are the people’s party. Meanwhile, the short-lived Civil Rights Movement risks being the greatest loser: can you imagine the PLPN handling other important issues beyond divorce? Of course not. And yet Cyrus and Deborah chose to obstinately operate from within the rudderless ships and allow themselves to be paraded like the latest “vara” (statue) at some village festa.
In the words of one of Malta’s foremost philosophers of the 21st century… “jekk intom ghandkom vara, ahna ghandna vara isbah minnkom, jekk intom qieghdin hara, ahna qieghdin hara iktar minnkom,… u jekk intom ghandkom lil Debbie… ahna ghandna ‘l Cyrus (ahjar minnkom)”….
Will we ever learn? If you’re still not convinced by all this sophistry then you might want to try to take a peek on Alternattiva’s quest to remind our representatives why they should stop dilly-dallying. They’re meeting (aptly again) on 7 June at Hastings Garden at 9.30am. If you’re taking an iPod along then do buy the single “I’d rather dance with you”… by the Kings of Convenience − a pleasant tune to listen to before the latest round of philosophy – hopefully there will be less sophistry involved.
www.akkuza.com − thinking different because you don’t seem to want to.
The moment you think that our collective gaggle of representatives had scraped the bottom of the barrel out comes the latest bravado. This time it is the Master himself : Inhobbkom Joseph. I cannot decide what to believe: Is it Joseph who thinks that every other voter is damn stupid or are voters really that stupid and swallow this shit? Excuse my French. What faeces? I hear you ask. Well let me quote the Master as quoted on MaltaToday (quoting from TX)….
Joseph Muscat said on TX yesterday that Gonzi has no choice but to vote yes and represent the will of the majority. “MPs must vote yes, or else abstain if they have a problem of conscience… the prime minister has cornered his party by taking an official stand against divorce.”
Muscat also said the PN should change its official position on divorce after the people voted in favour of the divorce bill. “Gonzi’s position against divorce today is just like Labour’s position against EU accession or to withdraw Malta’s membership. That is the PN must revisit its position against divorce because it goes against the people’s will.”
Muscat said that Labour MPs were free to be activists against the introduction of divorce and were free to abstain on the vote of the divorce bill. The Labour leader also said his party had left the door open for MPs like Labour MP Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, who said she would be abstaining on the divorce bill vote.
OK. Here’s a reminder. In point form. So we can think calmly.
1. Joseph Muscat INSISTS that the PN must revisit its position against divorce because it goes against people’s will. So this man is stupid (sorry) enough to believe that a NON-POSITION on divorce is not against the people’s will? How does Labour’s NON-POSITION on divorce reflect the will of the majority? Explain.
2. “MP’s must vote yes or else abstain” says Joseph. Funny that Joseph now has the right to prescribe votes for other MPs when he cannot even old his own house in order. And again, how does Gonzi “have no choice but to vote yes” but other MPs must “vote yes or abstain”.
The shit has hit the fan as J’accuse predicted. The logical leaps and attempts to justify abstentions and the temptation to get a minority No vote are incredible. From all sides. Our politicians have abdicated their duty to legislate in favour of a minority right from day one. They passed on that responsibility to a reluctant voter who is now baffled that once he gave them a new remit there is so much pussyfooting and shuffling of feet.
Here’s how it stands:
1. Neither PL nor PN can afford a situation where the law does not pass. The law will pass.
2. Joseph’s PL is trying to get political mileage by focusing on the PN’s original position against divorce while trying to make us all forget that the “free vote” was Joseph’s idea originally – and that it is just as much an abdication from political party representation as a NO vote.
3. Gonzi’s PN is in a quandary. On the one hand Joseph’s antics have thrown the party a lifeboat – the grapevine is already building the either/or option and lesser evil spin – ready for the next election.
Both party’s are suffering the consequences of the Spineless Coalitions they formed in the desperate attempt to garner the relative majority that gives them the coveted crown. The King got his crown but none of them can wield it in the interests of its people.
J’accuse and many others are being vindicated for their ideas back in 2008 when we were “objects of hate” and purveyors of “wasted votes”…. simply because we did not buy the lesser evil option. We urged people to vote for parties with clear policies on specific issues and not the populist giants.
It’s not always fun being right.
In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011
*Caveat: This post is based on MaltaToday getting the report correct. We are prepared to retract our opinion that Joseph Muscat is definitely an opportunist politician should he or the Labour party come out with a correction of any of the abovequoted statements.
These are truly revolutionary times: here I am, guest posting in J’accuse of all places, while the owner of the blog is away.
Parliament meets this evening. On its agenda the first reading of ”Motion No. 206 – Private Members Bill – Civil Code (Amendt) Bill” which translated into the amendments proposed by Jeffrey Pullicino-Orlando and Evarist Bartolo.
For the uninitiated, a bill in Parliament goes through four stages before going to the President to be signed into law. These are the first reading, second reading, the committee stage and the third reading, with the discussion going into greater detail with each subsequent stage.
Voting can take place at every stage and in the committee stage each and every article, clause and proposal for amendment gets voted with a final generic vote in reading number three. However, voting takes place only after a division is called with the MPs voting with “ayes” or “nays”. The Speaker reports on how he thought the vote went but he can be “challenged” and MPs’ names are called, one by one, alphabetically, and their vote recorded in the debates of the House.
Drab, you might think. But this time with some MPs following the voice of the people and others following the voice of their conscience, all this becomes more important.
Tonight it’s the first reading. This is little more than voting on the name of the bill, granting leave to the publication of the first text of the bill in the Government Gazette. Usually, there’s no division and the motion is carried without as much as a nod.
Will a division be called even at this very early stage? Be here tonight at 6 p.m. for some live blogging!
