Categories
Arts Politics

The Political Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Divorce Politics Travel

Cheap Spin by the Times

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

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

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

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

Cheap KM Flights for divorce poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Mediawatch

Body of Evidence

Missing
Image by Thomas Hawk via Flickr

A calm and composed Barack Obama announced to an already rejoicing United States that Osama Bin Laden was shot dead during an operation outside Islamabad. The most important part of the announcement was the confirmation by the US President that “we have the body in custody”. There’s no chance that Osama will perform modern day a Granny Weatherwax routine and turn up with some video proclaiming “I ate’nt dead”. – we’ve got the body of evidence.

On the other hand, while killing a person is (relatively) easy, killing an idea isn’t half as simple. While the whole civilised world deserves its moment of heady jubilation at the thought of another crackhead espouser of evil thoughts and deeds hitting the dust, I cannot quite fathom how this could mean anything close to the end of terrorist activity. At most there is one less person to blame for the deeds, otherwise it is probably business as usual.

 

BBC Report

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Articles

Non Gode di Immunità Ecclesiastica

Fully qualified law graduate and state approved lawyer Dr Deborah Schembri has been told that she may no longer practice as a lawyer in the Church tribunal “because she is spreading incorrect information on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage”. There has always existed a possibility that a lawyer is suddenly “debarred” from duty before the ecclesiastical curia. Nobody – no liberal, progressive or otherwise (except maybe the eccentric Dr Bezzina) – had ever squeaked an ounce of protest regarding this state of affairs, perhaps because of our instinctive reaction of “why bother?”

The legal system of the catholic church is the oldest legal system still in use today. Named the Rota after the round rooms in which the judges originally heard cases, the church courts have jurisdiction over judicial trials related to the Catholic church. In our country, ever since the 1995 Marriage Act, the church’s jurisdiction extends to civil affairs insofar as church decisions on annulment have a civil validity. Boiled down to the bare minimum that means that the decisions of the church regarding who may practice as a lawyer before its tribunals are no longer a question, as Fr Gouder would like to have it, of “either believing or not”. Persons appearing before the church courts do NOT have a right to the lawyer of choice – and that is the crux of the matter.

With all due respect to Dr Deborah Schembri this is not matter of her livelihood (she chose to work within the system and therefore should comply fully with its requirements) – it is a matter of citizens of the state being deprived of a lawyer of their choice in proceedings they may submit to involuntarily. Kudos to Dr Balzan of the Chamber of Advocates for having pointed out that the right to choose ones own lawyer should not be limited in any way – sadly it was a typical knee-jerk reaction that had long been past its due date. Unfortunately, the divorce matter at hand has watered down the crucial highlighting of this abominable anomaly that results from the Church-State agreement.

Weapon of Choice
For the word on the street is not about this issue of a “right to a lawyer” but focuses instead on the Church’s “bullying”. The ignorant (for they ignore) crowds are even pressing with a petition for the “reinstatement of Deborah Schembri” – proving thusly that they have not seen the real problem underlying this issue. This is not, may I point out, a choice between Barabbas and Christ for it is not the representative of Ceasar who is deciding here. We have the indirect work of the successor of Peter interpreting an Apostolic Letter (Justi Judicis). The rabble has been wrongly roused.

At the heart of it all is our incredible inability to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. We cannot fathom why the church has every right as a social participant to send messages to its flock about its position on divorce while at the same time we claim to be fighting for a more liberal society where EVERY social participant has a right to express their point of view. Sure, the Church is inadvertently uncovering the weakness of this particular flock on the island of Paul – the flock that needs cushioning from the free choice that God gave them – and in doing so is proving to be a shaky witness to the sturdiness and incorruptibility of christian morals.

We may have Ministers that practically have a directly line with the Madonna (as if Angelik was not enough) but our particular brand of Catholics want a “choice-free” Malta for otherwise the flock would be so weak as to succumb to sin at the first opportunity: just remember DJ Cordina whose objection to divorce was that it would make him think about the option from the moment it was possible. Basically our specific version of the church, in conspiracy with the state is one massive prophylactic covering the island from any possibility of deviant activity. Onward Christian soldiers? More like pampered kids without a sense of volition… the naked ape indeed.

Praise You
This week’s Lou Bondi show was a pleasant surprise what with the presence of artists and writers discussing Malta and the Maltese. I was irritated by Lou’s confusing “Value” with “Identity” in his search for typical Maltese “values”. Gozitan author Pierre Mejlak was spot on when stating that we probably share most of our values with people close to our islands. I did find one moment to be particularly telling though. When Brikkuni vocalist Mario Vella intervened in a discussion about “il-Bar ta’ Taht il-Knisja” (the Bar below/Beside the Church) – a Brikkuni classic – he was defensive about the role of the “church” in the lyrics.

While Lou and the rest of the panel rightly examined the lyrics from the perspective of the interaction in society under the watchful gaze of the church, Vella – who I like to think of as a liberal and progressive musician (an appreciation from the lyrics of his music, if not nothing else) was dismissive of the importance being given to the Church in this particular appreciation. According to Vella the church was simply an indication of the geographic location of the bar and he seemed to imply that too much was read into the role of the church in that song. Vella’s stance was quasi-apologetic – and to me disappointingly inexplicable.

I may be wrong. Vella might very well have used the church as a geographical (and not moral) compass in the song but I get the feeling that once again the “censor in your head” syndrome was clearly manifesting its ugly head. Same goes for Deborah Schembri. Her apologetic reaction after the news of her debarring broke gave the impression that she is more concerned with being “reinstated” than with challenging the legal anomaly affecting the rights of representation of citizens in a tribunal with state and civil powers. Give us this day our daily bread.

The Rockafeller Skank – Intermezzo
I’ve begun to apologise whenever a long article is in the making. This is one of them for it has been a bountiful week, so may I suggest a quick cuppa before you return for the rest of the show. Unlike Lou I do not have an interminable rosary of adverts between different parts of the programme so you’ll have to make do with your imagination or look up the sublime Brikkuni pieces on YouTube for a musically pleasant interlude.

That Green Jesus
If figuring out the fine line between sacred and the profane was not enough, the news that broke on Saturday’s papers was guaranteed a full blown “national discussion” as we know best. The people had been informed of the decision to shift the icon that is the Triton Fountain to a different place on the Floriana plateau and away from the vacuum of vacuums that the Place Formerly Known As City Gate is fast becoming. It would seem that the law of open spaces (and the administrative connivance of those in power) hath decreed that the maravilious monument to giants would be removed from its position of prominence.

Maltese Identity? Would you imagine Piazza Navona without its obelisks? How about shifting the Trevi Fountain to a more “convenient” spot? Imagine a reshuffle of Washington’s monuments in order to accommodate some new-fangled plan. You cannot, can you. Of course not. I cannot put my finger on it but I have a feeling that this too has to do with our inability to be more assertive about our identity. When even our national treasures (for it is a treasure) can fall victim to redecoration by the temporary temporal powers, it means that the planner believes himself to be greater than the treasure itself. It says much about the importance that we attribute to our heritage.

Right Here, Right Now
It is perhaps fitting that my long stay in Malta with a task list full of wedding preparations had to end the day Prince William and Kate get to tie the knot. If you were one of the millions watching the ceremony you will have notice the immense sense of occasion that only the Brits can pull off. They are definitely assisted with the presence of monuments and heritage that go back a thousand years (since the marriage of William the Conqueror in Westminster).

For me it is time to return to the Duchy. Sadly, I leave a day too early and will miss the Norman Cook concert that is bound to have been magnificent by the time you read this article. Fatboy Slim… now that describes my targets until next November – from Fatboy to Slim … hopefully I’ll make it in time for the wedding.

www.akkuza.com – the sacred, the profane and the wedding fantastic all in one blog

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Mediawatch

Lawyers in Church

Deborah Schembri, spokesperson for the Yes to Divorce movement has had her license to practice in the Ecclesiastical Tribunals suspended “because she is spreading incorrect information on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage.” A whole fuss has now been kicked up accusing the Church of “bullying” and of weighing in on the debate in a “crusade-like” fashion. Lovely.

It has long been my position that it is useless and anti-democratic of anyone to criticise the Church for doing its job among the faithful. The flock is the flock and it must be nurtured, and sorry if I add “by hook or by crook”. The Church is not only a spiritual guide but also a social participant and has every right to keep its foothold on the social scene. Preventing or countering it should not equate to silencing it.

As for the license to practice in Ecclesiastical Tribunals that is another matter altogether. I heard the Super One report on the issue and it hinted to the fact that a substantial part of Deborah Schembri’s livelihood was being affected by this decision. Now I am prepared to grant that this is a bit of dramatic hyperbole in order to exaggerate the financial effect on my colleague’s career but I’d love to concentrate on this whole lawyers in Church tribunals business.

Were the ecclesiastical tribunal system a completely independent system from state law then I would have absolutely no trouble in the Church picking who is and who is not deserving of being a legal doctor in its own courts of law. Trouble is that independent it surely ain’t. You see in cases of separation that are initiated in a (state) court of law by one spouse, should the other spouse decide to open a parallel case in the Church tribunal for annulment then THAT case takes precedence. The whole shebang is decided with Church Law trumping state law and the spouse who would have preferred a state court to decide cannot but follow into the ecclesiastical tribunal – until the Church decides.

I have always had my doubts about the legality of this agreement on the basis of the fact that the latter spouse has his right to choose his own lawyer limited since this has to be a “church approved” lawyer. To put it simply – if he or she is dragged before the church courts by his spouse then he or she is not allowed to choose certain lawyers deemed unproper by the church. That is the reason I never sat for the exam to be a doctor of law in the eyes of the church. If ever a potential client of mine requested my presence to assist him in a church court I would be prepared to take the case all the way to Strasbourg because – given the link between church law and state law there is in effect a national law that denies people their right to a lawyer in certain cases.

Deborah Schembri has not explained how her “livelihood” came from conniving with this state of affairs in which Church law sits uncomfortably with State law. Her quasi-apologetic press conference shows me rather that she would be glad to return to the status quo ante – defending clients as  a Church approved lawyer. It makes me wonder whether Deborah and her colleagues at the press conference (Varist and Michael Falzon) have not got the wrong end of the stick…

It’s not just about yes to divorce. It is also about being consistent about what we all want.

On Referendum Day, J’accuse would vote Yes to Divorce even though the result would be as useful in this lay world of ours as a license to practice as a lawyer in the Ecclesiastical Tribunals.

 

Facebook Comments Box

Categories
Mediawatch

Fresh Basil

Wandering around the streets of the island on the various errands that have become onerous due to the forthcoming festive occasion I couldn’t help but notice a few fresh frescoes painted on public walls. These graffitti consisted mainly of slogans such as “Censorship offends me” or “I have seen the great minds of my generation killed by madness”. The former was on a wall outside University and the second on the floor of the slope near Balluta church. Both slogans were signed “Basil” and this must be Malta’s very own Banksy. J’accuse has long called for this kind of affirmative street art that can shake people into thinking as they go about their daily affairs…. Basil is a good start. There is much more the “artistic” community can get up to beyond the whinging about censorship and pandering to journalists hoping to fill a few columns with straightforward reporting.

Hats off then to Basil and may we see more of his/her works decorating giving us street food for thought.

 

Facebook Comments Box