Tag: alternattiva

Categories
Articles

J’accuse : Sophistry, Protagoras & San Ċipress

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.

Categories
Zolabytes

Party financing agreement a must

Two days ago we had a Zolabyte by PN MP Franco Debono who continues his quest for the regulation of party financing. Today we bring you a voice from the other side of the house. Labour MP Leo Brincat has been involved in the issue since the Galdes Report on party financing. Here he exposes the pitfalls of the process of regulation and points out what must be solved in order to move on. Is Labour’s Leo right in lamenting that “we are already too late”? (article reproduced with the kind permission of the author).

The article by Nationalist MP Franco Debono on party financing (September 8th) made interesting reading.

The core issue and problem is that, although he seems to believe that this is an urgent matter that needs to be dealt with without any further undue delay, I was never ever convinced of his own party’s commitment to plugging the gap of this democratic deficit.

I write through experience, having had the honour to serve as the Labour Party’s nominee on the ad hoc committee chaired by the late Anthony Galdes, a former civil servant and private sector senior executive of impeccable qualities and standards, that eventually led to the so-called Galdes Report.

There are various aspects that have continued to worry me and haunt me since.

Fifteen years have passed and the Nationalist government that has been at the helm of the country for more than 13 of these years never ever made any serious effort to conclude matters on this issue or legislate on the matter. Hardly ever did it, as a party, make any formal commitment to spell out its intentions on the subject and show it is prepared to go the whole hog to ensure that agreement will be finally reached on this important issue.

On the contrary, the perception the Nationalist Party would prefer to perpetrate the status quo continues to gain ground not only in political but also in commercial and entrepreneurial circles.

There is hardly any point in my colleague Dr Debono lamenting that no significant developments have taken place since 1995 and that no concrete measures have been implemented when there was never any real agreement on the document’s findings itself… something that left the implementation process as dead as a dodo from the word go.

In the run-up to the last election, the PL had committed itself publicly to implement the recommendations of the Galdes Commission on party financing while the general feeling now seems to be that one should take that report as the basis for moving ahead, given the decade and a half that have passed since then.

If one wants proof of the PN’s lack of real commitment on party financing one should scrutinise the fine details and the differences that actually derailed the Galdes Commission.

That the three established parties agree with the principle of transparency in party financing is not enough. As the adage goes, the devil is in the detail and, if my memory serves me well, the proposals put forward by the PN during the formulation of the Galdes report had made it clear they were only after piecemeal solutions that almost defeated the whole purpose of the exercise by ensuring that the parties in question will not optimise the potential benefit of such an accord.

It is interesting to note that, at the time, the commission had been made up of the PL (through yours truly), the PN, Alternattiva Demokratika and Dolores Cristina, who was an independent member and who, to be fair, gave many positive inputs throughout the various discussions we had.

Ironically, both the AD and the only independent member (Ms Cristina) had agreed at the time with the benchmarks proposed by the PL. It was the PN that had stalled the process.

The time is already overdue for such agreement to be reached on such an issue – regardless of whether there is a functioning parliamentary select committee or not – since, by next April, this government will have been in power for three years in this legislature. With elections then fast approaching it is more likely there will be more foot dragging by the government side to reach any form of agreement.

On the other hand, I feel one should also legislate concurrently on the expenditure limits and funding of political candidates too. This, not only to ensure a proper level playing field during election campaigns but also to ensure that certain candidates who might easily find their way to the House (again or for the first time) will not have any strings attached through contributions they received.

The capping of expenditure by political candidates must also be updated and revised upwards to a more realistic level to ensure that the existing laws will not continue to be flagrantly abused of as happens regularly in every election campaign.

In an interview published in another section of the media, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando had been reported to have dropped the biggest hint to date that the government may be reconsidering its earlier opposition to the Galdes conclusions (September 26, 2007). Alas, since then, we have not seen any concrete proof of this, no matter how strongly Dr Pullicino Orlando might genuinely feel on the matter.

Now is the time for the three political parties to get real on the whole issue of political party financing.

The PL has already come forward with a 15-point plan on transparency, which many conveniently chose to either ignore, ridicule or downplay.

On the issue of party financing, people expect that, rather than having these parties disagreeing to agree, if they all believe strongly in transparency they should knock into place an agreement on party financing without further delay.

We are in my opinion already far too late.

Website: www.leobrincat.com

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog. Accompanying images selected by J’accuse.
****

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Zolabytes

Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly

Alternattiva Chairperson Mike Briguglio has kindly given J’accuse permission to reproduce this article. Thanks to Mike we have to rewrite most of our Sunday contribution (can’t have too much repetition going around) – but sometimes it is reassuring that J’accuse is not the only person to see the turn of events from a certain angle. So here is the zolabyte by AD Chairperson Mike Briguglio:

Symbol of a stagnated duopoly  by Michael Briguglio

The recent farce in Parliament regarding the vote on the Delimara issue serves merely as a reminder of the sad situation of Maltese politics. A human error by a Nationalist MP was not accepted by the Labour opposition but, in return, the Nationalists created a story on how a Labour MP voted. To make matters worse, the Labour Party retaliated by saying it will quit the parliamentary select committee.

How sad! MPs are being paid by the taxpayer and they resort to such immature and irresponsible behaviour, wasting everybody’s time in the process. Yet, MPs forget their differences in other instances, such as when they agreed to raise their own pensions! They also conveniently agree to exclude themselves from Malta’s Data Protection Act, thus enabling parties to get personal information on Maltese citizens. Not to mention, of course, Malta’s unique electoral system, which has been devised to maintain two-party dominance, and Malta’s very own party financing system, which is nothing other than “money laundering” in disguise, to the advantage of powerful political and business interests.

Parliament has become a symbol of a stagnated duopoly, which, unfortunately, is made legitimate by voting patterns in Malta. Yet, what are the PN and the PL really offering?

The Nationalist government has its strengths and weaknesses. Despite its seeming unpopularity, in some way or another it manages to present itself as a cohesive bloc, both among its parliamentarians as well as among its voters. Indeed, it seems to be the case that some disillusioned Nationalists do not vote in European or local elections to give a message to their party in time for the general election, or else, vote for a “rebel” candidate in the party’s ranks.

The political direction adopted by the PN unites traditional values with consumerist practices and support of big business interests while maintaining some form of welfare in place. I do not endorse this direction but recognise that, in this way, the PN has, so far, succeeded in creating a durable power structure based on the articulation of two main identities – the Catholic and the consumerist – winning support across class lines and among different social groups.

Of course, this entails contradictions, which are commonly found in Christian Democratic parties. Like a pendulum, Nationalist politics can shift from one that fosters a social market to another that moves towards the New Right and neo-liberal economics.

In recent years, liberalisation, privatisation and over-development of land have left their social and ecological impacts on the Maltese islands.

The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights.

Labour does not fare any better. With all the defects of Alfred Sant, the previous Labour leader did manage to make some ground-breaking feats within the party, such as cleansing it from its violent elements and projecting the image of the meritocratic citizen. Of course, Dr Sant’s Labour made a mess in its EU campaign and in its management of internal conflicts. Ultimately, however, Dr Sant’s project had already imploded in 1998 as it tried to create politics that pleases everyone.

Under Joseph Muscat, we seem to be heading back to 1996 “pleasing everyone approach” in terms of electoral strategy. Labour is resorting to catch-all strategies with the intention of appealing to everyone. Yet, as Peter Mayo put it in a recent seminar on Gramsci, Labour may well be embarking on the road of “misplaced alliances”.

Indeed, it is my conviction that, ultimately, Labour’s catch-all antics will backfire if Labour wins the next election and is in government alone. What will Labour do with regard to its simultaneous promises to hunters, trappers and environmentalists? How will Labour proceed with its newly-found environmentalist populism when the same party faces big business developers that it never criticises?

How will Labour introduce divorce if it knows that a parliamentary free-vote will have the opposite result? How will it introduce gay rights when it welcomes ultra-conservatives who make shameful parliamentary questions in its ranks?

How will Labour finance the public services it wants to defend when it is clamouring for tax cuts? How will it reconcile social justice with its rhetoric to suspend the Geneva Convention with regard to illegal immigration?

In short, how will Labour reconcile its “moderate” and “progressive” elements?

Winning an election is one thing, producing progressive social change is another. Yet, at the end of the day, does Malta have a critical mass of voters and political constituencies that really want such social change? Or is amoral familism – as depicted by Jeremy Boissevain – the most powerful value in Maltese politics? And does the public get what it wants or does it want what it gets, especially in a system where the two-party duopoly is controlling much of the public sphere and Maltese politics?

Michael Briguglio is the Chairperson of Alternattiva Demokratika and blogs at Mike’s Beat.

*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.

Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***