Tag: Cyrus Engerer

Categories
Politics

Austerity : the vote killer

Given the choice between the opinion of resident Times economist Daniel Finkelstein and that of Cyrus Engerer on the current “wave of change” hitting Europe and the wider world I should be forgiven for opting for the former. It is an undeniable fact that popular sentiment lies closer to Cyrus Engerer’s way of thinking – that there is a social-democrat/socialist/progressive wave of change that is rejecting austerity and that has some plan to rebuild Europe through jobs and competitiveness. Or something like that.

I chose Cyrus simply as an example. His sentiments echo clearly those of many other “anti-austerity” hopefuls – and not just in Malta. Here is Cyrus posting on facebook commemorating Europe Day (my translation):

This year Europe Day has a more important meaning where we are watching Europe that has for a bit over ten years been practically run by conservative parties. Last year Denmark chose the Social-Democrat party, France did the same last Sunday and it seems that Social-Democrat parties have begun to win local and regional elections in many countries (Germany, Malta, United Kingdom). The call for the leftist parties is one of hope, progress and growth thanks to investment in youth, education and work instead of austerity. What do you think?

Well I think that Cyrus is confused about the real drive behind the votes. His activism within Malta’s Labour party, a party that is eager to jump onto what seems to be a progressive bandwagon might have much to do with this and he cannot be blamed for this bit of predictable rhetoric. On the other hand the current political situation merits a deeper analysis than the simple explanation of a pendulum switch from conservative to socialist (&c.).

I believe that this is not really a positive vote in favour of some progressive (or socialist or social democrat) pan-European movement but a negative vote against austerity. Cyrus omits to mention, for example, the administrative elections in Italy which were not exactly a success for the Partito Democratico – the largest leftist movement in Italy. Instead, the administrative elections produced a surprise result with the popularity of the Grillini (Movimento Cinque Stelle) best described as the anti-establishment party. Beppe Grillo – the movement’s founder described the success of his Movimento in this manner:

Qui siamo veramente a un cambiamento epocale di pensiero della politica. I cittadini votano se stessi. Stiamo avendo successo. Questo è solo l’inizio. Dalla rigenerazione di cui parlava il nostro presidente della Repubblica, siamo passati alla liquefazione. La destra, il Pdl, il centro: non c’è più nulla. Si stanno liquefacendo in questa diarrea politica. Finalmente i cittadini si riappropriano delle istituzioni perché sono le istituzioni.

Grillo’s analysis centres on the rejection of the current political establishment – the liquidation of the standard political system. Though not far from the truth, Grillo’s reading of the signs is also “egoistic” in political party terms. We could acknowledge “positive” voting for the grillini but then again the message of “ousting” the political establishment is much stronger and larger than the Grillo reality. For that we have just to look at the Le Pen vote in France. Once the first round of presidential elections was over and the options were red or blue we did not really witness the landslide rejection of Sarkozy and the tsunami of progressive votes that many had predicted. Hollande and his progressive growth promises just about scraped through.

Yes, socialist and labourite parties across Europe would love to believe in a wave of positive choices in favour of a program built on investment and spending to encourage growth. That would be the program that ultimately delivers the death sentence  to the Merkozy inspired austerity measures. But do they really have something going? Or is this the child spitting out the medicine and going for the sugared placebo? Even before we start hedging our bets on whether the placebo of “growth” and “the new Marshall plan” will work we should be asking what these programs really mean.

Back to Finkelstein – whom I will quote in order not to bastardise by summarising:

Here’s what I think happened in Greece, and in France, and in the local elections in Italy a few days ago. Voters went to the polls to see if they agreed that two plus two equals four and decided that they did not. Simple arithmetic ran for office, and lost.

Now what exactly does Finkelstein mean by “simple arithmetic”? Thankfully Finkelstein explains what this actually translates to in democratic terms:

The financial crisis saw governments step in to take over debts that had been incurred by private citizens. They could do this because their power to tax their citizens assured lenders that they were good for the money. But two things have happened since 2008. The first is that the size of the debt grew so large in some countries that even its power to tax wouldn’t raise enough money. The second, which was dramatically underlined by the election results at the weekend, is that the power to tax proved to be theoretical. Democratic governments can’t tax (or reduce spending) if voters won’t let them.

The clash between financial reality and democratic response is as big a political crisis as most of us have ever seen. All over Europe, voters are in revolt against paying the bills they and their fellow countrymen have incurred. And not just in Europe. A recent visit to Japan found a country flitting from one prime minister to the next and still, after many years of struggle, no closer to determining how — or even whether — to deal with its economic problems.

On Europe Day, we would do well to look more closely at this kind of message. The rhetoric of “growth” is all well and good. So is it facile to condemn “democracy controlled by markets”. The importance of responsible governance can never be sufficiently underlined. When I look at the recent outings by Joseph Muscat what with all the karma that “Taghlim. Tahrig. &c” I can only see a pandering to the huge chunk of voters who will act as most voters would: voting for the option that promises less tax and more spending.

Malta does not even have a movement such as the Movimento Cinque Stelle – and what with Alternattiva seeming to be lured by the progressive promises of a “growth driven” plan of recovery (an inevitable step given AD’s heart lies strongly with the working left) there seem to be less options for delivering the message of no confidence to the entire political class. Meanwhile in parliament today Tonio Fenech summarised what this year’s budget means to the population:

“(…) increasing pensions, the tax reductions for SMEs and for parents whose children are in private schools, the incentives for the property sector and the investment we’re carrying out in the economy,”

The brunt of his attack on Joseph Muscat was based on the notion that this government has actually increased spending notwithstanding the 40 million euro budget cuts. Interestingly Fenech’s damning accusation for Muscat was that “A Labour government will be an austerity government… “. This leaves us with much food for thought regarding both political parties. Is Gonzi’s PN eager to shed any links it has with “austerity” plans and if so does that mean that both our main political parties are jumping on the “growth” bandwagon because that is where the votes evidently lie?

Earlier Fenech had sung his praises for Francois Hollande’s policies regarding the stability pact stating that:

the Maltese government has “consistently emphasised that growth and stability go hand in hand and should not be divorced,” adding that the pact needs to be balanced between growth and stability because “there is no growth without stability.”

President Barroso of the European Commission has given a lukewarm reception to the Hollande ideas (see this article on the WSJ) so where does this put the PN government policy wise? Will it be backing Hollande to the hilt in this new battle of “austerity vs growth”?

Given that elections are still round the corner, and once the focus shifts away from Franco Debono’s timetable for parliament, it will be interesting to see how the “growth vs austerity” battle will translate in Malta. Better still, it will definitely be another sad day for the anti-establishment voters who would have hoped for an option that recaptures the power that has long been lost to the institutionally cocooned  behemoths that we have long labelled as “PLPN”.

 

* Note: The Times (UK) article links might not be immediately available to non-subscribers.

Categories
Politics

Rush coming up

Jiġu mumenti fejn nipprova nimmaġina meta’ kien il-mument li waqafna nimxu u bdejna niġru. Niġru fis-sens li ma niefqux biex naħsbu u li inħallu il-mezzi ta’ komunikazzjoni jaħsbu minflokna. Filli konna hemm nifirħu bl-emanċipazzjoni tal-individwu u li issa kellu il-poter f’idejħ u filli kull ħajt virtwali u kull forum possibbli qed jintela’ bil-vomtu kwotidjan mingħajr ħafna ħsieb.

Fausto sejjħilhom graffitti. Sewwa qal. Anki jekk f’idejn esperti anki il-graffitti jafu jġiegħluk taħseb. Imma illum mhux graffiti biss għandna. Għandna il-kummenti, il-kontrokummenti, l-osservazzjonijiet mundani u personali. Għandna is-search engine u l-wikipedia. Għandna l-aħbarijiet “on tap” u l-“opinion polls” instantanji. U fil-baħar ta’ “data” l-individwu emanċipat safa dik il-gżira li John Donne qalilna li ħadd ma hu.

**

Iħħakkjaw il-kont elettroniku ta’ Bashar Al-Assad dittatur ġewwa s-Sirja. Skoprew li waqt li mijiet ta’ Sirjani kienu taħt attakk ġewwa Homs, id-dittatur u martu kienu qed jordnaw il-linef u d-DVD ta’ Harry Potter minn fuq x-xibka ta’ l-eteru. Jaħasra kemm miet kmieni Salvador Dali. Kienet tkun xena surrealissima li seta jiġbed ma Picasso. Biss biss Pablo kien ikollu jkabbar it-tila ta’ Guernica biex ma jpinġix biss il-bombi neżlin imma anki l-vann tad-DHL jew UPS qed iwassal il-linef fid-dar tad-dittatur.

U ta’ Harry Potter mhux tajba jew? Kemm hi belha din Asma (hekk jisimha martu l-Ingliża) kos. Tordnalek il-kopja legali tal-film ma jmurx tikser il-liġi u tidħol fuq xi Pirate Bay tniżżel it-torrent. Fejn taf, jekk jispiċċaw quddiem il-Qorti Kriminali Internazzjonali ikollhom akkuża inqas għal xiex iwieġbu il-koppja Al-Assad. Massakru ċivili – IVA, korruzzjoni u tkasbir tad-drittijiet – IVA, download illegali – LE ta… dak ordnajtu fuq PLAY.COM onorevoli… delivery b’xejn kieku kont fl-Ewropa.

**

Irrekordjaw lil Julian Galea. Irrekordjaw lil Joanna Gonzi. Joanna ma ħarġitx għall-elezzjoni. Julian ma setgħax jirtira l-kandidatura. Ivvutawlu xorta. Imbagħad irriżenja. Għax ħass li aħjar. Ivvutawlu xorta. Dik l-iktar biċċa affaxxinanti. Kellhom kollox għad-disposizzjoni tagħhom. Il-massa tal-medja wasslitilhom kull bit u byte tar-recording. Ivvutawlu xorta.

Ħal-Qormi għandhom sindku ġdida. Naqra naive. Imsieħba f’sit ta’ “hostesses” taljani. Hostesses kienet saret kelma sinonima mal-Kavallier tal-Italja li ħadem tant għal ġieħ u unur in-nisa tal-Italja. Li ma nifhimx hu jekk dawn in-nies humiex konxji tal-konsegwenzi tal-preżenza tagħhom fuq ix-xibka virtwali. Fil-Festschrift Immanuel Mifsud tagħna stampa ċara ta’ dak li sejjaħ bħala il-konfessjonarju ta’ Foucault. F’J’accuse semmejna kemm il-darba kif kien hemm perijodu fejn il-blogs servew ta’ mera ħarxa li uriet il-kruhat tas-soċjeta tagħna. Ma konniex nafu jekk aħniex lesti għalihom dawn il-veritajiet.

Bħal Alice fil-pajjiż tal-meravilji sirna, diffiċli tifhem dak li hu veru u dak li hu virtwali. Forsi la nifhmu li dak li ilna insejħu virtwali huwa biss estensjoni tal-veru forsi hemmhekk biss nimxu l-quddiem.

**

Cyrus Engerer il-politikant bla kostitwenti bena dar fuq Facebook. Mill-kampanja tad-divorzju il-quddiem bena persunaġġ virtwali. Cyrus il-laburist li qiegħed bilmod ilmod iżarma l-ewwel maskla reali li kien bena fil-bidu tal-karriera politiku tiegħu meta kien Cyrus in-Nazzjonalist li forsi (forsi) kien jirrekordja lil kollegi tiegħu meta’ jkunu f’xi dagħdigħa ta’ bejn il-ħbieb – just in case.

Franco Debono imur il-parlament bħala deputat nazzjonalista. Anki Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Imbagħad meta taqbżilhom u jridu jiftħu l-mitraljatriċi tal-kritika jidħlu fuq Facebook jagħmlu xi status update. “Does RCC have a blog?” kienet waħda mill-aħħar enigmi ta’ Franco. Sa fejn nafu aħna m’għandux blogg RCC. Konna nistednuh għall-bloggata guest – imqar għall-kurzita biex naraw x’ikollu xi jgħid.

Sadattant blogs oħra li nibtu waqt il-falsa stikka tal-elezzjoni li qatt ma kienet mietu fuq ommhom. L-azzopardinicky’s tal-mument kienu posposti għal mument opportun. Kien kmieni wisq biex iżżomm ritmu ta’ elezzjoni. Dan jafu Muscat li issa inbela f’nassa ta’ prattikament prim ministru kostanti sa mill-inqas is-sena d-dieħla.

**

U Simon Busuttil li ma jridhiex tas-suċċessur predestinat qed jisħaq fuq komunikazzjoni. S’issa kull meta tniffes, tniffes biex jgħidilna li jew iridu jisimgħu iktar jew iridu jikkomunikaw aħjar dak li qed jagħmlu. Għax dak li qed jagħmlu huwa tajjeb.

Li għadna ma smajniex minn Simon Busuttil huwa jekk hux se jkollu messaġġ li jwassal, hux se jkollu kontenut ġdid, jew inkella aħniex se jkollna biss reċiklaġġ u stinar fuq messaġġi li ilhom li intilfu fil-kaos tal-eteru. X’se jisma’ Simon? Il-graffitti fuq il-ħitan?

**

Ilna niġru. Bl-Ingliż ngħidu “to rush” u qlibniha tirraxxja. Bħal dak li bela’ l-ecstasy u ma baqax jagħmel sens. Għax il-moħħ jaħseb sew meta jirrifletti u mhux meta jispara bl-addoċċ. Il-moħħ huwa l-ewwel għodda. Id-dinja virtwali – dik l-estensjoni tad-dinja reali – għandha potenzjal qawwi. Enormi. Pero jekk naqbdu niġru biha ma ndumux ma nsibu l-ewwel ħajt u nibqgħu deħlin dritt ġo fih.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : You can't always get what you want

This is the J’accuse column from yesterday’s The Malta Independent on Sunday (July 31st).

I cannot stand conspiracy theories. Worse still, I cannot stand most conspiracy theorists for their willingness to accept half-truths and bent facts much more readily than keeping their feet firmly on the ground. The stubborn manner with which a conspiracy theorist will bark out his “facts” and non sequiturs, without pausing to allow some much needed oxygen to reach his brain cells, is extremely frustrating. For someone who cannot stand conspiracy theories, the behaviour of Malta’s press world (commentators included) over the past week has been crazy to say the least.

A series of curious incidents that would each merit a separate chapter in the burgeoning annals of Maltese political and social eccentricity were pounced upon by a media circus that was all too eager to fill columns and pixels with whatever qualifies as a “scoop” or “exclusive” this day. The colourful summer recipe included some amateur spinning, some hastily assembled assumptions, a dash of insinuations and (in most of these cases) plenty of blind hope in partisan savoir-faire.

Cyrus the grate

If you set aside the Norway massacres, the latest life-vest thrown to the euro and the stories about the US’s battle to avoid economic hell (or if you actually thought of those before), then you would probably be thinking of the manner in which Cyrus is getting his name slapped across the headlines. He seems to manage to do so with grating irregularity and has long surpassed the star factor that his fellow councilman Nikki Dimech had achieved with his little bit of shenanigans some time back.

The latest instalment in the record-running show “PLPN’s Got Talent (kemm ahna sbieh min jaf jarana) is a series of events that − if you believe the conspiracy theorists − was triggered off by Cyrus’ Great Switch. Incidentally, here is one for the Black Belt Conspiracy Theorists − did you know that the name Cyrus has been linked to the Indo-European meaning “humiliator of the enemy”? Now that’s some food for thought. A kiwi, almost.

I cannot bore you with all the sordid details of the step by step accounts of what happened, who phoned whom and who called for who’s resignation. I’ll let you be bored elsewhere because frankly, if you have not picked up the various truths and colourings-in, then you might as well go on living the life of the blissfully ignorant. For those of you who love to perform the weekly hara-kiri of senseless speculation I have a few questions prepared.

A series of interesting questions

The PN first. Do you ever intend to start vetting candidates in such a manner as to avoid indecent surprises once they are elected to Parliament? Do you have any mechanism that somehow tests candidate suitability on the basis of the supposed basic set of values your party used to proudly carry? Do you still think that backing JPO to the hilt in the run up to the elections was a brilliant scheme?

And now Labour. The vetting question holds true for you too. Is it really enough for someone to say “I don’t like PN anymore” for them to suddenly waltz in and become a prized asset in your roadshow? Your “Dear Leader” called for the resignation of Edgar G C for having called the police commissioner. Are you telling me that a Labour PM would not be worried about having a politically motivated police force and that therefore no phone calls would be made asking for reassurance that none of it is happening?

Worse still, it is a fact that EGC called Commissioner Rizzo upon instigation and in the presence of Cyrus Engerer. The same Engerer is under investigation for criminal offences. The worst that could have happened, politically speaking, is that such accusations and process are now public knowledge − but that does not change the nature of the offence for which he is ultimately accused. It does not in any way absolve Cyrus from the necessity to go through the due process. My question is − given the stinking web of networks and interests that seem to be weaved into the case − wouldn’t a temporary suspension from the Labour Party be the least you could do to ensure that Engerer gets to defend himself without the burden/excuse of political manipulation?

Networks

I dealt with the role of networks in the whole story before it unfolded any further. For further elucidation do pop over at www.akkuza.com and check out the post entitled “I.M. Jack − the one about Cyrusgate”. The way I see it we have a perfectly normal course of events in Maltese politics and social life that is suddenly being given a specific twist because of the convenience it has for certain parts of the partisan charade (and possibly for Cyrus himself).

Maltese social life is based on the building of networks. As I said in the blog: our PLPN society is built on webs and connections and networks. You publicly move up the ladder and before you know it you are a wheel in the power machine: sometimes you end up using that wheel’s power in complicated rituals that involve the exchanging of favours. Within that power system lies an unwritten rule that family and close friends might be given added consideration: it’s private you know. Think of the last time you saw someone getting his friend through on the VIP list in some nightclub and then think wider, bigger.

Look around you. Whether you are at the bank or at the grocer or at the public registry or negotiating a discount on your fine with a warden, there is one thing in common. You look at them beyond the normal confines of basic social interaction. You try to get to the banker who knows you or is a cousin twice removed, you prefer the grocer who treats you as a friend or the tax assessor who is married to your office mate’s brother and hopefully you are lucky enough to be dealing with a reasonable warden. These connections are crucial (as Google+ and Facebook have long found out) because the main currency on which these circles operate is the trading of power units.

Buying power

The policeman who meets a politician in the street and guarantees that a hush-hush case will probably be heard behind closed doors is attempting to wield the power he has in his sphere of influence. You find this kind of power all over the place − take civil services everywhere for example. Sometimes it is impressive what will open a door or close another. In Luxembourg, where the civil service employs mainly Luxembourgers, I learnt a crucial lesson that oils the wheels in your favour. It was simple really. Do not address the public servants in French. Short of Luxembourgish try English. Often it makes the difference between being ignored or misdirected and getting what you want immediately without as much as a huff.

What I believe lies behind the grossly inflated Cyrusgate is the wielding of multiple bits of power with the mistaken intention of upsetting or strengthening partisan loyalties. When suspicion falls on the police force about expediting or delaying the application of justice, what we are really saying is that there is a PC somewhere who holds the key to the speed of treatment of a dossier with Cyrus’ name on it. The mere fact that he can choose to speed it up is his little corner of power. Did this constable use it to ingratiate himself with one of the two parties? I doubt it. Can it happen? Possibly. And it can happen in favour of any of the two hubs of the main networks: the PL or the PN. And that is what worries me in the end.

Think also of the intricate network of lawyering that has been mentioned. Between Cyrus’ lawyer and Marvic’s lawyer we have a confusing cross-section of party and government loyalties. It’s clumsy but it’s done. That is the problem. I have long stopped blaming the policeman or the lawyer. I blame the system encouraged by voters (you know that don’t you?). Even though it should not make sense we accept lawyers shifting between their lawyer’s cap and their political cap as though it is the most obvious thing in the world. It’s not OK. It’s far from being OK but it’s how we do it in this country − whoever is in government.

Getting what you want

There’s no knowing how Cyrusgate will end. Papers like MaltaToday will go on milking the conspiracy theory dry while caught in a web of inherent contradictions. What jars most is not the need for the press to fill their papers with gossip that sells like pastizzi, but the readiness of the observers to swallow the filth without as much as a simple question that should bring the illogical conspiracy theory crumbling down. What will remain is a series of networks that are nurtured to feed the illogical partisan politics that is becoming less and less representative of value-driven politics every day.

The question on everyone’s lips once the police were suspected to be involved in Cyrusgate was “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Well maybe not in Latin but the gist was there. The phrase means “who will guard us from our guardians”? The biggest worry I have goes beyond that issue. In fact, I am convinced that our guardians only operate along the social mores that we have all become accustomed to and accept. They are the same social guidelines and standards that we continue to endorse every election year. Seen in that light, the question everyone is asking should be rephrased into one that is more simple and accurate: “Who will protect us from ourselves?”

www.akkuza.com is still dispensing highhanded advice from grey and rainy Luxembourg. We’re in Malta for August though – just enough time to remember why we still bother aye?

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Drawing conclusions

Some time before “The Divorce Debate” went into overdrive, I had pointed out that this would be a good litmus test for the way our society sees itself and its politicians. That big mirror has been held up against our faces for some time now and I find myself in an unenviable situation of still not seeing eye to eye with most sides of the political spectrum. The most obvious conclusion would be that my understanding of the goings on is fatally flawed. Then again there is a possibility that the J’accuse perspective still resides resolutely outside the dualistic-partisan way of thinking. Which is why I cannot see “victors” or “losers” in the aftermath of “Civil Rights Debate Mark I”, I can only draw a number of conclusions. I thought I’d share them with you (sharing being a très social network concept). Feel free to “Like” or “Dislike” (or as the new Google+ lingo would have it: to “+1”).

*The 44 consciences*

I was called a “non-gentleman” on Facebook this week. This was because apparently I could not get myself to “admit” that the divorce bill had got through Parliament “thanks to Labour”. This is just the kind of “Right/Wrong” argumentation that allows people to lose their perspective. I have been arguing for some time that the PL-PN have abdicated their representative duties by not working with a party position on the divorce issue. When it came to voting in Parliament, both PN and PL chose the same formula: “conscience”. Both Muscat and Gonzi gave their members a “free vote” (a term brought into the debate by the Labour leader incidentally).

From that point on neither Labour nor the Nationalists could claim ownership of any votes in Parliament when the day of reckoning came. Neither could, for the sake of argument, the Vegetarians, the Smokers, Gozitans, Qriema (people from Città Pinto) or the Federation of Openly Homosexual MPs. We could play a statistical game and see which YES votes were cast by veggies, tobacco addicts, Gozitans, Qriema or gays, but at no point in time would our eccentric (and purely illustrative) choice of venn diagram material justify the statement “it was the Non-Smoking Ayes that made the difference”. There was no common stand by smokers as there was no common position for Nationalist or Labourite MPs. The vote was personal. You may disagree with that but it is a fact.

The parties did not perform their representative function in Parliament throughout the divorce vote. Which is why J’accuse has for some time now accused them of abdicating their responsibility. When Joseph Muscat dismissed questions regarding Adrian Vassallo’s “NO” vote, he implied that Vassallo would have to face the consequences of his vote with the electorate. There was nowt else Joseph could do because, very importantly, Labour had no position on divorce and had actually aided and abetted Adrian Vassallo’s “conscientious” vote in much the same way as it had done with those who voted in favour. Incidentally, it is also all Labour “YES” voters who have to face the consequences of their vote. Implying that Labour has some collective responsibility for a positive or negative outcome is a gigantic non sequitur and should not be confused with the next point: the people’s voice.

*Vox Dei and Gonzi’s Nay*

Vox Populi, Vox Dei is the Latin maxim that underpins one of the essential elements of democracy in this day and age. “The voice of the people is the voice of God” is the kind of logical conundrum that would have titillated the likes of Pierre Abèlard and Bernard of Clairvaux. If Abèlard and Bernard’s problems were great (google them… it’s a fun read), Lawrence of the Nationalist’s dilemma was even greater. On the one hand he is at the helm of a party struggling to deal with its conservative vestiges and on the other hand he is the Prime Minster of a nation that had yelled its acquiescence to the introduction of a bit of 20th century legislation.

Then there was the matter of “conscience” − or as Gonzi’s predecessor in Castille had described it, “moral matters that require a vote of conscience”. In Gonzi’s mind, as in the mind of many others, Vox Dei spoke rather clearly through the precepts of his religious and moral formation. In the end, Gonzi’s interpretation of Vox Dei won over the Vox Populi and he cast the infamous “No” vote − condemning him to the same circle of hell as others before him who spat in the face of the will of the demos.

What made the matter all the worse was Gonzi’s “calculated” vote: one that made sure that the divorce bill would actually pass before casting the symbolic “No”. In that way Gonzi’s “No” rang out a doubly-defiant note: firstly it was the ugliest of nays from a Prime Minister refusing to serve the will of the people once they had spoken (and after being consulted upon his insistence), and secondly it was Gonzi’s “Eppur si muove” moment − flying in the face even of those in his party who had advocated a wider, liberal approach to society.

*The Birth of MuscatPL”*

Joseph Muscat rushed to swing the hammer and ring Gonzi’s death knell. I have no doubt that as other commentators have aptly put it, this was Gonzi’s hara kiri moment by any standard. He may survive for some time yet, but the emphasis is on “surviving” and there is no end to the damage wrought to the PN in the public polls. I do find Joseph’s choice of words to announce this death particularly interesting, though (I must remind you that my analysis comes without the blinkers of partisan subjugation.) Joseph chose to state that “Gonzi lost the moral leadership of the party”. Funny that, coming from someone who has still to prove that he has the moral leadership of his own party. Partisan voters can look away tut-tutting at this point but if you are “gentlemen” or “ladies” enough do consider this…

Labour’s moral position during the divorce debate was not one of leadership of any kind but one that can be summarised as “To each his own (conscience)”. What we had during the divorce campaign are Pro and Anti Divorce Movements. Labour did not take a position on divorce (no morals there) and very clearly left it to each and every MP to make a “conscientious” choice of his own. What Labour is now highlighting is Joseph’s statement of his “personal” view that divorce legislation is necessary. Now that view is commendable but it remains a “personal” view nonetheless. I did not, and still do not see Joseph “morally leading” his supposed progressive party.

In other words, we still have to see Labour snap out of its “wait-and-see” fence sitting mentality and become pro-active and committed (as a party please, no free votes) to civil rights legislation in order to become progressive. What we have right now is a clumsy forming of “MuscatPL”. If Joseph’s position is popular then PL will spin it as the party position − which it is not. The biggest loss will be that to the Civil Right Voters, who until now wrongly assume that Joseph’s PL can be their rightful representatives.

*Chaos Theory*

The Nationalist Party is in disarray. This particular conclusion was confirmed in the aftermath of the parliamentary vote. The schizophrenic attempt to combine opposing value-driven interpretations under one “umbrella” party was doomed to backfire in the long term. It seems that Lawrence Gonzi had neither the patience nor the power to slow down or change course of a party rushing towards impending doom so he stepped on the accelerator. Gonzi’s “No” had the “liberal” fringe up in arms and Cyrus Engerer’s defection was the culmination point. Here is Robert Arrigo writing in the Independent on Friday, making it clear which side of the Vox Populi fence he sits on: “If I voted no, I would have made fools out of the electorate and I would have made a mockery out of the oath that I had taken. (…) I do believe that the Nationalist Party will read the writing on the wall, and will start heeding the people. Arrogance has been thrown out, and the people’s will must be sovereign.”

*Luck of the Draw*

Beyond the oath and the vote there are a number of conclusions to be drawn. The Nationalist Party has for some time tried to experiment with “umbrella politics” and is now reaping the consequences of this short-sighted, unprincipled approach. In 2008 people voted for gonziPN, not bothering to look beyond the Gonzi smokescreen. When gonziPN’s glue no longer held together we began to see the fragile face of a fragmented party − most vulnerable on social issues when faced with “progressive” civil rights. The reason for this fragile face is the lowering of the barrier for candidates: an anything-goes, vote-catching criterion. Surely some part of the PN is rueing Joe Saliba’s (and all the spin-doctor’s) backing of JPO and his antics back then?

The Labour Party is only delaying its own cracked picture thanks to the temporary euphoria and high it is getting by interpreting the divorce vote as some sort of victory. What Labour does not realise is that it is taking the first baby steps towards a “muscatPL” − a clone of PN’s 2008 doomed formula that held together for two years on a flimsy relative majority. To be fair, it might even obtain a larger majority but what might not work is the promise of progressive politics. Divorce was an easy gamble once it was clear where the wind was blowing. Will it be the same for gay rights, for IVF legislation and for the (dare we say it?) eventual raring of the ugly head of abortion? Unless Labour is prepared to commit itself in black and white to a set of principles, it remains an opportunist vehicle that not only has no moral leadership but also no value grounding: an abdication from representative politics.

Alternattiva Demokratika turn out to be the greatest losers in pragmatic and practical terms. Deborah Schembri successfully headed a progressive civil rights movement. She then had to opt for a party in which to presumably pursue her objectives. That she chose Labour might mean that she knows something that we don’t about future Labour commitments on civil rights. That she did not chose a home that would be obvious given her recent political activism: Alternattiva Demokratika − only goes to show how unattractive is the option, long before the people go to the polls.

Then we had Cyrus Engerer. I suspect that the Sliema deputy mayor’s move was based firstly on anger and frustration when faced with the gargantuan battle of converting the conservative base in the PN fold. Whether out of spite or out of principle, Cyrus reportedly switched allegiance but never considered the AD option. It is ironic that two high-profile figures of our temporary civil rights movements did not consider joining Malta’s one political formation that has always been clear and outspoken on civil rights and would have fit the party political programme like a glove.

The voter − the source of the vox populi − is fast turning into a mixture of angry, frustrated or disillusioned people. The tendency to stick to old habits is as strong as ever. It is hard to explain to Labourites that their joy lies in a decision and vote that had little to do with their party position. They may know who to vote for come next election but do they know WHAT that vote will translate into? It is even harder to explain to Nationalist voters that they are reaping what they have long sown by relying on “lesser evil” propaganda and drowning the possibility of a more open and representative form of politics. Franco Debono is pushing a commendable project that would give Malta a “European constitution”. It would be sad if such a debate were to be kicked off while the smoke, dust and anger of the latest battle is still around.

www.akkuza.com was almost silent last week thanks to the end of the judicial year in Luxembourg sending us into overdrive. We’ll be back – no worries.

Categories
Mediawatch

Masters of the Universe (Bruges)

Helena Dalli MP penned an article in today’s Times (Politicking in Lilliput) in which she attacked PN’s councillor Cyrus Engerer for daring to insinuate that Labour’s councillors had it in for him because he is gay. Tut tut. Here at J’accuse we can see where the Labour MP is coming from and we do not need much convincing to realise that Cyrus’ is a ploy to distract from the troubles of the ill-fated Sliema Council and PN’s participation therein. What we did not appreciate were two shots by Ms Dalli MP that had absolutely nowt to do with the issue.

Firstly, in a manner most unbecoming to a member of the house of representatives (and more becoming of certain sections of the pink blogging media), Helena of Labour takes a dig at Cyrus’ name. What has Cyrus’ name got to do with the price of fish? Unless you were to detect ancient Greek vs. Persian vs Trojan undertones the dig at Cyrus’ name is completely gratuitous. Helena then moves on for the kill. Proudly parading Labour’s credentials in the pro-gay camp Helena raps Cyrus for not realising that ’twas a Labour government that decriminalised sodomy “in the 1970s, when being gay was considered a matter of shame by many and the word pufta was used liberally and meant as an insult to homosexuals and others.” Now that’s one hell of a history lesson. The angry MP goes on:

But, then, they wouldn’t teach these things in the one-year Masters degree course in political science at the College of Europe in Bruges, would they? Although they do teach students the necessary skills to research a “fact” before making claims, as opposed to relying on gut feeling.

Say what? Now I had no idea that Cyrus Engerer also attended the college I consider to be my second Alma Mater but forgive me for feeling a tad bit involved there. Since when are the achievements (?) of a Malta Labour government of the seventies in the field of sodomy an important part of the syllabus in a Masters degree course in political science? Should we really be tut-tutting all the way to the Belfroi that the lecturers in the “one-year” (sic – as against a five year Masters I guess) course failed to examine the intricate details of Labour’s massive movement for homosexual emancipation in the seventies?

Forgive me Helena but much as I may agree with you on the whole Cyrus charade and deviating tactics you really have shot yourself in the foot on this one. Labour might have come up with decriminalising sodomy in much the same manner and habit as PLPN have of legislating the obvious 50 or so years too late but Labour is also the same party whose secretary general was overheard describing a (I have to say this) “talk show host” as “Pufta” over the mic during a public meeting. That was early in the twenty first century not late in the twentieth. I doubt whether rights of homosexual persons have really been so well championed by the nouveau PL – and I sincerely doubt that any of the truck riding, violence distributing, hell raising bastards let lose in Mintoff’s era were in touch with their feminine side by the way.

As for Bruges. It really tickles me that an exponent of the progressive moderates’ agglomeration still believes in the kind of classist bullshit which il-Perit (Rhodes Scholar by the way) had gotten us used to. I am very aware that the Bruges scholarship is currently underfire in certain quarters for other reasons that are absolutely unrelated to the academic standards. I can proudly say, for one, that I got the scholarship on my own wind without any parrini or recommendations in the background. I can also proudly claim that the Bruges experience was very much like a Saint Aloysius’ sixth form abroad – once you make it in you are left to your own devices. Simple really – by handpicking a bright bunch from the start (no modesty intended – and when there are no saints pushing idiots into the system – something I cannot deny could be happening nowadays) the College of Europe needs input little else to guarantee an elevated standard. Voilà.

By misleadingly drawing the Bruges degree into your article you only succeeded in alienating your readers (at least the un-modest intelligent ones) from the main thrust of the argument. Bravo.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta