Tag: independent

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : De-humanised

The end of this week was characterised by an interesting mass activity on Facebook. The billion people who choose to interact in the virtual world set themselves an interesting task. Facebook users invited other Facebook users to “change your profile picture to one of your favourite cartoon characters from your childhood. The aim of the game? To no longer see human faces on Facebook but a true invasion of childhood memories….”

So there we were. Those of us who playfully went along with the game found ourselves submerged in this massive exercise of de-humanisation as familiar faces were switched to the Jeegs (my ex aequo choice), Lupins, Goldrakes, Occhi di Gatto’s, Roadrunners, Felixes and Pink Panthers of the world of toons. Not since “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” had the fine line between the comic and the real been so heavily transcended.

Then something happened that seemed to be one of those serendipitous moments in which life throws funny coincidences that seem to have been scripted by a deity with a wicked sense of humour. For just as the frivolous faction of the facetious Facebook community toggled with the idea of transcending human form for just one day, I decided to tune in to the online live stream of Bishop Nikol Cauchi’s funeral. The man who had presided over my confirmation (December 1986) was getting his last farewell in the church in which I was baptised (November 1975). My cousin Nathaniel was doing a fine job with the commentary (could it be otherwise?) until Bishop Mario Grech kicked off with his sermon (November 2010).

Penumbra

And what a sermon that was. It was peppered with moments of chiaroscuro worthy of the best Caravaggio. Bishop Grech warned against straying away from the light and from having Christ as the purpose in our life. He warned against the short-term aims of modern materialistic society in his characteristic slow drawl interspersed with all-too long pauses. Then came the surgical cut. In exalting the qualities of the recently deceased shepherd of the Gozitan church, he stressed that Cauchi was a man who appreciated the human qualities of his brethren. Grech could not help but use this occasion to win the term human and humanist away from the heretic “humanists” who have taken up the layman’s cudgel in the modern day intellectual debate.

There we were. On the one hand an entire Facebook posse engaged in the process of de-humanisation by posting the images of a latter-day iconography in lieu of their own, while in a wonderfully decked cathedral a servant of the Lord reminded the people that his church and its love of light would best be served by respecting the “humanity” of us all. I wonder: how many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man? And when you do, what cartoon character will best fit his profile pic?

Fl-isem tal-Missier (In the Name of the Father)

Facebook is much more than a platform for nostalgic exercises that are a sort of pop art equivalent to iconographic hagiography. One of the most precious Youtube videos doing the rounds on the social networks is an interview taken from this year’s Web 2.0 summit featuring Facebook’s eccentric founder Mark Zuckerberg. There’s an hour of hot stuff and insights into the modus operandi (or at least modus cogitandi) of one of the most powerful people on the web.

There’s something menacing about the amplitude of the spread of Facebook in the daily lives of each and every one of us. It has, in some way, been documented already in much the same way primitive man might have spent nights around the fire discussing the properties of a flame. What we are still discovering is the potential of the social network for the future. Only last week Facebook had an important announcement to make to its users. Facebook engineers had come up with a new mode of communication they insisted on calling “Messaging”. They are trying to… wait for it… make e-mailing simpler.

It would seem that such things as “subject lines” and “formal introductions” and “paragraphs” are becoming too much of an encumbrance for the latest generation of social media users. The SMS (short message service) form for messages is much more efficient according to these abusers of the opposable thumb. So they are simplifying messages. The idea is to create a seamless system between e-mail, SMS, Facebook messages and whatever other modern equivalent of the smoke signal is available. It won’t make a ‘differecet’ what you use – the message will cross barriers of form and shape but the content will get there.

Kliem ir-Rih (The words of the wind)

It is hard to summarise the importance of such tiny steps on the web. It is hard to avoid clichés about information, interaction, data processing and algorithmic sorting that are part of the package when discussing the evolution of the social media. Zuckerberg comes across as a bit of a smart arse who was at the right place (Harvard) at the right time (six years ago) with the right idea (was it his? Watch “The Social Network”) and who is now destined to eternal gloating as his personal patrimony is enough to bail Ireland out of its financial crisis.

I’d love to be able to sell the idea to Zuckerberg to try Malta out as his mini petri dish for new ideas. He could test the effectiveness of online social networks in breaking down established ones through the power of realising what people want, what people need and what actually is happening. He could move the role of social networks into places where they have not yet ventured – the real blood of political administration and governance. Not the election campaigns on Facebook. That would be the easy part. I mean the business of government.

bert4j_101121

Il-Ktieb ta’ Barabba (Barabbas’ Book)

Yes, Ireland has gone off cap in hand to the EU’s leaders requesting help for a bail out from the ills and ailments caused by the big recession. It’s not potato famine material, yet, but as J’accuse documented a few weeks back, it is already causing a new exodus of young Irish to more fertile pastures. The discussion in some parts of the British press about the Irish conundrum has been very instructive. Some have felt the urge to gloat about the UK’s supposed intelligence at having avoided joining the eurozone and not having succumbed to the latest pressure from the “common market”.

The Joseph Muscats of the UK world trumpeted notes of triumphant ecstasy at the supposed brilliance of their scheming. Which would have been all right had they not got the whole factoring of cause and effect completely wrong. For Ireland is not in a worse position than the UK because of its membership of the euro. As an Irish economist pointed out, much of the blame lay with the management of the Celtic Tiger in the boom years. He called it “double-dipping”, a combination of a free-for-all on interest rates and excessive enthusiasm to milk the market that was sanctioned by the governmental administrators of the day.

As for the UK, all this Cameron-fuelled Thatcherite yelling of “No, No, No” fails to take into account the simple fact that the UK is not that great contributor to EU funds that the Tory press like to make believe that it is. Ever since Thatcher’s dealings with the EC, the UK has benefited from huge discounts from its EU duties, which made Cameron’s heading of the anti-bailout plan league of 11 nations a rather incongruous affair.

Juann Mamo (Grajja Maltija) (A Maltese happening)

Which brings us to matters budgetary closer to home. The Saturday papers reported a speech by Central Bank Governor Michael Bonello. Reading the summaries of Mr Bonello’s delivery was very salutary for the mental constitution of the sane. Here was someone with his feet stuck firmly on the ground and who had no trouble calling a spade a spade. More importantly (and thankfully for a Central Bank Governor), he does not seem to have any symptoms of the local virus of Malta-centricity displayed by politicians of all colours.

It is a pity then that such wise words as the following will be lost on the ears of the politically twisted and irrelevant world of the concerted practices of two parties. Much as columnists like Ranier Fsadni would like to capture the economic positions of the two parties as something reasonable in terms of neo-keynesianism, we will still be lumped with short-term “policies” based on populist knee-jerk assumptions. Here is what Michael Bonello stated:

“What I am advocating is not austerity but enlightened self-interest. It is a commonsensical appeal for a closer alignment of our priorities with the economy’s strategic objectives and for a more efficient allocation of resources.” Which is polite speak for: “Get your act together and punch some intelligent thinking into those marketing fuelled chicken heads. Be prudent and diligent with our money or you’ll end up like Ireland.”

What did “the people” and “the press” read in his speech? The first noise to be made was with regard to his proposal to rationalise stipends. Dear dear. Alfred Sant was right then no? Of course he was… 14 years ago. Judging by comment board reaction, it was finally time for the students to get their comeuppance. It’s Monty Python’s Yorkshire Policemen all over again. “In my days nobody paid me to study and I had papyrus books and had to go to university in a self-propelled pushchair with three wheels and we stood up all through the lectures that were delivered in a cupboard.”

Arlogg ta’ Darba (A one time clock)

Just like back in 1998, the stipend issue should not be about society’s imagined vendetta on spoilt brats. It should be a rationalisation of what the nation is prepared to invest in an educated workforce. What will HR recruiters of the future be faced with? Presumably, now (14 years on from Sant, remember – that’s 14 generations of graduates) is the time to invest in specific courses in order to incentivise certain career paths from which the nation will benefit as a whole.

Is it that difficult to conceive? A target-oriented stipend that combines elements of “means-testing” (difficult one that) with desirability of graduates in certain sectors (less difficult but badly in need of stronger uni-public-private sector collaboration). How else will we ensure that the gambling companies, which have become the bread and butter for an important part of good taxpayers, will continue to be attracted by the efficient workforce we so proudly claim to have? Electronics, IT, environmental planners and engineers, political studies (the real ones), spring to mind as obvious sectors for investment.

It won’t be up to just the government to foot the bill of specific courses. One could think about involving the private sector more and promote the idea of part-time students who are already getting their practical experience in the labour market. The difference between this kind of scheme and the Mintoffian parrini is the element of choice. Obviously, no course should be closed. If we still have 500 young men and women a year wanting to become lawyers then so be it. The difference would be that the stipend for such courses would be less than that for other courses.

I know that this idea is anathema to many – I have been through this very closely. It would be ignorant of us not to acknowledge the changing times and needs. It would be ignorant to fail to take note of Bonello’s stern but reasoned warning. A closer alignment of priorities is just what the doctor ordered. Better still. He ordered a strong dose of a rarity in these times: Common sense. Good luck with that.

Kotba (books)

This week’s subheadings were dedicated to some of the recently published books that featured in the Fiera tal-Ktieb. That is one event I hate to miss and I still have not had the opportunity to peruse any of the books mentioned. There are other books of course and the Maltese publishing industry seems to be traversing a happy moment. That’s a good sign. An even better sign would be for us to go out buy the books – Maltese and others – and get down to reading more and more. The narrative and the story is what makes us most human of all – whether it is the story of transcendental humanism of a deity made man or the travails of a boy-wizard in his battle against evil, the secret lies in not forgetting the magical stuff from which our mind weaves great ideas.

Cogito ergo sum. Isn’t it brilliant? Quick… change your status on Facebook.

www.akkuza.com is all set for the first snow in Luxembourg. Come tell us what cartoon character you are and share a thought or two.

Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Abre los Ojos

Labour (Inhobbkom’s Labour not Ed’s New New One) is busy conferencing this weekend. They’re huddled cosily in the university’s Aula Magna for a full day of talks in a conference entitled “Revisting Labour’s History” and I still cannot get over the fact that I was unable to make it there. Yes, you read that right, I would have loved to witness at first hand this conference of sorts that is part of the wider Labour strategy of “Re-”s. They’re re-visiting their history, re-inventing their logo, re-gurgitating old economic principles, re-moving their facial hair and (once again) re-cycling an image that has been a work in progress since is-Salvatur ta’ Malta went into re-tirement (never a minute too late).

There’s something manifestly wrong in the way Labour went about this whole “re-” business though, and this weekend’s conference contains some clear pointers to what that could be. Someone, somewhere is guilty of a gross miscalculation when choosing the title first of all: “Revisiting Labour’s History”. It’s the political equivalent of a Freudian slip combined with all the evident trappings of a modern day “Pimp my Party” in the making. The term “revisit” is a few letters away from becoming “revise” and I have a hunch that this is not a small coincidence.

In legal terms, when a court revisits an earlier decision it normally does so because of the necessity of reinterpreting the earlier position – there would be not other reason to revisit and reopen the case. In historical terms there is another “re-” word that is of relevance here. It’s the idea of revisionism. Revisionism need not always be extreme as in holocaust denial. Reading through the agenda of this weekend’s conference, I couldn’t help but think that Labour is sorely tempted to rewrite some chapters of history of its own. They’ve been at it for a while now and we have all become used to the polyphonic history of our islands – whether it is sung by Mary Spiteri to the tunes of Gensna or whether it is yelled from the pedestals of il-Fosos by the latest crowd-stirring nationalist orator – the messages are always excitingly dissonant and cacophonous: the result of two virtual realities and perceptions colliding.

Rapid eye movement

The political audience is already, as it is, doomed to the regular resurrection of revisited myths and legends in our political discourse. The narratives woven by opposing parties are now firmly ingrained in our collective minds and it is hard to reasonably detach from them completely. It is extremely significant that, bang in the middle of the process of change and reinvention, Labour chose to “revisit” its history and discuss, among other things: “The Worker Student Scheme: 1978-1987”. As I type (11.30am, Saturday, 2 October), Peter Mayo is about to launch into an explanation of how Great Leader Mintoff (May God Give Him Long Life and Order a Hail of Stones on All His Evil Wishers) sowed the seeds of the stipend system and how we must be eternally grateful for his insights that allowed us to progress to a university accepting 3,000+ freshers this year.

The irony will be lost on the listeners sitting in that cosy hall of the Aula Magna on the 2nd of October 2010 that 33 years and one day before this the atmosphere in that very same place would best have been described as tensely electric. I wonder whether Peter Mayo will stop for a moment to explain to the young listeners (I’d imagine a Nikita Alamango fawning in the audience – one who according to her latest Times “blog” post cannot stand the PN reminders of the past) that on the 3rd October 1977 the opening ceremony at university featured heavy protests by the medical students who had just been shut out of the course (and always risked brutal cancellation if the thugs decided that it was open day at Tal-Qroqq).

Sure, it was not yet 1978 so it might (just) be beyond Peter Mayo’s remit. He will be forgiven therefore for not reminding those present that only two days later, on 5 October 1977, the man dubbed as is-Salvatur tal-Maltin would walk past a group of students chained to the railings in Castille oblivious to the fact that his government’s decisions in the educational sector (the much lauded Worker Student Scheme) were about to deny thousands of young people the path to tertiary education and send them abroad in droves.

Remember, remember the 5th of October

To be fair to Peter Mayo he probably couldn’t dare criticise the workings of the Great Leader. Not after a wonderful morning discussing his battles with the church in the sixties and his “electrifying” speeches to the proletariat. The electric effect Mintoff and his handymen had on some parts of the population would best be described as “shocking” actually. Whatever you may think of Labour’s dim-witted purposive ignorance of the past and bulldozering of historic relevance, don’t you for one moment run away with the idea that it is only the party of Joseph, Evarist (Bartolo – of removed stipends fame) and Alfred (Sant – of interview boards at university) who is in the business of revising historical facts.

You see, I sympathise with such Young Turks as Nikita Alamango who are frustrated at having to carry the burden of Labour’s past every time they squeak a new idea or criticise the current regime (sorry – did I say regime? – it’s the “Re” word fixation). Hell, this week even the German Republic paid the final instalment in World War I Reparations (started paying in 1919 and was suspended as long as Germany was split). Ninety-two years on and the German conscience is slightly freer – so why not Labour? Most times they are right. PN lackeys all too often emerge from the primordial slew of infertile political ground and rely on historical mudslinging for want of a better argument.

The problem I have with Labour is twofold – disputing the relevance of past actions is one thing. Revising (sorry, revisiting) them is another. Revisiting them on the anniversary of events that marked the watershed of Old Labour’s hopeless politics of the late 70s is insulting – insulting not just to the PN hardliners but also to neutral observers like myself who can see through the charade. Labour cannot expect this to go unnoticed. It is strategically stupid and politically insensitive. It does not stop at conferences: Recently, someone from Labour’s “think-tank” (IDEAT) was busy on Facebook quoting a party press release which stated that the current government’s agreements with China are a confirmation of the Labour vision of the seventies. Sit down and weep.

Virtually real

Mine is not simply an angry case of indignation though. Labour’s Revisionist Conference is part of a wider mentality that is the inner workings and thinking of the two major parties in this country. In this day and age of multimedia and mass communication, the modes of communication might be evolving at such a rapid pace that we will soon be tweeting in our sleep, but there is one basic constant whether it’s TV, radio, newspaper or Internet and that constant is the word. In principio stat verbum (in the beginning was the word) and it’s going to be with us for a long time yet.

Words and their meaning are at the basis of whatever construction of reality we choose to live in. Einstein once stated that reality is an illusion but a very good illusion at that. The PLPN (un)wittingly engage in a constant battleground of establishing the reality in which we live (and that is why they NEED the media influence). Whether we are considering the “cost of living”, the “minimum wage” or the “living wage”, we sometimes fail to notice that a large number of constants that we take for granted in these arguments are the fruit of elaborate definitions of perception suited to whatever party is making its claim. We are not that dopey really – there is a general acceptance that “parties colour the world as best they see it”, and although as a nation we struggle to come to terms with irony and sarcasm we still manage to joke about the PL-PN chiaroscuro worlds.

I am not sure however about how much the electorate is in control of the button that switches us between perception and reality. How capable are we of switching off the virtual reality and putting our foot down when we believe that things have been taken too far? Can we decide when we want to open our eyes? Are we, like the character in Almodovar’s Abre Los Ojos (open your eyes – spoiler warning) still able to opt out of the programme that creates a “lucid and lifelike virtual reality of dreams” and yell that enough is enough? Worse still – have the very parties that are responsible for the manufactured realities that we inhabit become so embroiled and enmeshed in them that they are unable to find the switch themselves?

Denial

Take the Nationalist Party. They are an incredible subject for this sort of test. This week they engaged in a mind-boggling collective exercise of denial of truths. We had Minister Tonio Fenech and his cataclysmic Tax-Free Maid slip. Watching The Times interview that gave Tonio a chance to right his previous wrongs was like watching an exercise in verbal prestidigitation featuring a ministerial equivalent of the Mad Hatter. Quizzed on VAT he replied on Stamp Duty and vice-versa, and then went on a trip about not having to answer about private affairs that he himself had brought up as a public example. You could only squirm in your seat as you watched Tonio attempt to make his statements vanish into thin air. Apologists tried other tactics – the cream of the crop coming from the Runs claiming that since the law is inadequate then Tonio and his maid are right in not following it to the letter. Perception? Forget the doors… they’ve swallowed the key.

Meanwhile El Supremo del Govermento was busy wearing the party hat, having been asked to pass summary judgement on the PBO-VAT saga. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi found absolutely nothing incongruous with the fact that his very exacting sec-gen failed to apply his own standards of political propriety when faced with a legal crisis of his own. Same same but different – just like in the alleyways in Thailand when they sell fake brands. Fake – it’s just an illusion of reality but not exactly so.

As if PBO and Tonio were not enough, we also had the DimechGate spin-off in the form of the uncomfortable presence of Robert Arrigo – the last of the disgruntled backbenchers. PN councillor Yves Cali was the latest to slip in a frank interview with The Times in which he more than just alleged that Arrigo was in the business of throwing his weight around the council to get what he wants. Yves (or Bobby) tried to retract his statement so an irritated Times published a transcript of the interview in which the allegations were made. A transcript – that’s a word for word proof that the statements were made. Quizzed about this, Paul Borg Olivier (fresh from his own reality check) came up with the quote of the week by insisting that the transcript published by The Times was “not faithful to the statement of clarification made by Yves Cali”.

Open your eyes

bert4j_101003

Take your time and read that short, Orwellian PBO phrase. If ever there was an example of the convoluted logic somersaults performed by parties to twist your perception of reality, here it was.

The transcript (a text bearing witness to reality at its crudest) was not faithful to the statement of clarification (an attempt at revising/reinterpreting that reality). And which reality does PBO want you to believe? No prizes for guessing.

We need to open your eyes. This is a political generation that one week expresses its love for the environment on car free day while parading in front of journalists using alternative modes of transportation and then, in the following week, the collective parliamentary group (PLPN) self-allocates a huge chunk of (previously pedestrian) Merchants Street for reserved MP parking in connivance with the Valletta Local Council (remember Cali? “We serve our MPs and Labour serve theirs”). The excuse? It will free up more parking for residents and visitors. Park and Ride anyone?

It’s time we opened our eyes – and remember, sometimes actions speak louder than words.

www.akkuza.com would like to congratulate Toni Sant (and friends) for the www.m3p.com.mt project. Happy Student’s Day to you all!

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse : Lying in State

The Maltese narrative has lost one of its most famous personalities since Independence: Guido de Marco – lawyer, politician and professor – is with us no more and the state’s sons and daughters rightly mourn the passing away of one of their most respected brothers. I am not one for writing moving obituaries, particularly of the kind considered to be delectable (and politically correct) among us Maltese. Fear not though, this is not a prelude to some horrible piece of disrespect by this writer but rather a shying away from the clichéd echoes of prefabricated sashaying of respects.

I found last Friday’s editorial in the Independent (“Guido and all our past”) a perfect description of Guido the man beyond Guido the collector of honorifics and titles. It was, in fact, the appreciation of Guido the man – outside of his ‘cursus honororum’ – that struck the right chords for the natural non-conformist in me. I too share an admiration for what Guido the man built through his love for the law, his amiable personality and his perennial road of discovery for the middle ground preferably through what he came to describe as the politics of persuasion. It was this man – a man who I did not know well enough – who probably was “perhaps too big for this country”.

For I am sure that Guido must have carried his enthusiasm and love for society from his early forays into student politics over half a century ago and that he bore this throughout his magnificent career. The closest I could get to Guido was as my criminal law lecturer as he patiently broke down the principal tenets of criminal law phrase by phrase, principle by principle in that calm but deep voice and in that slightly irritable Italianate twist. “Italianate” might usually be better used to describe a style of architecture and not to qualify an accent that emphasises and complements the Latin side of our Arabic language but that too was Guido – using the parts of speech and tricks of the art of oration as building blocks to drive his persuasive truths home. In his hands, even an obvious statement could become the unravelling of a mysterious truth hitherto unknown.

La contrattazione dolosa

I will never forget Guido’s description of the elements of proof in a criminal case as the ‘pillars that hold up the arches of truth’. The reason for this particular memory is a short anecdote from my time as a law student. It was the ‘oral season’ some time in 1996 when football had gone home and students gathered around a hastily assembled TV screen in the CCT building watching some football match from the European finals in anticipation of being called to the next room for the oral part of the examination (all the while hoping that they will be able to recall Carrara’s definition of theft before slipping into naming Italy’s first XI).

Orals would proceed late into the day – oblivious to the more important goings on in the world of sport – and I think I remember a colleague of mine turning up for his oral examination in tears right after England’s elimination so it must have been late in June. Anyway, the moment I was called in to the dreaded room I tried to put all footballing thoughts behind me and concentrated on the task at hand. Prof. de Marco (for that was his guise that day) sat before me along with two other examiners and immediately tried to put this nervous student at ease with a warm welcoming smile.

The usual pleasantries over, Profs got to give the parting shot and he asked me to describe the importance of the elements of proof and evidence in criminal proceedings. It was that usual feeling of having won the lottery for I could still see Profs pacing up and down the lecture theatre delivering his explanation on the “pillars that hold up the arches of truth” full of metaphors and parallels that drove the idea home. Just before I launched into the same detailed description I had heard in class, Profs’ mobile phone rang and he politely excused himself and moved to the back of the room to treat what undoubtedly must have been a more important matter than a third year student’s recollection on the importance of evidence.

Di cosa altrui

So I launched into this whole metaphorical description when all the while the platform before me lay bereft of the most crucial and understanding of listeners. The remaining examiners tolerated me to speak on for a while as their jaws fell further towards the ground. At one point the chain-smoker of the examiners decided to put a stop to what he evidently considered to be a load of waffle (the robotic examiner nodded in consent) and decided to remind me that this was Criminal Law not Classic Architecture. All the while, the only person to whom my side references to columns and artistry could have made sense was still lost in conversation with his back towards me and only returned at the end of this curt admonishment.

By then I had lost my nerve and even failed to hang on to the safety net thrown at me when I was asked to define homicide and blurted out a memorised definition of theft instead. Guido looked at me with a mixture of pity and consternation, probably wondering what had happened during his short absence and how I had descended to such depths of criminal misery. The rest of the oral is a blur of squirming out of the deep pit I had allowed myself to be drawn into, but the biggest lesson I learnt from it was that the art of metaphors and oration is one thing and cannot be hastily copied by any Johnny-come-lately especially under the duress of an oral examination.

Fatta invito domino

Last Friday’s The Malta Independent editorial described Guido’s passing away as “leaving a gaping hole in our national consciousness”. Guido will not only be remembered by that gathering of acolytes who are as common to our political landscape as are backhanders and nepotism but he will be remembered by a whole nation that is still coming to terms with the concepts of justice and liberty that embodied the very struggle of which he was one of the memorable leaders.

The man that was probably too big for his nation embodied a set of values that you could clearly agree or disagree with. There was no shuffling of feet and hesitant murmuring of the dithering student under examination – there was instead a clear assertion and sense of purpose. It is not by chance that Prof. Guido de Marco was the man who submitted Malta’s application to the European Union in the full understanding that our place was at the heart of the European Community.

The “gaping hole” in our national consciousness is also reflected in the gaping vacuum among the new generation of politicians unable to follow in the giant steps of their state-forming predecessors. Clarity of values has been slowly and gradually supplanted with the opportunistic waving of flags, and the vocational side of political service has all but disappeared. It is a telling truth that one of Guido’s most quoted phrases these days is the one where he thanked the Maltese people for allowing him to serve them for 40 years. Service: a sadly maligned word that has lost its former glory in this world of ambition and egoistic fervour.

Con l’animo di farne lucro

Farewell then dear Professor. When the emotions have calmed and the memories have been sifted you will surely still be remembered as a great man and a great politician. You chose an awkward time to leave us Guido (not that you had much say I presume). As the calm of Santa Maria weekend approached, this island of constant oxymorons threw another of its irrequietous tantrums with another explosion that from above might have seemed to be a last salute to your memory. It was an explosion that reminded us that we will never learn and that this stable democracy might probably do with some strong leadership. One that every once in a while lays down the law for the good of the people – no matter how much they might grumble and whinge.

You left at a moment when the very branches of this democracy are being shaken to their ends. It is a moment when local councillors of all shades are learning that politics is actually a matter of service and not a business for gain and pleasure. It is a moment that cries out for innovators and visionaries to replenish the dying souls of the centres of ideology in this country of ours, when the very party in which you proudly obtained most of your achievements is very evidently subject to a struggle for a new updated identity.

We are at odds with ourselves on many matters Profs, still scandalised by streakers long past midnight when most of us are in bed while we choose to close our eyes to the many obscenities that happen in front of our noses. We attempt to attract all of Europe’s greatest gamblers to our virtual home while raging against the gambling machines in our villages. We marry and we separate, as has happened from the beginning of time, but some of us still believe that divorce will bring on some new Armageddon.

Carrara

As yet we still have not got an effigy of Guido cast in carrara marble somewhere on the islands. There will probably be a time when such a statue will be erected by admirers of this most respected of Maltese sons. We do not have to wait for this to happen though in order to be able to remember the heritage left behind by il-Profs. The subtitles in this article are a homage to the criminal law lectures he delivered (architecture and all). Read together, they form the classic definition of theft by the Italian author Carrara. (The wrongful removal of an object, done without the consent of the owner, with the intention to make a profit thereof).

It’s going to be a sombre Santa Maria weekend, at least that’s what it looks like from here. We might profit of this quiet as a moment of much needed reflection as the nation takes time to mourn the loss of one of its respected sons. Farewell Guido, we are honoured to have had such a great servant among us.

www.akkuza.com is in ferragosto mode. Blogging is sporadic from here till September.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Uncategorized

Another Scissorhands

Fausto wonders why I am fascinated by the internal workings of a party I (presumably) don’t vote for and of which I am not a member. Pedants like Majistral have a habit of acting extremely naive in such circumstances and ignoring the basic fact that a political party and its mechanisms are fair game for political punditry whether or not one favours them – which is why J’accuse took as much of an interest in the Labour leadership developments as it does in the paradoxical convolutions of PN Executive Committee conclaves. Even worse than the naiveté on the matter of scrutiny of party works is the apparent surprise with which Fausto greeted the link between a budget document and social policies of a government. Of course a budget is not a do or die element in whether or not we get our divorce law but we all know how the strings of the treasury are often used in order to incentivise the strengthening of social units such as for example the family. Compartmentalising budget talk (ideas, vision, discussion) from other principled talk would mean accepting a party of ambivalences. A party has to be able to stand up and be judged for the totality of its actions – including statements thrown in to pep up its budget act.

Which is where Marthese Portelli comes in. This is yet another “politician” caught in the trawler net of “anything goes” by the party proletariat at the time of elections and which tends to hang on afterwards having mistaken the opportunistic gambit made by the schemers at Dar Centrali as some sort of faith in her political nous. Sadly multiplying votes in the Gozo district (or any other district for that matter) does not automatically transfrom a “mother and lawyer” (as Marthese reminds us in her leaflets and PR) into a politician. Having enjoyed the electoral limelight and reaped some reward for running on the ticket of one of the two parties that tend to get votes (most PLPN candidates would fare hopelessly were they to run on an AD ticket – it’s not the person, it’s the party that gets the vote and up yours Mr Constitution) Portelli starts to think like many others of her ilk – she believes that whatever she pens down counts – whether it makes sense or not.

For some reason I cannot fathom, the Indy seems to have a new love affair with Portelli. Last week Stephen Calleja gave us an example of investigative journalism at its Lou Bondi best (smell the irony). A one page interview that told us absolutely nothing about Portelli apart from the fact that even though she has moved to Saint Helen’s parish she is still in love with the people who voted for her and has come up with an idea – Jobs for the Boys and Girls in Gozo. Gee that’s new.  How come nobody came up with that one before. Eager to carry on the spin Portelli has an article of her own this week. 569 words about the new Belgian Presidencyof the EU. Which would have been spiffing. Had there been one inkling of original thought in it that is. Instead it turns out that a one liner link to this document called the “Programme of the Belgian Presidency of the EU Council” would have saved Marthese lots of cutting and pasting and the Indy some valuable column space.

Marthese Portelli is currently President of the PN Executive and chairs the meetings of the conclave discussing divorce.

Marthese Portelli Political Dialogue in Bormla...
Image via Wikipedia

***

Last Saturday, the day before MaltaToday splashed his holiday on Nazzareno Vassallo’s superyacht all over its front page I happened to meet Paul Borg Olivier at Ghadira Bay. In our short conversation Paul could not resist a jibe at my ever growing waistline by putting it down to my incessant blogging at the computer. I wish I could have snapped a shot of the look of disgust as he mimed me typing away at the computer. It only stands to reason. Nationalists must not have such a big love affair with computers. It all started with the infamous story of Austin Gatt destroying a PC as the results of the 1996 elections came out and went on all the way to PBO’s gaffes of pressing the wrong buttons and David Casa and Marthese Portelli still not realising that cut and paste is not such a sly move in today’s computing world.

Enhanced by Zemanta