The rot seems to have spread – or could spread. MT reports that the police will probably arraign more councillors as they widen the probe into the running of local councils. The irony is not lost on anyone that while Local Council small fry are thrown into the burning oil for their (punishable) misdeeds and misappropriations the equivalent on a national level still goes by unnoticed, unpunished and sanctioned by almost half a century of bipartisan tradition. Which is why Lino Spiteri’s take on the issue in today’s Times opinion piece (Away from the eye of the local storms) is somewhat perplexing.
In his analysis Spiteri rightly points out to the strong grip that the two parties have developed on local council politics (Labour did so after a hesitant start) then goes on to prescribe a confusing formula (unless I have misunderstood his prescription). While on the one hand hinting at a necessary relaxation of the political parties‘ hold on council politics, Spiteri seems to accept a “reasonable degree of bi-partisanship”:
True devolution from central government and party could help a culture of involvement, a measure of direct democracy to spring up whereby the citizenry does see itself being put first because its voice is listened to and, on occasion, heeded. The system could encourage young candidates towards it so that, if elected, and if their council follows a reasonable degree of bi-partisanship, they can gain some experience of bureaucratic administration, before they venture into the broader field of national politics.
We beg to differ. First of all the problem is not party involvement itself but rather the manner in which party involvement is perpetrated (yes, criminally so). The party involvement in Local Councils is simply to keep tabs and control on the extended networking created by the supposed devolution. There is no “local” conscience emanating from the PL and PN (ironically so when you consider how “local” our “national” politics are) and they have proven unable to impart any school of thought to budding politicians. This could also be a direct result of the inability of both dinosaurs to absorb ideas from the groundroots and champion them as their own.
Bottom-up politics has never been the forte of the PLPN fold. Candidates are enrolled in order to add to he number and provide punch to the “good vs evil”/bipartisan mentality on which the PLPN thrives. There is little time for a localisation of policy, let alone government and the good success stories in various localties (San Lawrenz and Nadur in Gozo comes to mind) are in spite of and not thanks to PLPN bumbling dictats. Just look at the Siggiewi farce with wannabe star politicans trying to impress (that’s you Carol Aquilina)…
Mike Briguglio wrote an interesting piece in the MT about the Sliema council (Unsurprising Sliema) . We tend to forget that the new Sliema council embroiled in all its troubles is the first post-AD representative council. I am in no way saying that AD could possibly have provided better council support than its behemoth counterparts but just look at the difference between what a multi-party council and the balbugliata that a PLPN bi-partisan council has to offer.
It is very surprising therefore that someone like Lino Spiteri would advocate a better honing of bipartisan skills at Local Council level as some sort of panacea for the current ills. I rather prefer the first part of the formula where parties relax (or revise) their relations with local councils. As a first suggestion I would suggest proper screening of candidates based on what proposals they have for the running of the council and what they would offer as guarantees of good management.
Local councils need just what national politics need. Injection of new political blood thinking outside the bipartisan box that has gotten us used to the idea that networking and bungs and funds is all that politics is good for.
Maybe we should ask our Lady of Good Council(s).
See also: Claire Bonello (Some parties do have them)
