Tag: parliament

Categories
Politics

That Constitutional Question

Identifying Lou Bondi’s pitch on Tuesday’s Bondi+ was not too difficult. Franco Debono is doing a good enough job of undermining any valid points he may have with his behavioural shifting from the conspiracy theorist to the unabashedly ambitious politician. Franco seems to be unable to reconcile the values of his political mission with his unbridled hunger to slither up the greasy ladder of power as we know it. His behaviour plays into the hands of the spin-doctors of  “taste” who are prepared to highlight his faux pas until they totally eclipse any reasonable matter he may rightly wish to bring onto the forefront of the national agenda.

Bondi desperately tried to pitch the Franco vs Gonzi angle repeatedly throughout the program – infamously culminating in Franco’s refusal to “parrot” the words that the anchorman (and Nationalist quasi-candidate endorser) had desperately tried to plant in his nervous interlocutor’s mouth all evening. One aspect of this angle pitched by Bondi was his continued insistence that Franco was way out of his rights when he threatened to bring down this government by withholding his confidence vote when the time comes.

In a little “f’hiex tifhem?” (a very typical Maltese challenge of “what’s your expertise in this”) moment Bondi referred to his university lecturing credentials (“I taught politics and not just sociology – ghandek zball madornali“) presumably inspired by Franco’s earlier stunt of using his school reports. For a second I was worried that the two would pull down their pants and compare the size of their private members (sic) but a little side jab about the “Santana booing incident” (as witnessed from the I’m A VIP Quasi-Minister section of the crowd) did the trick.

Back to the constitution.

For it is a constitutional issue we are talking about. Does a lone MP from the parliamentary group of the party in government have the right to threaten to bring down the government? In bipolar (sorry, bipartisan) Malta we tend to run off with the idea that the game is one of simple mathematics – you win an election, you have the autocratic right to govern (should I say Oligarchic Franco?). Sure, what with the pilfering and tweaking of the electoral laws we have perfected the English constitutional bipartisan system to perfection and driven more than one death blow to the possibility of proportional representation.

Last election’s carcades were hooting to the tune of a D’Hondt majority (see Bertoon illustration that we cooked up the next day). the D’Hondt system of voting combined with our “tweaked” constitutional provisions had led to a relative majority government – no party had obtained more than 50% of the votes but one party had 1,500 votes than the other. A constitutional clause had come into play and the way it worked was –

a) if only two parties are elected to parliament,
b) if none of the two parties obtain more than 50% of the votes,
then the party with the largest number of votes (a relative majority) will be entitled to an adjustment of seats in order to be able to enjoy a majority of seats in parliament. That’s all found in article 51(1)(ii) of the Constitution of Malta.

Interestingly (and useful for later discussion) the provisos to this article are a rare instance in which reference is made directly to “political parties”.  It’s interesting because the Constitutional structure relating to representation and government (and therefore to the management of the basic power entrusted by “the people”) centres around individual “representatives” as elected to parliament by universal suffrage. The constitutional link between elector and elected is direct – there was no original intention for the intermediaries we now call “political parties”*.

This important distinction between political parties and members can be clearly seen from the Constitutional article on the appointment of the Prime Minister – article 80:

Wherever there shall be occasion for the appointment of a Prime Minister, the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgment , is best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House (…)

Again. No parties. The President takes one good look at the House of Representatives and determines whether any member among them can count on “the support of a majority of the members” – that’s what is in play whenever a “confidence vote” comes into play. It’s an opportunity to put to test whether the PM still enjoys that  majority support. In the current context it’s what Joseph Muscat would like to table (a motion of confidence) and where Franco’s threat might come into play (by not voting for the PM and thus undermining his ability to “command the support of a majority”.

Now comes the hard part for hardcore nationalist voters to digest. Franco Debono is the latest symptom of the Coalition of the Diverse called GonziPN that oh-so-miraculously snatched victory from the jaws of defeat last election. The rainbow coalition within GonziPN was possible because of a lack of scrutiny, a loose combination of values (if any) and mainly because any candidate who could steal valuable votes that could lead to the relative majority victory (and therefore to the automatic majority in parliament) was backed to the hilt. Remember the JPO saga? Remember the spin masters backing what was very evidently a loose gun to the hilt – basta nitilghu?

So when the members of parliament finally took their place in the house of representatives Lawrence Gonzi could assume that he commands the support of the majority of members. He assumed it because any leader of a political party in Malta who has just won the election assumes that his party members will back him to govern. Easy. Alfred Sant assumed that in 1996. Lawrence Gonzi had no reason not to in 2008. The mechanism is not foolproof however. At the basis of the whole system remains the basic currency of power transfer – the representatives themselves. As Franco has reminded us more than once the “support of the representatives” cannot be taken for granted.

The mechanism of “support” or confidence is a check on the power of government. Viewed from outside the convoluted scenario that Franco has created around himself (with the help of the bloodsucking media) you will understand that the right of a member to withdraw his support is an important check in our democracy. It is just as important (if not more) as the existence of an opposition.

Even though our political parties operate on the assumption that “loyalty” is universally automatic they have now been exposed to the democratic truth that it is not. The failure is not of the system but of the arrogant assumption that the bipartisan mechanisms that the parties have written into the constitution will guarantee their permanent alternation. Franco’s methods might be obtuse and distasteful especially when they betray blatant and crude ambition but on a political level the renegade politician who disagrees with the party line was not only predictable but threatens to become a constant in the future.

The more political parties ignore the need to be coherent politically and the more they just throw anything at the electorate in the hope that something bites the more they can expect of “Franco-like” personalities. The failure to whip Franco into the party line is not a democratic failure or a constitutional flaw but a failure of the political party to operate as an effective vehicle of democratic representation.

D’hondt worry? Frankly it was only a matter of time. It’s actually a miracle it took this long for the shit to hit the fan.

* In a recent House of Commons document (Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation)  political parties were defined as “the mechanism by which people of any background can be actively involved in the tasks of shaping policy and deciding  how society should be governed. While they are not perfect organisations they are essential for the effective functioning of our democracy. Without the support of political parties it would be difficult for individual Members of Parliament, as legislators and/or as members of the Executive, to organise themselves effectively for the task of promoting the national interest—including by challenge to the Government, where that is necessary and appropriate—and ensuring that proposed new laws are proportionate, effective and accurately drafted.”

Categories
Rubriques

Non Sequitur #95 Honorarium

From the table of the house comes a random collection of PQs (parliamentary questions) and their answers. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the stuff honoraria are made of. You’ve got to love MP Silvio Parnis’ dedication to the old and aged. It’s the table of your house of reps ladies and gents… it’s where you read about how Malta gave 5,000 € for the maintenance of Auschwitz-Birkenau, that the Hijab is not prohibited on the workplace in government depts and that information is still forthcoming about milking cows and goats.

Here’s a (random) selection:

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22327 Data: 20/12/2010
Seduta: 296 – 10/01/2011 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Fond Auschwitz-Birkenau – flus offruti
L-Onorevoli OWEN BONNICI
staqsa lill-Onorevoli TONIO BORG (Viċi Prim Ministru u Ministru tal-Affarijiet Barranin):
Jista’ l-Viċi Prim Ministru u Ministru tal-Affarijiet Barranin jgħid kemm offriet Malta fi flus għall-fond ta’ Auschwitz-Birkenau li twaqqaf biex jiġu mantnuti l-kampijiet oriġinali wara appell tad-direttur tal-mużew Piotr Cywinski?

Tweġiba:
Malta offriet is-somma ta’ € 5,001.50 għall-fond tal-Fondazzjoni Auchwitz-Birkenau. Dan il-pagament tħallas f’ Ġunju 2010.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22330 Data: 20/12/2010
Seduta: 296 – 10/01/2011 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Reliġjon Musulmana fuq il-post tax-xogħol
L-Onorevoli GINO CAUCHI
staqsa lill-Onorevoli LAWRENCE GONZI (Prim Ministru):
Jista’ l-Prim Ministru jgħid jekk hux permess lil persuni nisa, ċittadini Maltin li jħaddnu reliġjon Musulmana, jilbsu l-velu (Hijab) waqt li jkunu fuq il-post tax-xogħol tagħhom f’dipartimenti, aġenziji u kumpaniji tal-gvern?

Tweġiba:
Ninsab infurmat li ma hemm l-ebda regola għall-impjegati tal-gvern li timpedixxi li jintlibes il-velu (Hijab)

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22292 Data: 14/12/2010
Seduta: 296 – 10/01/2011 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: qligħ ta’ flus minn wiri ta’ films pornografiċi
L-Onorevoli ADRIAN VASSALLO
staqsa lill-Onorevoli CARMELO MIFSUD BONNICI (Ministru tal-Ġustizzja u l-Intern):
Billi l-liġi ta’ Malta tgħid li ħadd ma jista’ jaqla’ flus minn wiri ta’ films pornografiċi, jista’ l-Ministru jgħid għaliex il-Pulizija għadha ma ħadet ebda passi kontra lukandiera u kontra sidien tal-cable tv li qed ixandru u hemm min anke ammetta li qed jikser il-liġi sfaċċatament? Fiex waslu l-investigazzjonijiet tal-Pulizija illum, sitt xhur wara li l-Ministru stess ordnalhom jinvestigaw l-ovvju?

Tweġiba:
Ninsab infurmat illi l-investigazzjonijiet għadhom għaddejjin.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22248 Data: 07/12/2010
Seduta: 296 – 10/01/2011 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: investigazzjoni dwar tfiegħ ta’ bajd fuq karozzi u djar
L-Onorevoli EDWIN VASSALLO
staqsa lill-Onorevoli CARMELO MIFSUD BONNICI (Ministru tal-Ġustizzja u l-Intern):
Jista’ l-Ministru jinvestiga permezz tal-Pulizija fl-Għassa tal-Mosta, min kien il-persuna/i li għal darbtejn nhar ta’ Ħadd konsekuttivament għamlu straġi fi Triq Dawret il-Wied, Triq il-Bwieqi u Triq il-Fuħħar żona ta’ Santa Margerita fil-Mosta, fejn dawn il-persuni waddbu mijiet ta’ bajd fuq il-karozzi u mal-faċċata tal-bini fejn għamlu ħsara bi tbajja li jħalli warajh t-tfiegħ tal-istess bajd?

Tweġiba:
Ninsab infurmat illi l-Pulizija, filwaqt li għadha qed tinvestiga l-każ imsemmi mill-Onorevoli Interpellant, qiegħdha tagħmel aktar sorveljanza fl-inħawi msemmija.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22228 Data: 07/12/2010
Seduta: 295 – 14/12/2010 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Sid ta’ Razzett – ngħaġ u baħar tal-ħalib
L-Onorevoli EDWIN VASSALLO
staqsa lill-Onorevoli GEORGE PULLICINO (Ministru għar-Riżorsi u Affarijiet Rurali):
Jista l-Ministru jwieġeb mistoqsija parlamentari 21674 u jgħid jekk huwiex permessibbli li sid ta’ razzett li fih irabbi n-ngħaġ tal-ħalib, ikun jista’ jrabbi ukoll baqra għall-ħalib? Jekk dan mhux permessibbli, jista’ jgħid għaliex dan mhux possibbli?

Tweġiba:
L-informazzjoni għadha qed tinġabar u risposta tingħata f’xi seduta oħra.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22171 Data: 06/12/2010
Seduta: 295 – 14/12/2010 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Riklami fuq il-kuntratti tal-BWSC
L-Onorevoli OWEN BONNICI
staqsa lill-Onorevoli AUSTIN GATT (Ministru għall-Infrastruttura, Trasport u Komunikazzjoni):
Jista’ l-Ministru jgħid kemm swew ir-riklami fil-ġurnali intitolati “the truth prevails BWSC contract“? Fejn dehru? F’liema ġurnali?

Tweġiba:
Ninforma lill-Onor Interpellant li din il-materja ma taqax taħt id-dekasteru tiegħi.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22122 Data: 02/12/2010
Seduta: 295 – 14/12/2010 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Ħsara fit-telephone
L-Onorevoli SILVIO PARNIS
staqsa lill-Onorevoli AUSTIN GATT (Ministru għall-Infrastruttura, Trasport u Komunikazzjoni):
Jista’ l-Ministru jara li jitmexxa l-każ tal-anzjana li rrapportat xi xahar ilu peress li t-telephone tagħha (li dettalji tiegħu qed jingħataw separatament) huwa bil-ħsara?

Tweġiba:
Ninforma lill-Onor. Interpellant li l-materja in kwistjoni ma taqax taħt id-dekasteru tiegħi.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22094 Data: 01/12/2010
Seduta: 295 – 14/12/2010 09:00 AM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: każ ta’ post ta’ anzjana
L-Onorevoli SILVIO PARNIS
staqsa lill-Onorevoli DOLORES CRISTINA (Ministru tal-Edukazzjoni, Xogħol u l-Familja):
Tista’ l-Ministru tara l-każ  ta’ anzjana, li d-dettalji tagħha qed jintbagħtu separatament, li din kellha toħroġ minn post 18-il sena ilu, li kellu area kbira u apparti dan l-gvern ta l-post bil-kera u din il-kera għadha titħallas sal-lum, pero’ llum jidher li l-gvern se joffri biss xi  €14.000 għal dan il-post, meta din hija somma li llum lanqas garage ma tixtri biha?

Tweġiba:

Nitlob lill-Onorevoli Interpellant sabiex jagħmel il-Mistoqsija lill-Ministru kkonċernat, f’dan il-każ il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, Ekonomija u Investiment.

*********************************************

Leġislatura XI Kategorija ORAL
Mistoqsija Numru: 22101 Data: 01/12/2010
Seduta: 294 – 07/12/2010 06:00 PM
Seduta Interim:
Titlu: Qrati Maltin – Kawżi ta’ libell pendenti
L-Onorevoli ĊENSU GALEA
staqsa lill-Onorevoli CARMELO MIFSUD BONNICI (Ministru tal-Ġustizzja u l-Intern):
Jista’ l-Ministru jagħti tagħrif dwar kemm hu n-numru ta’ kawżi ta’ libell li huma pendenti quddiem il-Qrati Maltin u li fihom hemm bħala atturi membri parlamentari? Kemm ilhom pendenti dawn il-kawżi tal-libell quddiem il-Qrati Maltin?

Tweġiba:
Ninsab infurmat illi sat-3 ta’ Diċembru kien hemm 47 kawża ta’ libell pendenti li fihom hemm bħala atturi Membri Parlamentari. Infurmat illi dawn il-kawżi ilhom pendenti kif jidher fit-tabella t’hawn taħt:-

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J'accuse : I.M. Jack (The Uncouth)

I’ve got a running series of posts in the blog that goes by the name of “I.M. Jack”. The title came around as a bit of a spoofy nod to the rotund columnist who graces the pages of a rival paper every Saturday. Every time I blog an “I.M. Jack” post it’s more of a round-up of different stories that serendipitously find themselves sharing the same post and limelight. I normally do that out of expediency and to save myself from posting a series of mini-posts, and also because by the time the third “I.M. Jack” got out I sort of got used to the little “round-up” idea possibilities that it afforded.

So yes, this week’s effort comes to you in a disjointed, I.M. Jack-ish sort of way, that is it can be read in little snippets or (for the well-trained in J’accuse loghorrea) all in one go. The quality of the articles, incidentally, should be improving exponentially (modestly speaking of course) as the cold weather begins to bitch-slap the Grand Duchy earlier than usual. Like Terry Pratchett’s golems and trolls, I tend to function more sharply as the weather begins to get colder. (Speaking of Pratchett, do get your hands on his latest novel I Shall Wear Midnight – it rocks). Let us then begin the I.M. Jack tour.

On the dignity of Parliament

Is it just me or is Parliament really becoming government’s bitch? I know, I know, I should be more reverent towards the hallowed institution that is fundamental to our very democracy but hey, if our very own representatives seem to be having a tough time understanding the importance of their roles, I don’t see why we should bother – right? Austin Gatt usually figures high on my list of valid politicians in this country of ours but he took the lead in the dismissal of the request for hearing of witnesses in the PAC on some wobbly excuse that the Auditor General had already carried out much of the hearing.

Bollocks. Even the kind of papers that do not usually lend themselves easily to government criticism carried harsh editorials condemning the lacklustre sense of wanton disrespect that everybody under the sun could read into the happenings at the PAC. We did not even have to fight off the temptation to be balanced and to apportion a fair share of criticism to the Labourite side of the benches by questioning their constant nagging and moral convictions. The message Austin et al were sending was plain – they refused to submit the BWSC process to a parliamentary level of scrutiny that is normal in most parliamentary democracies. The words of Franco Debono come back to haunt the mind now – the dignity of Parliament is being seriously diluted and something must be done quickly to repristinate a good working order.

On money

It is not just our sense of democracy that is being put into serious question. This week, EU leaders sat around a table somewhere in Luxembourg and agreed to revise the rules on budget deficit. Meanwhile, in the House of Commons in London, George Osborne delivered a budget that was described as a “historic attempt to turn around the juggernaut of state public spending”. The Daily Mail headlined Man Who Rolled Back The State on Friday, as the Con-Dem coalition embarked on a programme that would savage benefits, axe jobs, slash budgets and attempt to reverse 60 years of public spending.

An interesting article in the International Herald Tribune took in these latest European reforms at both EU and national level and questioned whether the Keynesian formula has been ditched once and for all. European governments no longer seem to believe that the solution to the recession is to pump more money into the economy and let the economy fix itself. Probably this has much to do with the distrust in the key power centres of the economy and how they seem to have brought about this recession themselves with their unethical way of thinking.

So yes, capitalism as we know it is in a bit of a fix. Which is when the loony left goes out on the streets and begins to whine. Fairness, as they know it, is about to go terribly wrong and the welfare state in which money seems to grow on trees for those who qualify for the big safety net in the sky is suddenly shrinking before their very eyes. Which is why we have angry men in streets preparing to raise barricades and fight with the riot police. Like the money will come flying from the sky once the capitalist monster is dealt the final deathblow. Go figure. Baroness Thatcher was hospitalised this week so she was saved the horror of having to see reminders of the age of her iron hand when minors and other representatives of the leftist workforce took to the streets.

On values and relativism

Maltese relativism is back with a twist. The House of Lords (UK) this week opened up a new world in the universe of marriage law by accepting the validity of a prenup. That’s short for prenuptial contract and has been the stuff of movies and murder stories across the pond for quite a while, but it may surprise you that its legal validity is very much a novelty this side of the Atlantic. What a prenup does is that it stipulates what will happen in the unfortunate eventuality that a happy couple that is about to engage in lawful matrimony should somehow fall out.

It’s a divorce settlement signed when things are still rosy, when the amours are still love struck and when altruistic lovey-doveyiness still pervades the inner sanctum of the quasi-conjugal unit. It takes advantage of the goodwill of the parties to pre-draft and establish what can still be considered to be an amicable settlement as to the division of all property. Thusly, later, when the better half is reaching for the short and curlies armed with a knife, and it is clear that it will not be death that will “us part” but rather the manifest impossibility of future cohabitation, the couple will find that the prenup they signed in what must seem another life will come into force and the pre-ordained division of assets as per prenup will take place without too much acrimonious battling.

The House of Lords hath ruled that such prenups will always apply unless they are manifestly unfair (leave it to the men of law to argue whether charm by fatal attraction could sufficiently qualify as having succumbed under sexual duress). Meanwhile, back in Malta (and back is the operative word here) we are still facing the discombobulating farce of wondering whether or not to introduce divorce by popular suffrage. As I said last week, this is a result of our testicle-less politicians (sanscouillistes) wanting to hide behind the “will of the people”. What next? A referendum on Income Tax? I wonder how that one will go.

Then, as fellow columnist Caruana Galizia pointed out on Thursday, there was the blatant contradiction between on the one hand all the disquisitions as to the morality of voting for divorce and on the other hand, the facility with which some parliamentary committee had no qualms in proposing the freezing of embryos. Climb up walls? We do that… every five years. All we needed was the LGBT movement complaining about the prohibition of IVF accessibility for gay couples. Sure – this country is having problems coming to terms with the idea of divorce but it will have no problems with little Capslock (I’m sure someone, somewhere has that name) being raised by mummy and … mummy. (The ghost of Beppe shudders).

On the strong arm of the law

The next time you are angry with someone and your anger leads you to the uncontrollable urge to punch that person, just remember one thing: it comes at a price. And if you can afford €100 then go ahead and do your Mohammed Ali. That is the going rate for a punch, as the man who assaulted the CABS officer discovered. Not that expensive, is it? As for letting loose with a gun on officers of the law and putting their life in manifest danger (vide HSBC hold-up and shootout) – that still does not disqualify you from bail.

Sarcasm aside – it is pissing off isn’t it? I mean, what the hell? Personally, I am not of the very physical kind and my best weapon in a punch up is my wit that sends one three-letter word to the brain: RUN. So if ever I risk being on the receiving end of someone’s clenched fist, I would like to think that there is also a sufficient disincentive in the form of a legal deterrent that will allow me to bargain my way out of such fury without having to resort to the Coward’s Gentlemanly Exit. It should be so for any law-abiding citizen, who would prefer not to have to calculate at which point throwing a punch or two towards the rabid bully could constitute valid self-defence (assuming he has a punch or two he can throw). The news from the Law Courts is not promising in this respect.

Traitors and idols

When some members of the black and white community of which I form part labelled Zlatan Ibrahimovic a gypsy whore, I tended to turn a blind eye and deaf ear and glossed over the possibility of tut-tutting such unsporting behaviour. I despised the lanky, self-pompous oaf all the more for leaving Juventus bang in the middle of what is now evidently a frame up to play for the saddest of teams ever to have disgraced Italian football grounds. When he actually moved on to another team a few complaints later, I did not shed a tear of sympathy for his latest dumped girlfriend but confirmed my earlier suspicions that here we were seeing the epitome of modern footballing greed. He’s moved on again (go figure) and is still worthless when it comes to crucial games on the European football stage but I’m not here to talk about Zlatan.

It’s the Rooney saga that really lit up more red lights as to the general decline of the gentlemanly side of football. Where are the Ryan Giggs, the Francesco Tottis, the Rauls, the Maldinis – and above all the Alessandro Del Pieros – in modern football? The word mercenary does not even begin to explain the spirit of today’s breed of men of the leather ball. No matter that by the time I finished typing this article Wayne has signed a new, improved contract keeping him at United, as predicted solely by Luciano Moggi when everybody else was betting on his next destination. No matter that he has been appeased with some beefing up of the contract.

What I would like to know is how the little Scouser will walk into that changing room and face his “team-mates” from Giggs to Nani to Bebe to Fletcher without being overcome by a sense of shame. Forget fidelity to the club, forget respect for the supporters, forget gratitude to a coach who fathered him. What jarred most in the Rooney saga was the ease with which he could bad-mouth his fellow team-mates by going public and basically claiming that they are not good enough to play with him. It’s stuff that makes you sick and I seriously doubt how easily Rooney can win back the respect he blew away over two crazy days in October.

Milos Krasic, Juventus’ latest idol, is a step back out of this world of mercenaries. I was not sure whether his determination to join Juventus should be taken seriously but the stories coming from Torino day after day show an old-fashioned, dedicated footballer who is in love with his new environment and determined to show the kind of attachment to a club that is sadly becoming rarer and rarer. He has one captain he can look up to who has broken all kinds of records and won all sorts of trophies. Last Sunday he broke one of the latest barriers, reaching the great Boniperti’s goal-tally in the Campionato. He turns 36 next month but we could be lucky enough to see him in action for some time yet.

Grazie Alex.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Ad Maiorem Partiti Comoditatem

First we had a hopeless car-free day with some ministers and MPs going through the whole charade of forgoing their favourite mode of transport (and status symbol) once a year and now we have this. It speaks volumes about the sincerity of certain political messages by both parties. Bollocks to Car free Days. You know what – bollocks to the whole business of environmental conscience. Bollocks to it all so long as I can park my car as lazily close to the Parliament as possible.

Part of Merchants Street in Valletta, which has been turned into a pedestrian zone, has become a car park for Members of Parliament and ministers. The decision was taken last week following consultation between the whips of the two sides of the House and the Valletta local council, which agreed with the proposal since it would free up other parking spaces that could be used by shoppers and residents.

The icing on the cake must be “since it would free up other parking spaces that could be used by shoppers and residents”. Here are a few J’accuse off the cuff notes:

1) All the drilling into the spanking new Merchant Street lava stones (how long ago since the inauguration for the greater comfort and pleasure of the people?) for what in practice amounts to a temporary parking spot. Upon completion of the new house of parliament (Pace Piano) the Ministers and MPs on both sides of the plagued house will surely want the parking bays to be shifted closer for their greater convenience. What short-brained bulldozering of any kind of sensitivity could come up with this sort of mass cock up in PR? The kind that reasons that “if we do this together – both sides of the house agreeing – then we risk losing an equal number of votes – and we both know that we won’t coz people are people you see.

2) Then there’s this very Maltese thing of having to have the cars PARKED as close as possible to the parliament. To set an example, and if they really have to drive to and fro their meetings of mass hand clapping (see yesterday’s sitting reserved for eulogies before they adjourned for the long weekend)  why not have a Parliamentary Park & Ride? Identify/block a parking area within reasonable distance from Valletta and then just drop off your car there. Use the 1€ electric cabs for christssakes! Naaah. That would not work would it? Better block off the entrance to the Market with a parade of ego-heavy MP cars and show the people that their representatives cannot be bothered to make the effort.

The whole issue just falls in line with the myriad others that demonstrate the facility with which faux eco-policies of the PLPN kind are unmasked. After the “lilliputian” discoveries in Sliema – you know “we serve our MPs and Labour councillors serve their MPs” – I am still wondering what more will it take before the people open their eyes the next time they vote.

Government for the people by the people… now that’s becoming one hell of a joke.

Addendum (with a nod to a Mr. P. Galea) – listen out at 1.30

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Politics

The Hardest Word

It all boils down to when you say it and how you say it then. As the poet said “It’s a sad sad situation, and it’s getting more absurd”. What began as a political issue on the pros and cons of a power station contract ended up as the battle of the apologies (or absence thereof). Joseph Muscat has trumped Lawrence Gonzi this time.

Both parties had been perceived to have committed a “wrong”. A foul. Apparently once you say sorry it’s all over. We have been spared the flurry of libels this time – instead we have the latest stance of concocted or real “indignation”.

Mizzi’s gaffe about Mario Galea and his condition was unpardonable. His was a heavy handed invasion of the private in an attempt to gain questionable political mileage. There are no two ways to go about it. An apology on that point can never come too soon – and need not even be asked for. The shame and guilt should suffice to bring the apology forward. We cannot wonder therefore at the gambit of Muscat’s Politically Contrite image. It has to work because it’s the bloomin’ obvious. What’s maravilious about it is that we had to wait till Monday morning.

We did not get one but two apologies. There was the private apology AND the public apology. We can only assume that one was the sincere “I’m sorry” from man to man while the other is the PR apology – a public act of contrition that includes an admission and an example: it is just as sincere but also reminds the public that these “role models” are admitting the error of their ways – do not copy this at home.

Now here is Lawrence’s quandary. The battle of apologies is a hand forced upon him in many ways. But when Tonio stood up late on a Thursday night to make certain claims about Justyne Caruana’s hushed vote in parliament he should have seen that coming. Forget the rubbish about pregnancy or non-pregancy – stuff for hysterical feminists and troglodyte chauvinists alike – the circumstantial evidence points to more than a hint of fabrication from the governmental benches.

The quandary is here. Were Lawrence to apologise contritely in a manner that should appease the baying crowds and disdained populace still coming to terms with the possibility of a “lying minister” then this would be an admission of guilt. The PN spin has until now waved the flimsy alibi of engineered soundbites and been supported by the usual suspects – it has not yet conceded the point. We all know how impossible it is to apologise for something before you admit to having done it.

That is the quandary for Lawrence. That is why he risks losing more plus points (not of the Bondi kind) among the voters. The General Council may be a placebo of pats on backs among friends but out in the street confidence in a government that cannot admit when it has gone too far is prone to wane.

For Lawrence, sorry seems  to be the hardest word.ù

***

ADDENDUM

Lino Spiteri pens a brilliant article in today’s Times about the consequences of Labour’s withdrawal from the committee responsible for electoral reform: Labour allows democracy veto.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Stable government and its price

So David Cameron got to move to number 10 after all. With a little help from his new-found friends, Cameron (and Clegg) ushered in an era of “collaborative politics” that promises to combine effective representation with reasoned administration for the greater good of the people. The much-maligned monster that is coalition government settled in and is already working on an Emergency Budget to tackle the continuing ails of the economy (British, European and worldwide). And there we were thinking that pesky third parties would ruin the show.

When the pros and cons of coalition governments are being discussed, the question of stable government always figures as one of primary concern. The fear of government breaking down or collapsing mid-term and of provoking multiple elections over short spans of time have been one of the main arguments against the possibility of coalition governments – that and the ugly duckling of a “kingmaker” party – a minor party able to call the shots on who gets to form a government.

Whenever such considerations are made we are making implied choices between stronger representation and stable government. The implication seems to be that perfect, proportional representation is not conducive to stable government. In a way that is because, given our “black or white” bipartisan all-or-nothing approach, we are automatically suspicious of compromise politics and confidence building. But is our “stable government” system really so perfect after all?

Stable or bust

Speaking to the party faithful at the PN General Council on Friday, minister Tonio Borg reassured those present that “the government will be safeguarding the people’s clear verdict given in the general election two years ago which was for the Nationalist Party to govern the country for five years.” This was Tonio’s summary refusal of the PL thesis of a government hanging onto power by its talons. Forget Auditor General investigations, forget disquisitions on Erskine-May and forget companies with ugly acronyms like BWSC.

It’s all about who is in power for five years. The reverse side of the coin is the same. Look at the fracas in parliament – the yelling, the motions, counter-motions, the childish insults and defences (you’re drunk and she’s pregnant – oh the shame) – it all boils down to one thing and one thing only: the PL wanted so desperately to bring this one seat-majority government crumbling down (on a vote which technically does not do that) and to undermine whatever sense of legitimacy GonziPN still has to govern.

gonzidhondt

When the results of the last election were out, our Bertoon had Gonzi celebrating on a small bucket representing his “relative majority”. A party that garnered less than 50 per cent of the vote in the country would govern, thanks to a constitutional mechanism of seat compensation. Our caption read: “D’hondt worry, we’re happy” – a nod to the D’hondt system of calculation in elections – invented by a Belgian (Belgian? now that’s a sure source for stable governments). The toon was our way of saying “at least someone’s happy”. Sure. GonziPN had every right to be happy as the next legitimate government of the nation, having snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. But was the voter really getting a good deal in constitutional and representative terms?

The cost of ‘stable government’

Two years ago a party that had a 1,500 vote advantage over the next party that had failed to get to the 50 per cent threshold could claim two extra seats in “constitutional compensation”. Those two extra seats (voting value approximately 7,000) are given to the party with the relative majority in order to ensure that it can govern for the next five or so years – assuming that all the members on its side of the House will vote in its favour.

So we have constructed our “stable government” around a fictive majority that in effect exercises something akin to absolute legislative power in parliament. If government wills it, anything becomes law – unless its bench members decide (knowingly or out of fatigue) to vote against it. The Opposition may – rightly or wrongly – yell, cry, perform its least flattering resurrection of 80’s parliamentary thuggery, walk out in indignation and shout “foul” to an angry nation. It may do all that and more but, barring a revolution, the government is as firmly in place as a limpet – crisis averted, n’est-ce pas?

There is no coalition partner forced upon a party that has not obtained the majority of national votes. No coalition partner to act as a moderator of the more radical of the government policies that might only have enjoyed the favour of a national minority (relative majority it well may be, but it is still a government by national minority). The closest we can get to the coalition partner scenario is in the infamous “rebel backbenchers” picture where, for reasons that can be highly volatile (not as clear as those of an elected coalition partner), a fraction of the party in government decides to make use of his newfound disproportionate weight.

I don’t know about you but if that’s stability, then give me instability any day. Not that I would want instability, but this kind of conundrum really makes the examination of an alternative scenario with coalition partner worth revisiting. AD chairman Mike Briguglio wrote of the current state of affairs in an article that also appeared in J’accuse (Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly). At one point Mike suggests that the Nationalist Party might even pull off a victory at the next general election. What then?

Mike wrote: “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.” The “if in government alone” bit did not escape me. It is obvious that AD of all parties would entertain thoughts of coalitions in Clegg style and Briguglio’s message is clear – if the Nationalists were to be part of the next government it would best be with a check and balance system guaranteed by a coalition partner.

bert4j_100516
Cleggmania?

The problem in Malta is that voters will weigh this option with the usual suspicion. Elections are depicted as an all or nothing battle themselves. The rules are such that – as I have shown – the trophy of governance is intricately merged with the trophy of absolute power at all costs. Even in such telling times as these, when the bipartisan representation exposes all its ugly warts, messengers like Briguglio will find it incredibly hard to sell the idea of a different form of “collaborative government” that has just been launched in the UK. Selling the idea might not be enough – without electoral reform, laws on party financing and a clear awareness among the voting population, we are far, very far, from being anywhere near the kind of movement that brought the UK Cleggmania.

Meanwhile the BWSC saga with all the parliamentary repercussions rolls on. Joseph Muscat of the Same, Same but Different Party has just presented his 15 points to battle corruption. The monster, once defined, failed to bring the PN government down. So now Don Quixote invents a few swords and sabres and bandies them about. We shall see how gullible the voters can be by the way they accept this new set of “promises”. In our analysis of the 15 points on the blog we point out (among other things) that:

(a) promising a working electricity system is just the mediocre kind of electoral gimmick you can expect from our bipartisan stable system in the 21st century; (b) you cannot fight corruption if you are unable to define it legally; (c) there is no such thing as retroactive application of criminal law; (d) when Joseph Muscat promises to implement a directive he is stating the obvious – he will have to implement directives when in government whether he likes it or not; and (e) a law on party financing must not be limited to “corruption” whatever that means – transparency means knowing even what are the “legitimate” sources of party funds.

Somebody stabilise that euro

I know it’s egoistic of me but I have begun to notice that ever since I booked a June trip to New York, there seems to be a general conspiracy to threaten my holiday. As if Iceland’s bucolic volcano and its random outbursts of paralytic ash were not enough, the combined effect of Greek woes and economic disaster on the continent have daily gnawed away at the purchasing power of the beloved euro, once I cross the pond to the other side. Also, if you please, those bigoted maniacs that fabricate religious excuses at the same rate as they strap bombs to their chests have upped the ante once again in the city that never sleeps.

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, I have “New York or Burst” (as Balki Bartokamous would have it) tattooed on my brain. No volcano, euro devaluation or fanatic terrorist will come between me and the joys of the 24-hour Apple Store on Fifth Avenue – open 24/365… beat that GRTU! How’s that for stable determination?

www.akkuza.com has been on a go-slow this Ascension Long Weekend in Luxembourg. We’ll be discussing stable governments all next week so do not miss out on the action.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]