PLPN

J’accuse : Midnight in Malta

This week I watched Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen’s latest invitation to an hour or so of light pseudo-intellectual engagement, and enjoyed every bit of the movie. Gil Pender, the protagonist played by Owen Wilson in this modern fable, is a Hollywood scriptwriter who happens to be in Paris with his fiancée while struggling to write his first novel. We witness Pender’s attempt to write his novel while trying to satisfy the needs of his rather shallow and socialite fiancée.

There is no real depth to Woody Allen’s characters in the movie but this is probably because he is busy eagerly exploring psychological themes. “Midnight’s” recurrent theme is very topical, especially in our current political climate, and deals with what is called “Golden Age nostalgia”. Our writer protagonist is plagued by this nostalgia and ends up travelling in time to the age he craves for most − Paris in the 20s. There he gets to meet his heroes from Scott Fitzgerald to Hemmingway, from Dali to Buñuel (Allen and his surrealist obsession) and while interacting with them he discovers, among other things, that even these people − living in what he considers to be the best age ever − themselves craved for a better age in the past: La Belle Époque Paris.

Nostalgia

“Midnight” is about artistic nostalgia. Over the past week we have witnessed a twisted form of nostalgia on our own shores. In between storms and floods that laughed in the face of the “Ghaqal” and “Serjetà” adverts, we were regaled with a battle of historic political propaganda. Political anniversaries tend to be more pronounced when the year is a multiple of five. There is no other reason for this than the fact that we think in decimals.

The 25th, 30th or 80th anniversary of an event has no deeper meaning than the 21st, 32nd or 11th. This is more so when the occasion is one of remembrance and not a celebration of endurance or longevity of some record. It’s one thing celebrating a long stretch of time − like an Independence anniversary or the founding date of a club for example − but remembrance is not about the time that has passed but about the meaning of what is being commemorated. On 11th November we do not go around counting the years since 1918 − we just remember and honour those who died for our freedom. That is the point: “Lest we forget”.

Which is why the fact that 25 years have passed since the tal-Barrani incidents should not be the main reason for remembering what happened and what we believed we were fighting for at the time. Yes, I definitely count myself among those who believe that this kind of episode in our history should not be forgotten and should be one of the learning blocks in the building of a nation. It is also not out of a twisted exercise of “balancing” between historical truths that I also believe that the “Interdiction” period for example is also part of our collective memory.

Luce

What happened this week though did not feel like remembrance. Remembrance does not use history as an instrument for current political campaigning. The feeling you got was that the memories were being used as a warning against the current Labour clan because they would bring us more of the same. As an unnamed blogger put it: “It’s like asking those who lived through the Second World War to dismiss a Nazi that seeks power. Forgive maybe, forget never.” By that rationale Labour would be eternally unelectable because it could never shed the historical links to an ugly past. Which is rubbish. There is a reason why the Nazi party has been outlawed and the Labour Party hasn’t.

That was the Nationalists shooting themselves in the foot by attempting to turn history into contemporary electoral propaganda. Then came the Labourites − and they went one better. I watched a clip from the ONE TV programme Inkontri that supposedly chronicled the work of post-1987 government till today (To see the full clip go to the blog www.akkuza.com on the post called “Daqqiet ta’ Harta”).

I felt physically sick. First it was evident that the effort was a counter-reaction to the tal-Barrani PN series. Worse though was the fact that it was clear to anybody with a brain between his ears that this was an effort at blatant political revisionism. Revisionism is not even the word. This was creative fantasy that falls to the same level as holocaust denial. You’d think that the PN governments since 1987 were run by a clan of Mintoff’s friends − from Ceausescu to Kim-Il Jong through Gaddafi.

The Labour Party still cannot come to terms with the fact that in a liberal society you do not lock up or gag people like Lou Bondì and Daphne Caruana Galizia but you get the right to answer and argue back or ignore them. The irony of watching the Inkontri presenter stand outside PN HQ and complain about how in today’s society the right of free expression has been completely negated, was in all probability lost on the fawning viewers.

Golden Age

Back to Allen. The nostalgia for a Golden Age is described psychologically as a form of escapism. It is a form of denial of modern realities. The Nationalist Party might have committed a faux pas when appealing to the sense of solidarity that many of us had in 1987 when the call for “Work, Justice and Liberty” gave us an instant rush. The faux pas was not about remembrance but about its abuse. The distraction effect from today’s’ troubles is minimal and to be honest the transference of the sense of optimism and hope experienced at the time is nigh impossible. Better keep their feet to the ground.

As for Labour, the problems run deeper. Nostalgia does not help much but the past keeps raising its ugly head even when “those bastard Nationalists” are minding their own business. There’s worse. Labour acolytes must have experienced another psychological phenomenon mentioned in the Allen movie: “Cognitive dissonance”. Wikipedia describes this as “the discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously”.

When psychologists first studied cognitive dissonance they looked at groups that had predicted imminent disasters (such as the end of the world). They looked at what happened when the prediction failed − and noticed that such groups grew “by sharing the cult beliefs with others they gained acceptance and thus reduced their own dissonance” (Wikipedia). Another example often given is “smoking”. You know it is wrong for you but you smoke anyway − the two thoughts coincide uncomfortably in your mind.

Loyalty and Creed

Nostalgia is about thinking of the golden ages of our respective parties and of the events that made them stronger. Engaging heavily in nostalgia at the moment is very probably a form of escapist denial − a failure to engage with current issues and the present. The dissonance in the voters’ mind is between the side of him that wants to see his party as a solution − come what may − and the side of him that is beginning to see gaping flaws in the way forward that is proposed.

Muscat’s 51 proposals from another planet must have induced cognitive dissonance in many a Labour sympathiser. It was evident even in the comments on J’accuse. While the Labour Party was evidently pitching the list as a set of solutions (see the official email sent out explaining how Gonzi has only got questions but Muscat has solutions), sympathisers still insisted on “giving Muscat a chance” or about how this was just a “general plan” not the solution itself. Even given all the evidence in the world that the 51 proposals was just a list of propagandistic blah-blah, the Labour side of the brain fought desperately to “believe”.

Striking Twelve

The Belgians finally got a government this week. On 2nd December, the first day of government, a general protest was announced and thousands took to the streets protesting against the austerity plans. That baptism of fire was not enough though − an issue of Belgian government bonds was oversubscribed on the very same day. The news at the end of the day was about the mixed messages being given by the Belgian people (for a change). Was this an episode of national cognitive dissonance?

Whatever the case may be, we would do well to pull our socks up and leave nostalgia to historians. At times like this, positive governance and clear direction is not a luxury but a basic necessity − the less political games and distractions the better. Decisions such as investing in sustainable energy and power as well as reforming a justice system cannot and should not be taken lightly. The less time spent in futile propaganda wars the better.

It’s either that, or it’s midnight in Malta.

 

www.akkuza.com has been blogging non-stop since 10 March 2005. We haven’t stopped writing and you haven’t stopped reading. That’s a good enough reason to keep at it.

J’accuse : Pride and prejudice revisited

The Statue of Liberty turned 125 last Friday. Back in 1896, the French government donated the statue to the people of America and “Liberty” soon became an iconic symbol and gateway to the land of opportunity for thousands of migrants that reached the shores of the United States in the last century. Events closer to home this week made me wonder whether we should have our own statue in Malta. Actually, make that two statues − you know how it is in this country − you need to have a black and a white side to every opinion… so you probably will need two statues too.

This week we had the Independence Day celebrations. It had not been hard to predict that the build-up of news about Malta’s valiant efforts in assisting our Libyan brothers was aimed at boosting the feel-good factor that is normally associated with the 21st September speeches from the podia at il-Fosos. The event came and went, and the PN leaders duly delivered. We had a new message: “Pride”. We should be proud to form part of this nation that against all adversity has assisted the injured and wounded in Libya. In one evening’s speech, the six-month long hesitation whether or not to back the rebels was washed away. The image of the injured Shwegya became the 21st century equivalent of the proud Maltese helping the shipwrecked Saint Paul.

They tell me that our prized tapestries are being restored in Belgium right now. In the past, tapestries were used to tell the story of some national epic or narrative. They would boost the pride of the tapestry owners – sometimes free cities of the merchant north. Our political writers with a strong PLPN bias weave our modern day histories into special tapestries. Only this time the actors did not quite fit the bill. While the yarn of “proud and charitable” Malta was being spun in some places, the acts of the citizens elsewhere told a very different story. Two stories actually … a black one and a white one that should earn us the two statues I mentioned earlier.

The black − No to injured Libyans

The first sabotage attempt at undermining GonziPN’s efforts to weave a new heroic story into the tapestry of our PLPN history books came from an unexpected source. The (very Christian) spokesperson of Malta’s Union of Nurses (and Midwives) complained that Mater Dei has enough on its hands as it is and does not need to play nurse to any injured Libyans. Paul Pace, head of the MUMN told the government that “bigger countries with more facilities should address such problems”. Boom goes GonziPN’s plans of a proud nation humbly serving the weak and the injured. Bang goes any semblance of pride. Incidentally, don’t hold your breath for a Joseph Muscat position on this mess by the way. It’ll be more like a free vote − otherwise he’ll either have to criticise MUMN (read votes) for their tunnel vision or he’ll have to criticise Gonzi’s plans thus losing cred on his “I love New Libya” mantra.

As for the proud nation sticking its neck out for others, the best source to tap the pulse of the nation remains the online comment boards. Here is a Ms Maria Vella writing in The Times: “Let us stop being all politically correct and call a spade a spade! Mr Pace did not beat around the bush and stated the situation as it is. We have enough Maltese patients (who pay taxes and contribute towards the running of this hospital) waiting for treatment, in corridors or at home, or even worse sent home because of lack of space but we find place and resources to treat foreigners. Whilst my sympathies go to the injured Libyans, charity should begin at home!” Now there’s a thought Mr Prime Minister. A sympathy card to Libya and that’s that. Where’s Tonio Borg when you need him? So the first statue, possibly at the entrance to Grand Harbour should be pointing our unwanted immigrants back home. Let’s call him Charity. I can picture the colossus standing with the two faces of hypocrisy as his outstretched hand ends in a finger pointing out to sea. In his other hand he sports a colander and a flag of the nation he calls home.

The white − yes to rich magnates

The second sabotage attempt comes from an unexpected source. Writing in The Times of Malta, property developer and estate agent Frank Salt describes the new conditions for obtaining a residency in Malta as “a large hammer being used to crack a delicate egg”. Apparently, the new conditions for your average Russian euro-burner to settle down in Malta are “very complicated, extraordinarily expensive, virtually prohibitive” − dixit Frank. It seems that the developers’ apple cart has been upset:

Here’s Mr Salt’s angry question: “Was it sensible for the authorities to continue to allow new building developments specifically targeted at potential new foreign buyers, to sprout up all over our Islands, when they knew that they were about to unload this bombshell, that would and could, and no doubt will, upset the whole apple cart?”

And the property developers are angry. They’re angry at the government that encouraged them to develop land to sell it off to non-EU citizens (not injured Libyans mind you… for that we have Mater Dei) and then came up with these conditions. Here’s Frank being Frank again: “Today, the local property industry first works its backside off promoting Malta as a safe, inexpensive and pleasant place in which foreigners and their families can come and live in peace. Then, when the market gets off its feet, quality developments are built, foreign residents, permanent and temporary come to Malta to see whether they would like to live here… bang… once again it is time to mess things up.” Bang indeed.

Finally, there is the music for the environmentalist’s ear: “Now we have to see how we are going to sell the hundreds of properties that are currently on the market and those hundreds more that have new permits to build.”

I’ve got an idea for Frank if he doesn’t mind me telling him. I’m thinking that our developers could sell some of that space to … lemme see… a Qatari developer who could then invest some of his money into … hmm… a hospital.

There would be some divine justice in that wouldn’t there? An exclusive hospital built to service the wounded and injured from the Arab Spring. The developers would get their money. The nurses would get their break from the influx in Mater Dei and the government would sell this off as some smart move. Lovely no?

While he’s at it, our Qatari developer could also sponsor the second statue. This one stands across the harbour from Charity welcoming visitors with arms wide open. At his foot stand a giant-sized cash register and piggy bank. Preferably, “Opportunity” (for thusly I have named him) will be richly dressed, complete with top hat as a wannabe Mr Moneybags.

The Pride of Lions

Forget my grandiose statue building plans and just think for one moment about the realities of this island. On the one hand we have our political establishment living in an alternative world where Malta “proudly welcomed” sixteen (16) wounded Libyans. (This is, by the way, the same Malta that welcomed hundreds of thousands of injured from the Crimean War and the battlefields of World War I (the Gallipoli and Salonika campaigns) without batting an eyelid.)

On the other hand, the talk on the street and on the web boards is anything but this charitable and proud nation. When we are not busy kicking up a fuss about the foreigners taking up space in our hospitals (don’t bleed on my soil), we are complaining that new laws do not allow money-spending magnates to set up residence on our rock (please let them come bleed euros here).

It’s normally Joseph Muscat’s job to blame Dr Gonzi for everything under the sun (including tsunamis and world economic crisis). I’d just simply say that our political establishment are getting the “proud” citizens they have nurtured and that they deserve. What you reap is what you sow. Maybe the time has come to wake up.

www.akkuza.com is hoping to survive this weekend of bachelor partying. If all goes well we’ll be back online Monday – as proud as peacocks. This article appeared in the J’accuse column of yesterday’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

* Image – a “welcome” poster for “foreigners” received in my postbox from the “friendly” (thankfully a minority) side of Luxembourg… tolerance is all around us

The Pride of Lions

Do you have Independence day hangover? Are you still reeling from the injection of pride in our country and its achievements – especially in its delayed reincarnation as the potential Florence Nightingale of the Libyan Spring? Or are you still feeling rather indignant at the “divisive” call for AST’s resignation? Better still, are you still clutching your aching sides after laughing all night at Labour’s non sequitur style reponse that “if my ex-Foreign Minister was an arsehole then your ex-Leader /PM / President played host to a flurry of arseholes in the early nineties”?

However you may have woken up this side of Independence Day, you will surely have gone through your morning papers and probably, like J’accuse, you’d have noticed the glaring inconsistencies in this proud nation’s dealing with foreigners. Here they are in black and white.

The Black – No to injured Libyans

On the one hand GonziPN’s efforts to weave a new heroic story into the tapestry of our PLPN history books have come under fire from an unexpected source. The (very christian) spokesperson of some Union of Nurses complained that Mater Dei has enough on its hands as it is and does not need to play nurse to any injured Libyans. Paul Pace, head of the MUMN told the government that “bigger countries with more facilities should address such problems”. Boom goes GonziPN’s plans of proud nation humbly serving the weak and the injured. Don’t hold your breath for a Joseph Muscat position on this mess by the way. He either criticises MUMN (read votes) for their tunnel vision or he criticises Gonzi’s plans thus losing cred on his “I love New Libya” mantra.

As for the proud nation sticking its neck out for others – here is the best source to tap the pulse of the nation … the Times online comment board:

Ms Maria Vella

Today, 09:59

Let us stop being all politically correct and call a spade a spade!

Mr. Pace did not beat around the bush and stated the situation as it is. We have enough Maltese patients (who pay taxes and contribute towards the running of this hospital) waiting for treatment, in corridors or at home, or even worse sent home because of lack of space but we find place and resources to treat foreigners.

Whilst my sympathies go towards the injured Libyans, charity should begin at home!

Now there’s a thought Mr. Prime Minister. A sympathy card to Libya and that’s that. Where’s Tonio Borg when you need him?

The White – Yes to rich magnates

Frank Salt, of Frank Salt properties, describes the new conditions for obtaining a residency in Malta as “a large hammer being used to crack a delicate egg” (TOM – Messing with the economic motor). Apparently the new conditions for your average Russian euro-burner to settle down in Malta are “very complicated, extraordinarily expensive, virtually prohibitive” – dixit Frank. It seems that the developers’ apple cart has been upset:

Was it sensible for the authorities to continue to allow new building developments specifically targeted at potential new foreign buyers, to sprout up all over our Islands, when they knew that they were about to unload this bombshell, that would and could, and no doubt will, upset the whole apple cart?

And the property developers are angry. They’re angry at the government that encouraged them to develop land to sell it off to Non-EU citizens (not injured Libyans mind you… for that we have Mater Dei) and then came up with these conditions. Here’s Frank being Frank again:

Today, the local property industry first works its backside off promoting Malta as a safe, inexpensive and pleasant place in which foreigners and their families can come and live in peace. Then, when the market gets off its feet, quality developments are built, foreign residents, permanent and temporary come to Malta to see whether they would like to live here… bang… once again it is time to mess things up.

And then there is the music for the environmentalist’s ear:

Now we have to see how we are going to sell the hundreds of properties that are currently on the market and those hundreds more that have new permits to build.

Dunno Frank. I’m thinking that you should sell some of that space to … lemme see… a Qatari developer who could then invest some of his money into … hmm… a hospital. There would  be some divine justice in that wouldn’t there? An exclusive hospital built to service the wounded and injured from the Arab Spring. The developers would get their money. The nurses would get their break from the influx in Mater Dei and the government would sell this off as some smart move. Lovely no?

Finale

Of course mine is a tongue in cheek suggestion to Mr Salt. What really jars is the existence of this reality on our tiny rock. On the one hand we have those christians who cannot accept the idea that our valuable hospital space is being taken up by “foreigners” (stop bleeding on my soil) and on the other we have those business minded few who are dying to get the right type of foreigner (those who bleed money) to our shores.

It’s normally Joseph Muscat’s job to blame Gonzi for everything under the sun (including tsunamis and world economic crisis). I’d just say simply that our political establishment are getting the “proud” citizens they have nurtured and that they deserve.

What you reap is what you sow. Maybe it’s time to wake up.

 

Mass Downgrade

There was a time when the day after “mass meeting” events would be spent combing the papers comparing snapshot to snapshot of the human flood that would have filled the appointed spot at the appointed time. Pre-election polls in Malta were conducted with an expert off the cuff assessment (if you excuse the oxymoron) of the number of flag waving homini partisani who crammed every nook and cranny of Il-Fosos. That was then – when a silly tune like “We take a chance” could guarantee more votes than a commitment on Waste Recycling and when everybody could dance the night away happy that our economy was boosting and F’par idejn sodi.

I went through the papers – those sympathetic to government and their online version to look for the photos of the “masses” who were supposed to have spent three days of hedonistic remembrance and instead all I could find were close-ups of Lawrence Gonzi and Paul Borg Olivier. Was something being hidden from our prying 80’s mentality? Had the PN masses failed the ultimate fidelity test? Had they not crammed the beloved fosos while singing their anachronistic innu tal-kattolċi u tal-Latini? Apparently not. Here’s the party mouthpiece MaltaRightNow letting the numbers slip while describing part of Prime Minister Gonzi’s speech:

Lista ma tispiċċax illi ġiet elenkata mill-PM u Kap tal-Partit Nazzjonalista Lawrence Gonzi meta indirizza lill-mijiet miġbura fuq il-fosos tal-Furjana għall-mass meeting li bih għalqu l-festi tal-Indipendenza bit-tema ‘Kburin b’pajjiżna, għax nemmnu f’pajjiżna.’

Mijiet. That’s hundreds. Not thousands. Hundreds.

Just saying.

 

(Happy Independence Day)

Later on J’accuse: More on why Labour is intent on plugging the “PN are too partisan” line, how the PN attempted to rewrite six months of Maltese fence-sitting  in the libyan saga, and how telling us that Labour is no good alternative is not exactly our idea of a plan for our future (Pjan ċar u konkret għall-futur)

 

Independence Day Speech (4th of July): “We can’t be consumed by our petty differences any more” (or don’t you think that Joseph Muscat would look good in a bomber jacket?)

 

De Moribus Viator

Julia Farrugia’s “rapping” at the hands of the Press Ethics Commission (PEC) has brought the question of journalistic ethics back to the discussion arena. J’accuse has long taken the subject of journalistic ethics to heart – particularly within the context of the growth of the role of blogs and blog content in the public sphere. For some time now we have been mourning the death of investigative journalism in Malta and it has little to do with who is carrying the scythe.

In true fishpond fashion, the post-mortem analysis of the Julia Farrugia/Joseph Mizzi has been absorbed into the mainstream manner of journalism: where beyond the news item lies an opportunity to snipe at people and milk the possibility to sling mud as far as possible. This analysis of ours has nothing to do with our being faint-hearted or timid about the need to call a spade a spade. J’accuse has no claims to purity or perfection (though we do get damn close).

What we would like to see discussed is whether Julia Farrugia failed on the count of exercising journalistic discretion when faced with a possible story. In the case of that kind of examination we find that our judgement falls closer to that found on Lou Bondi’s or Daphne Caruana Galizia’s blogs than on the explanation afforded by MaltaToday journalist Matthew Vella. At the moment of receiving the information and video, Farrugia was duty bound to apply an ethical brake to the eagerness to publish a juicy video.

Matthew Vella tries to find fault with the PEC’s reasoning. In particular Vella does not agree with what he reads as a shift of moral responsibility: “it was not incumbent upon the journalist to take moral umbrage at the source’s footage. That would have been tantamount to self-censorship, on the basis of the assumed deference towards government appointees.” We may grant that the standard being applied by the PEC may not find universal acceptance (or cause difficulties in future application) – but that would be focusing on a separate problem. The focus here was on a journalist’s judgement and ethical considerations when evaluating “news value”.

Vella asks: “So does this mean from now on, when we encounter some form of embarrassing or unbecoming behaviour by a government minister or high-ranking civil servant, they should not be held to account, simply because they ridicule themselves?” I don’t think anybody would agree that this is the conclusion to be drawn. Let’s put it this way, had Julia Farrugia’s news item limited itself to reporting the fact that Mr Mizzi was filmed in a groggy state we might not be here asking questions. Instead the implications loaded behind the video, its suspect editing and the forcefulness with which it was used to bring about a political statement and result, shift it away from plain reporting and into the hazy domain of journalism driven by preconceived agendas – in which case it stops being journalism. It becomes biased reporting where “facts” are cut and paste to suit a journalist’s agenda.

Which brings me to the Daphnes and the Lous of this world.  Lou Bondi has recntly taken to blogging and no longer considers the blogging world as a world of “peċluqa” (see video below) – either that or he has become one hell of a “peċluq” himself. His last two posts at the time of writing (“Julia, try a red bathing suit this time” and “When Julia went crying to daddy“) are redolent of the style perfected on the Runs (there goes the obsession). Malta’s foremost investigative journalist does not limit himself to discussing the ethical issue at stake but performs his own little foray into the world of character assassinations and guilt by association.

Daphne too chooses to deviate from the real issue and peppers her commentary with references to “il-boton” – the usual snide, taste-based, zokk u fergħa reasoning best left for PLPN bull towards the election. This is a pity really because there is no doubt that Caruana Galizia has accumulated enough expertise and networking to have the right sources and means to fill the gap that exists in investigative journalism in Malta. Instead she participates happily in fishpond peċlieq with gay abandon.

Yes, we know we can expect the tirade on J’accuse from this magnificent duo of Maltese journalistic standards but hey what’s new? Plategate may long be buried in the collective memory and might be down to the final stanzas of what has been a drawn out lament but the lessons to be learnt are still there in full view of anyone who cares to listen. Last time round – back in the heyday of Plategate – we held Lou to task for his apparent inability to assemble a proper program investigating the causes behind Plategate and the conflagration that ensued. Like Julia Farrugia, Daphne had sat on some juicy and important bits of news regarding the behaviour of members of our judiciary and their extended circles. Like Julia she had a decision on whether to go public or not. That was her moment of applying journalistic ethics.

Lou failed to ask Daphne (his dinner friend) the vital question: Why now? (as in Why then?). Julia Farrugia deserves the rapping on the knuckles for her lack of judgement in the Mizzi Affair. Daphne Caruana Galizia would still have us believe that the flush of information regarding the private lives of public individuals was triggered off by a sudden urge of public duty notwithstanding the fact that she had sat on that information (and accumulated it in true peċluqa style) for quite some time. Why did she choose the moment she chose to suddenly publish the information? Lou tried his damn best to depict Daphne as the hero and martyr when making his editorial choices for the infamous Bondiplus programme.

In J’accuse’s book the press should be reporting instances of public individuals who are caught misbehaving while on public duty. It should be uncovering these situations of public officers behaving badly and should continue to press on to ensure the transparency of such information.

What should never be done is to use such information in line with a private agenda of spite, hate, jealousy and retribution. Unfortunately it seems that Malta’s fishpond journalism is more and more prone to pick up the latter style than engage in real investigation and reporting.

So much for ethics then. Take that from Malta’s longest running peċluq.

Bondi’s peċluq

Thinking in 2D in the 21st Century

It’s been a week on the island and as you can see from the lack of blogging it has been a busy one. Any time I may have away from planning is dedicated to the sun and sea (or the sun and swell during the last two days). The most “politics” I get during this time is a chance to hear people out away from the comments boxes in the various blogs and online papers and so I get to compare the ethereal with the reaHave I got some (non) news for you…

There’s a lament doing the rounds out there that is worthy of Pietro Caxaro’s darned best. It is sung by each and every person who you meet and who you da provoke into talking about current affairs. There may be variants but the highlights of the lament go something like this:

1. An extreme displeasure and disgust at anything PN. Apparently the monsters of “widespread corruption”, “nepotism” and “hofor” are back with a vengeance. The general idea among nationalist card carriers is that the PN might as well vanish in a cloud of smoke – as they have become a corrupt bunch of spendthrift nincompoops who are also hell bent on installing a police state. As one ex-nationalist (yes, they are back) gently put “it: “We do not need another five years of democratic dictatorship. Conclusion: PN does not get their vote. (Inzabbu)

2. So you try to get something out of these disgruntled nationalists about o they intend to vote for. The answer is obvious. They will vote for Inhobbkom Joseph and his merry band. Fair enough I say. After all fairness is oft invoked by the intelligent (that’s sarcasm by the way) voter to justify the need of alternation in government. But do you know what kind of policies PL has? Do you know how they will be applied to, for example, shield us from the dark clouds of the economic crisis? I am not a tough client. I ask for one (that’s 1) policy that promises to improve things from the lament-inducing state of affairs. Just one. Apparently though Joseph has promised an electoral manifesto three months before the election. And anyway that is not the point it seems. It seems that the point is that the vote is not really for PL but against PN. You see? Intelligent voting is back. Apparently the new think is “better the incompetent devil you have no clue about than the thieving, host-swallowing, conniving, power-nibbling devil you’ve had enough of”. Or summat like that. Conclusion: Viva l-lejber! (Who? boqq… basta mhux PN u hi).

3. And then you plug the innocent question. So if you are telling me that the nationalists have fooled you for too long and that you do have an inkling of a suspicion that PL running on the same polluted petrol why won’t you consider for an instance using your sacrosant right to vote positively and elect a party that deserves giving its damned best shot at having its policies represented in parliament? In other words : why not vote AD? (after reading their political proposals and seeing what they have to offer). Well we know what the answer to that on is don’t we? It’s Daphne and Patrick’s Wasted Vote… the one that makes you irresponsible for risking getting one of the other devils elected. Of course if Daphne convinced you not to waste your vote last election you probably voted for the government of one-seat majority in which Ad is not a king-maker. Hold on…. but what does that make JPO? What does it make obstinate Franco Debono? An unruly Austin Gatt? Let me guess… that is the most responsible vote of the highest order. Conclusion: Vote AD? Don’t be ridiculous. (Biex jitilghu xi PN bi zball… mhux hekk)

So three and a half years after the battles of 2008 when we tried desperately on the net and in the papers to convince people that the time had come to break the stronghold of the alternating valueless devils in this country by voting in a third party nothng much has changed. This is a country that still thinks in stupid terms. Yes, stupid. Becuase if you know that voting PN again would only encourage more of the same, and if you know that voting PL would only bring about the same, same but different and you are only voting PL because you want to spite PN then you can only be damn stupid. Very damn stupid if you ask me.

a J’accuse article in The Times of Malta from February 2008:

Win or lose we go shopping after the election

So there’s this campaign going on. It pits two candidates head to head against each other. The other contestants are sort of morphed away into the background as the two personalities fight the battle in each and every quarter. They pitch the battle from their home ground where they feel most confident attacking their opponent to the shrills and cries of banner waving supporters. Occasionally they will consent to a battle of wits before a general audience. It is such battles that bring out their fortes and their weaknesses. On the one hand the man who has already surprised everyone once by getting as far as he could get and on the other the smart confident lawyer with the plan to save the nation. They battle through the stereotypical labels, they justify past records and voting trends and they are both convinced that it is with them that the nation will start its new beginning.

It’s going to be a long, drawn out campaign as early polls had already indicated. No horse is a sure bet and every little battle waged is important for the achievement of the final result. They are determined to put on a good face to the crowd. They want to be the answer to the needs of the people. “Each candidate behaved well in the hope of being judged worthy of election”. It doesn’t take Machiavelli to notice that politicians will willingly change shape in order to best suit the image that the people want to elect. A recent article in The Boston Globe asked the question whether we should really be so angry that hypocrisy is a common trait among politicians. After all does it not mean that they are trying to be more pleasing for the electorate, the author asks.

On the other hand, in this campaign, the votes against are almost as important as the votes in favour. Often the old political adage, that men and women vote chiefly against somebody rather than for somebody, is proven right. More and more campaigns are run on why not to vote for the other candidate than why to vote for your own. It is a sorry state of affairs wherever this happens and reflects a dearth of positive ideas and policies. The same applies to the mud-slinging scenarios that have become habitual. This campaign has not been spared.

One candidate accuses the other of having supported a wrong policy in the past – the immediate repartee will be on how a policy backed by the accuser had been so ineffective and hopeless. And so on it goes. Was it not once said that during a campaign the air is full of speeches … and vice versa?

The media machinery focuses as much on the glamour aspect of the politician as it will on the substance being offered. Personal background, musical preferences and how the candidate spends his spare time all form part of the wider media circus of this campaign. Meanwhile, while one side will accuse the other of being incompetent, dishonest and incapable of fulfilling its promises, the other side will retort with the same arguments. To cap it all up the independents or third parties will agree with both – giving you quite an idea of how varied and contradicting opinions can weirdly fall in the same basket.

In the middle of it all lie the voters. They are awed by the language of the demagogues, by the special effects of the presentations and by the charisma of this or that candidate. They will watch in a drunken stupor as the more arguments are piled up the more they are mollified into one or another candidates’ camp. As the song and dance goes on they are led to believe that the choice is the only one before them that counts. Everything else is yesterday and the past. Tomorrow is another story where a new beginning and a new world exists… with your candidate of choice of course. Privately the voters’ main reflection remains that democracy is being able to vote for the candidate who you dislike the least.

But Barak Obama vs Hillary Clinton will be just another chapter in the history of viciously fought campaigns. I’ve just finished reading the book Imperium by Robert Harris which chronicles the life and times of Marcus Cicero. It chronicles events close to the end of the Republican era in Rome. Elections were order of the day between circus games and foreign campaigns. Bribery, corruption, calumnious accusation and all forms of no-holds-barred campaigning seem to have been normality in that age. Thankfully it is probably no longer possible to buy more than half the representation of the senate and the tribunes as attempted by Crassus and his co-conspirators.

Bribery and politicians who sell their soul to the highest bidder are a thing of the past even though many a Michael Moore will say otherwise. Politics are made for the good of the people. Wars are waged to export democracy and not to retain control on the oil lines, building permits are given in the light of regulations and not twisted in accordance to the needs of party backers and so on and so forth. Whatever the case the US seems set to have a woman or a black man in the White House (should the Democrats make it) over 200 years after the birth of a nation. The election will be over and we will return to our daily lives. As Imelda Marcos once famously said, win or lose, we go shopping after the election.