PLPN

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

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

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

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

Cyrus the grate

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

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

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

A series of interesting questions

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

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

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

Networks

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

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

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

Buying power

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

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

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

Getting what you want

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

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

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

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

J'accuse : The Meaning of Life

This is the J’accuse column that appeared on the Malta Independent on Sunday on the 24th of July.

Speaking to the press after the bombing and shooting that rocked the world, Oslo Mayor Fabian Stang could hardly control his emotions. In a phone interview with the BBC, Stang spoke of how he wished he could have been on Utoya island to put himself between the heartless gunman and his victims: “I would have told him to take me and spare the young campers.” Stang’s words were echoed by both the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Stoltenberg. The nation had been stung and the biggest tragedy among all the unfolding tragedies was that the agent of the grim reaper had chosen to target the promising youth of a peaceful nation.

Although early signals (mostly US based) pointed towards another al Qaeda linked tragedy, it seems to be increasingly probable that the perpetrator was nothing less than a crazed Christian right-winger who could have been acting on the basis of some grudge against the liberal government. Be that as it may, Friday’s focus was on the loss of life. The grief and mourning was based on a common value: that of appreciation of life and of the wasted potential among the 80 or so young men and women who were indiscriminately shot while on their political camp retreat.

Life as we know it

It is normal for a nation to mourn its dead. When the dead are the result of an extremist rampage and include large numbers of people in their youthful prime there is no end to the sense of loss. Society values life. Even the most savage of communities understands the importance and value of life − life is not and cannot be treated lightly. There is a reason why murder ranks above theft or larceny in a criminal code. It is the most obvious demonstration of the importance of life to a society. From Hammurabi to the modern day, life has been treated as the most precious gift and the taking of a life was conversely the most severe of punishments. Life, as we know it, can never be treated lightly.

If we zoom out of the zone of operations of a Christian Fundamentalist in Norway and zoom into Somalia’s regions run by Muslim extremists, we find another example of the abuse of life for the sake of some twisted political agenda. The Al-Shabab Islamists have denied western aid agencies access to the famine stricken parts of Somalia because they believe that reports of famine are all part of “Western propaganda”. The Al-Shabab control regions − Bakool and Lower Shamble − that are among the worst struck by droughts and are still refusing access to the much-needed aid agencies.

Real life choices are being made daily in the regions immediately outside Somalia’s capital Mogadishu. The image of mothers wrapping material tightly around their stomachs in order not to feel hunger pains and save whatever food found for their offspring was an image of ultimate sacrifice. It’s a recurrent story in our “civilisation” − whenever the tyrant or the crazed mass murder has left his mark, you will also find symbols of human self-sacrifice: forgoing their own right to a life in order to save others. We build our greatest narratives around this idea − from the sacrifice of sons of gods to the last Harry Potter installation when even the young wizard has to die for a while (apologies for the mini-spoiler) in order to save the world of Muggles and magic.

Sacrifice

The latest news from Norway describes the attacker as a Christian extremist. We’re dealing with labels here. As a friend commented on Facebook, you cannot describe the work of this man as madness because there is no folly in the manner of execution. This is the work of someone with twisted principles and whose value of life is severely handicapped by a tunnel vision that can only be damaging. There was a kind of sense of relief to note that the hand of al Qaeda and all things claiming to be “Muslim inspired” was not remotely present this time round. The stereotypical assessments (big bomb, big attack therefore Muslim extremists must be behind it Q.E.D) fell on their face rather quickly and there is a lesson to be learnt there too about making rash value judgements on the face of appearances.

This week we had the opportunity to learn an equally important set of lessons in Malta too. The tragic death of young Eritrean Ashih while trying to save the life of a French person at sea gave us a first, important example. Ashih had faced the perils and terrors of open sea in his gamble to start a new life away from the troubles he left behind. He had survived the first part of his Iliad and begun to build a new life in Malta. This was the Malta whose louder members tend to remind men like him that it has no use for them… that they better return to their homeland. I am sure that when he jumped into the sea he did not think for one instant that this would be his last jump. There would have been no time to think that anyway for his thoughts were selfless and his mind was focused on saving the life of another person. Which is why we should be all the more thankful and respectful to the memory of Ashih.

A life in jeopardy

Another life that is in the news this week is that of Emmanuel Cini. The man whose latest label in life is that of “disabled man” has chosen to go on a hunger strike until Austin Gatt resigns his position as minister and Arriva mends its ways. Cini’s plight hit national headlines on his second day of starving and soon became the darling and hero of those who had been making a living out of complaining about the transport system. The nation’s gossip circles got so carried away by the apparent “guts”, “balls” and more demonstrated by the poor moribund that it seemed that nobody asked themselves the simple question: “Is a faulty transport system worth dying for?”

Sure, Cini did colour his protest with the idea that he is a “prisoner in his own home” but somehow the whole shebang did have a ring of “false prima donna” about it. It definitely does not matter to the cause of protesting faulty public transport whether Cini is a bona fide sick person or an ex-gay porn star or an ex-drama teacher or an ex-claimant for other state benefits or an ex-classical radio host, but slowly there is a jigsaw puzzle of clues that point to the conclusion that the kind of help someone like Cini needs goes beyond a direct bus to St Thomas Bay from his doorstep.

His “cause” is in no way aided by those who glorify his actions and equate him to some modern day Mahatma Gandhi without pointing out the absurd disproportionality in his “ends and means” calculations. I’d hate to think that there are idiots out there who would secretly hope for to him pass away simply to be able to lump his death on Austin Gatt’s conscience.

By day five of his hunger strike Emmanuel Cini mysteriously disappeared from the mainstream press reporting. Although some people had begun to unearth his very colourful (and interesting) past, the general reaction in the press was one of silence. It may be all the better for him − his cause can never be successful because it is one that is based on a faulty premise: that the teething problems of Arriva are worth dying for. It is a premise that makes a mockery of the value of life and needs to be changed before it is too late. Cini may be in too fragile a state to notice that at most he can be a temporary tool for yet another bandwagon of opportunist jerks. It is hopefully not too late for him to change his ill-advised choice.

Life is beautiful

It is stories like these that can help us appreciate the beauty of life notwithstanding all moments of adversity. “La vita é bella” said the poet who could see it in the smallest and most insignificant of moments. At times all it takes is learning to appreciate the world around you − minus the prejudice, minus the intolerance and minus the grudges we build over time. And smile. Enjoy life… you (probably) only get one chance to do it and it would be such a shame to live to regret it.

www.akkuza.com still thinks life is beautiful notwithstanding the greyest and coldest summer in our seven years of Luxembourg life. Log on to the site for further fun tips on how to carpe diem.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Apologia for the PN

Since I know that no matter what I write in this post I will be labelled “PN apologist” I thought of giving it a direct title and spare the superficial readers the typing. The final divorce vote has been taken and by now we all know which way the vote went. The conscience of the MPs who reflected the will of the referendum majority trumped that of those who still believed majority had nothing to do with what they decide. A majority of MPs, acting on their conscience, voted in a private members bill and Malta has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century thanks to the will of the people.

It’s funny how even the most “liberal” of commentators seem to have written this off as a Labour victory of some kind. True, they have not gone to the extreme of constitutional expert Luciano Busuttil who first posted this on facebook:

TODAY WE SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE DIVORCE SAGA WITH THE ‘LABOUR GOVERNMENT’ PASSING THE LAW TO REFLECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

Then, in a bout of euphoria he went on to impress us with his constitutional savoir-faire by adding:

IL-PRIM MINISTRU HU DAK LI L-PRESIDENT TAR-REPUBBLIKA JARA SKOND IL-KOSTITUZZJONI LI KAPACI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT. ILLUM IL-PRIM MINISTRU KIEN PARTI MILL-MINORANZA.

The “liberals” are busy pounding Lawrence though and let’s face it Lawrence could have only done worse had he donned a cassock and kick started an impromptu rosary in parliament. Fact is though that those busy pummeling Gonzi should be doing so with equal (or variable) measure to Joseph too. They still don’t get it do they? It’s one thing pooh-poohing Gonzi for sticking to his guns and voting Nyet all the way to the final vote and it’s another transporting this to the land of wishful thinking and collapsing governments. Here are a few inconfutable facts as to the why and because:

  • we had a free vote (and yes, Joseph is back to calling it frijvowt – see Times interview and his reply about Adrian Vassallo). Our parties did not oblige their members to vote in favour or against. As JOSEPH said – everyone was free to vote as he thinks. So NO – neither Labour nor PN or any faction thereof can claim to have in any way been part of the vote. We’ve dealt with this before and it remains a true constant.
  • the biggest consequence of the free vote is the shattering of Luciano Busuttil’s inexpert dreams. This was not a financial vote. It was not tied to the doing or undoing of government. It was a Private Member’s Bill in which EACH AND EVERY MP VOTED ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE. The vote was simple – do you accept the divorce bill or not? What does that say about the “KAPACITA LI JMEXXI MAGGIORANZA FIL-PARLAMENT”? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Because this vote does not tell the President who has the confidence of the majority of parliamentary members. It tells the President WHAT the majority of MPs voting on a specific motion decided. Punto (and unfortunately for constitutional beginners) e basta.
  • What lessons do we learn? We learn that Gonzi stuck to his principle till the end. We learn that he was comfortable with voting no after ensuring that the will of the people is respected. That made many of us think less highly about Dr Gonzi. We also learnt that Joseph’s labour refused to take a position. More importantly we learn that Joseph’s labour is willing to take advantage of giving the false impression that it has a position on something – when it had nothing of the sort.

If anyone has been proven right by the turn of events then that must surely be this page, this blog and this blogger. Our two parties have confirmed their abdication from representative politics.

Voting PN next election translates into voting in chaos. A party without identity and values is not a party that can come up with proper programmes.

Voting PL next election translates into voting in absolute opportunism. Their weathervane approach to policy is extremely dangerous and is no guarantee for proper policies and programmes either.

Last Saturday I posted what I called a “Cyrus WTF moment” on facebook (it was later picked up by bloggers elsewhere). To me it illustrates the manner in which many have fallen for Labour’s non-policy hook, line and sinker. Others might put my statements down to “high handed opinions from abroad“. We’ve been there before – incidentally when we were told by PN stalwarts to shut up because they did not like what we were saying… it seems now that the weathervane has shifted for the Labourites and Joseph lovers to tell us not to interfere because we live abroad. Moviment Tindahalx indeed….

The Cyrus WTF moment :

 “Engerer says that whilst he and Opposition leader Jospeh Muscat do not agree on issues such as same-sex marriage, Muscat is open to be convinced on the contrary.” – and thank f**k for that….

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Veiled Arguments

The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” metaphor is back to haunt us. Only a while back we had a Archiepiscopal warning from the pulpit about the various wolves attired in sheep’s best (and they were not referring to vêtements signé Desigual) and now we have PM Gonzi accusing the Labour Party of having a lupine nature disguised as a fluffy animal. The phrase first appears in the Matthew 7:15 (that’s the bible, not an early morning Matt):

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

What is Gonzi on about then? Well I am not sure whether this report by MaltaToday and this one by the Times of Malta were from the same event  but they make an interesting reading into the mind of the One Who Many Think Committed Hara Kiri. The PM was commenting on Cyrus Engerer’s volte-face and trying to give his spin to the issue. We’d love to see Lawrence Gonzi’s credibility ratings at the moment but even if we assumed that there are still some people who take his word as the law we can find some interesting conclusions to continue to draw.

the counter-spin: wolves, the 80s and tolerance

MaltaToday highlighted Gonzi’s weak attempt at counter-spin. He pounced onto Joseph’s Muscat silent fatwa on Adrian Vassallo’s solo run and painted a picture of 80’s style intolerance in which “In-Nazzjon” was a public taboo. It’s tiring. Nauseating even. This whole business of projecting Labour’s past onto the future milked to some success for the 2008 Taste Campaign is long past its sell-by date. Gonzi is evidently clutching at straws with this argument. It is only made worse with his stress on “tolerance” – fresh from his monumental “NO” and spitting in the face of the vox populi (see “Drawing Conclusions”). There are inklings of the dire need that Dr Gonzi has for some intelligent (new?) advice before speaking to the press when he then opts to couch his ideas in biblical metaphors : triggering the very red lights that have made him lose so much in the popularity polls. Fail.

the ideas on switching parties

The Times report is more concerned with Gonzi’s opinion on Engerer’s choice to switch parties. According to the Times:

” Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said he respected the decision of Sliema deputy mayor Cyrus Engerer to resign from the Nationalist Party and join Labour but disagreed with his reasons. Mr Engerer did not resign because of the PN’s stand on divorce but pinned his decision on one issue: Dr Gonzi’s No vote against divorce legislation in Parliament on Wednesday.”

Much is being made elsewhere about Engerer’s Damascene switch (including questions being asked about whether it was not so sudden). Dr Gonzi is here “respecting” the decision made by the young turk. Many will confuse “respecting” with “agreeing with ” or “accepting” Cyrus’ switch. Gonzi does neither. He disagrees with the motivation (His own No vote) and above all he has a problem with the assessment of principles.

anchors

It’s the last bit that is very telling. Principles. Here is how Dr Gonzi reads the latest crisis:

“I fear we are reaching a situation where people are no longer anchored to their principles.”

People and principles. Is Gonzi, like almost everyone in the political arena, missing the woods for the trees? We have written elsewhere that the biggest problem is the lack of principled backbone within the major parties – their choice to not commit. Gonzi is pointing his fingers at “people who are no longer anchored in their principles” using Engerer as an excuse. His fingers are pointed in the wrong direction. It is the parties who have abdicated from representing clear cut principles and sacrificed these principles on the altar of populist convenience.

Wolves, Pots & Kettles

The biggest demonstration of this dog-eat-dog unprincipled world was the exchange of accusations by the PM and leader of Opposition. While Gonzi was accusing Joseph of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Joseph was busy spinning the line that “Labour had never changed its position throughout the debate”. Nobody can deny that. The point is that Labour had no position to change. It had no position on divorce. That is what Gonzi should have told Cyrus Engerer – that he was joining a party that did not have the balls to take an official position on divorce.

There’s another question I need to ask Joseph. How come “Labour not changing position” is good but “Gonzi not changing position (and always standing for the NO)” becomes bad? It’s stupid, stupid, stupid all over the place. It’s like two people tossing a coin ten times and the result is 7 heads and 3 tails. Joseph is suddenly “right” because he backed heads while Gonzi is wrong because he called “tails” all along?? Meanwhile Labour chose not to call heads or tails but wins prizes for being constant in not taking a position. Is this a crazy world or not?

Engerer

Will Engerer manage to change Labour into a real progressive party? Does he have the clout? Will it matter? It won’t to the token voters who just see Labour as the new lesser evil away from GonziPN. The question is “what will it take for them to notice that MuscatPL is same, same but different?” How long till we will be discussing how MuscatPL failed to take leadership on civil society issues, or worse still how its attempts to play the populist led to a hodge podge of botched legislation? We’re kicking off with “kids’ right to maintenance till they are 23″…. quite a good start to raise unprincipled, spoilt brats whose concept of politics is waving the blue/red flag whenever duty calls….

In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle – j’accuse 2011

J'accuse: Drawing conclusions

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

*The 44 consciences*

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

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

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

*Vox Dei and Gonzi’s Nay*

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

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

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

*The Birth of MuscatPL”*

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

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

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

*Chaos Theory*

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

*Luck of the Draw*

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

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

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

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

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

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

J'accuse : The Summer Plank

I find the latest Facebook fad in Malta to be quite a happy coincidence. I’m talking about ‘planking’ of course – the ‘sport’ that has taken the Maltese corners of Facebook by storm with adults and kids alike ‘doing the plank’. The phenomenon shows many of the symptoms of any Maltese trend: it is a year or so late by international standards (rather early, that) and it has immediately divided public opinion between the pro and con crowds. And of course there are still those among us who lag behind, completely oblivious to the very existence of ‘planking’ and what it is all about.

Allow J’accuse to come to the rescue. The International Planking rules may be summarised as follows: To perform a plank one must lie horizontally, face down in a rigid stance with no expression whatsoever on one’s face. Legs must remain straight with toes pointed. The idea is to get yourself photographed in that position and then to tag that photo on Facebook with a phrase that indicates your planking intention. The international rules also add that potential plankers must plank safely and not expose themselves to undue risk.

I am told that the planking craze kicked off by chance in Malta when a clumsy attempt to plank over public furniture ended in a disastrous ‘fail’ (another web craze term). Be that as it may, planking has given us a very creative page on Facebook that has quietly slipped to the top of the popularity rankings in the place of the divorce-related pages. The divorce pages are suffering from the fickle attention span of the average ‘internet enthusiast’ and the sudden drought on the web as the summer sun gets people away from the internet and closer to the beach.

Plankuza

The intriguing part of the planking phenomenon is the manner in which it has instigated what I generally think to be a passive-reactive public to become very, very creative. While J’accuse urges respect for public furniture and above all respect for safety we cannot but bow to the genius of the man who ‘planked’ atop a bank ATM canopy on Spinola Hill up to Paceville. It remains one of our favourites. I tried the ‘sport’ myself in the pristine waters of Gћadira Bay (note: I was not the planker but the support that was necessary to elevate the aforementioned planker out of the water). Within seconds of the snapshot there were people around us nodding in enthusiastic acknowledgement and one particular dad set about explaining to his offspring what this ‘sport’ was all about.

Gћadira, by the way, is fast becoming a gem of a beach – at least as long as school is still in session and the boats have not yet started to choke the shores. Cleanliness, organisation and safety are witness to the efforts that have been taken to return our beaches to their natural beauty. I was joined in Gћadira by a friend who travelled there by bus. Actually it was a bus and a hitched ride because the original bus could not make it all the way up the hill to Mellieћa and broke down. Passengers were dumped in the summer sun and my friend who is a veteran visitor to the islands knew better than to wait for a Transport Malta alternative.

It’s sad really that the charming old buses will be leaving the streets. I made it a point to catch at least two rides (and a ferry crossing to Valletta) this time around, and snapped enough photos and collected enough tickets for my little personal scrapbook. On the whole, though, I do not think that the smoke-belching, unreliable monsters will be missed on the streets. If anything, the decision to switch to a new operator with new buses can only be greeted with gladness. I dare the Nationalist government to trumpet this achievement and to expect to reap some rewards of gratitude on this one. It is 2011 after all, isn’t it Emmanuel Delia? The absolute cock-up that was the saga of pedestrian Bisazza Street vs Arriva rescheduling has shown us that even when ushering in the obvious (a working bus system) there seems to be more than an inability to plan ahead.

The Planked

Who will pay for the ‘compensation’ that is due to Arriva for the rescheduling around a major route? Minister Austin Gatt told the press he had no clue what this bill would amount to. The man who seems to be trying to milk all the credit for the occasion, the aforementioned Emmanuel Delia – an unelected civil servant who will be contesting the next election on a nationalist ticket – fluffed with a million excuses and tried to finger the blame onto another Ministry’s late planning. What Delia failed to underline is that whether the bumbling is due to his hopeless planning skills or that of others, the bill is still to be footed by the citizen and nobody else.

The rescheduling has some other citizens up in arms. On my visits to Sliema I noticed many photocopied signs urging Sliema citizens to unite in protest at what is being done to their town. Tigné residents, it seems, are at the heart of this latest NIMBY uprising. Worse still they seem to have been marginalised by the rest of Sliema who are not impressed by the Tigné residents suddenly growing a civil conscience the moment they finally got to be on the receiving end of controversial decisions. But that’s us, isn’t it? The ‘I’m all right and sod you Jack’ mentality pervades across the voting spectrum which is why civil right activists like the tiny, undermanned Alternattiva Demokratika will be allowed into the home throughout a particular NIMBY campaign but will be ditched the moment the big issue of which networker to put in government comes around.

Cultured Planks

I have long bored readers with my idea that our current political set-up is an opiate of the people. The relativist race to zero-value perfection coupled with the nepotist networking that puts planning decisions in the hands of party-favoured goofs serves to neutralise healthy competition, to kill new ideas and to turn us into a nation of unreactive planks. Every now and then you do get some sparks of hope – as I did when attending the conference on Valletta 18 that was a prelude to Valletta’s bid to become European Culture Capital in seven year’s time. There is more about this in the blog but I’d like to say that it would be great if the effort to bridge the gap between the ‘culturati’ and those who currently live the culture unconsciously is actually made. The danger of the liberal arts closing themselves up in an elite group remains dangerously alive.

Speaking of liberals it seems to be the fashion these days for everyone and his mother to display liberal traits. This week I asked Bertu to fashion a cartoon that shows our society’s key players and their attitude towards fashionable liberalism. Just look at the papers over the past week and you will see both major parties falling over themselves trying to expose the liberal side of their ‘umbrella’ (or in Gonzi’s case – ‘rainbow’) movements. Judging by the reactions I have been listening to in social circles, the Maltese voter must be daydreaming his days away or planking to his heart’s content. The ‘we are liberal’ line is being swallowed – hook, line and sinker.

The Unexplained Planks

This week I was ‘accused’ of being too nationalist (particularly in an article in l-orizzont) and of being too anti-nationalist. It made me wonder whether people tend to remember only the parts of the article that they dislike. It does make sense really. Our basic instinct is to have our little electoral Jiminy Cricket conscience always at the back of our mind. He is there to yell out warnings whenever what we are reading challenges our ‘traditional’ voting trend and inclination. So as a nationalist voter you may skim through an article that criticises Joseph Muscat’s opportunist fashioning of his policies (and maybe nod in agreement) but your attention will only peak if (for the sake of example) I call your beloved leader Lawrence Gonzi a plonker (sic).

So as our parties refashion what they represent into two huge blocks of nothing, the voting population will dig its heels in the ground and still think in terms of black or white, red or blue. Their voting conscience remains as immovable and rigid as a planker in pose position. Unfortunately the tsunami of change promised post-referendum has only served to consolidate the ill-advised “umbrella movements” and their knee-jerk reactions.

To the Duchy

My week-long, wedding-related, visit comes to an end. There are a couple of people who I’d like to congratulate. There’s Pierre Mejlak and Chris at Merlin for the wonderful book and launch at Mdina. Dak li l-lejl iћallik tgћid is available online at Sierra Distributors and I would strongly recommend that you get a copy. Then there is the chef at Adira Lido in Gћadira Bay. I really have to thank him for a mixed seafood platter that was an out-of-this-world explosion of Mediterranean taste that would have been enough to make this latest visit home worthwhile. Thanks a million and see you again in August.

 

www.akkuza.com has reviewed Pierre’s latest masterpiece, sat through Valletta 18 and is now gearing for the latest collection of stories for www.re-vu.org. Happy birthday, Kika!

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta