PLPN

Terms they employ

terms_akkuza

Everybody loves the Gaffarenas. Or so it seems. They have been “in bed” with both of the main parties in one way or another. They have kept up their part of the general unspoken deal of the Maltese version of the mafia “pizzo” by making sure that donations (of different proportions) go to the two parties. Whenever they have had business in court they made sure to make use of the services of lawyers on both sides of the great divide in Liliput – the Independent is currently running a story that not only was Beppe Fenech Adami once a lawyer to the Gaffarena family but so were PL MP Joseph Sammut and PL president Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi. It’s not so much a tirade of mud as it is a tirade of non sequiturs.

This blog has gone on record as saying that the simple matter of begging for and receiving donations from the commercial sector (no matter the amount) is a dangerous game that is played by all parties – whether or not the IOU is eventually cashed later on. Unfortunately this risks to be misinterpreted thanks to the malady of “par condicio” that all parties are guilty of playing the game in the same manner. It is not the case. At all. First of all the political game requires that the message is garbled and confused by throwing together the matter of donations and legal services given to the Gaffarenas as though it was all part of the same boat.

MaltaToday, just before a visit to their offices by Joseph Muscat, had gone ballistic about links between former PN secretary General Joe Saliba and some dealings of the Gaffarena family. Again, no surprises here – even where Saliba is concerned. International politicians like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton retire to the lecture circuit that pays millions in return. Politicians like Saliba and, Austin Gatt (he comes to mind) “retire” to businesses run by former sponsors of their parties. Where does it all put us?

The PN is right to insist that the Labour government is much more eager to allow Gaffarena to cash in on his “investments” with the PL. The proof that we have before us points strongly in that direction. Gaffarena’s petrol stations and property dealings happened under a very faulty and accommodating Labour watch. Labour’s attempt at deviating the issue onto Beppe Fenech Adami’s involvement with Gaffarena as a lawyer is pathetic to say the least. As was the botched attempt to nail Busuttil with some kind of pre-electoral deal with the same. There is no doubt that in this particular circumstance Labour’s clumsy way of playing the political power game is much more at fault than the PN’s.

Is it a defence for the PN that in its time in power it maintained a level of “decency” when dealing with the how and when to accommodate its own sponsors? Not really. The end result is the same – especially in the construction and planning business. PL took up the baton where the PN left it. Only to shed completely any mask that feigned democratic accountability and to plunge directly into undemocratic mayhem. This “mess in denial” is the same one that is reforming MEPA to blatantly accomodate the greed of the construction industry. It is the same one that explodes smoke bombs of supposed scandals in the PN past while obstinately steamrolling over public opinion in matters such as the Zonqor development. As for the latter scandal, for scandal it is, the noise is still so loud about the development in Zonqor that little or nothing more has been said about the actual “university” itself. A real social movement would not only oppose the development in Zonqor per se but would also oppose a Sadeen University of fake anywhere. Yes, anywhere.

The Gaffarena family is now a hot potato in the PLPN battles. It is becoming the scapegoat for all the deals and trading that happened in our corner of the world. Do not get me wrong. Deals with lobbyists, musical chairs in “positions of trust”, preferred traders and the like are a trademark of the democratic system as it happens in the western world. The danger in Malta is that the PL seems to be intent not only to play the game at its most blatantly obvious but also to dismantle completely the system of checks and balances that every now and then acted as  a brake.

Pointing fingers at lawyers for the having offered their services in the past (so long as such services are legit) is just not on. Muscat and his clan are quite adept at surfing the wave of public ignorance. They have little care about the “collateral damage” that could be done in the process so long as the ends justifies the means in the short run. In this, as in many other matters, they are proving to be short sighted and risk being hoist by their own petard in the future.

Movements and the art of ODZ maintenance

movementamaintenance_akkuza

Chapman Taylor know something that most of us don’t. Or so it seems. It’s par for the course for Muscat’s government – surprises are sprung, agreements are made without consultation and, of course, electoral promises are broken without losing the beat. Chapman Taylor of Milan jumped the gun by “mistakenly” announcing that they had been awarded the project for what is termed “the development of an unused quarry”. The announcement came complete with pictures of a yacht marina and tourist village, a stones throw away from the idyllic bay of Hondoq.

The architect’s firm has admitted that this was a mistake since the adjudication process is still ongoing. Sadly for Muscat and his band of transparent and meritocratic men this is just another in a long series of projects (we’re still debating the Jordanian Builder’s Toy University in an ODZ) that are sprung on the public as a fait accompli. This one is environmentally and politically sensitive since once again the government would be playing with the shoreline as well as giving the go ahead for a project that would have a huge impact on the environment both on and off shore.

Which brings me to the discourse regarding movements. That this project will be as vociferously opposed as the Zonqor Visa-Machine for Upmarket Arab Sons and Daughters should be taken as read. That the newly created Front Harsien ODZ will take up this baton should be inevitable. The real question is on the long-term destiny of this kind of movement. I have already hinted that the party in opposition should not be shunned or pushed away because of its history with the environment – rather – it should be obliged to commit and tie its destiny to a holistic plan that is based on preservation and enhancement of our environmental heritage.

Does that transform the environment and ODZ into a political football? It has to. It is useless bringing up old grudges and pointing fingers at the PLPN system and claiming that this has to be a political-party-neutral effort because that only means relegating this issue to a knee-jerk/NIMBY kind of issue that has to work in fits and starts every time the party in power decides to steam roller over any form of environmental obligation.

The PN is at a point of transformation. It is at the point of defining its long and short term goals. This is the time for the “movements” to strike and force the PN to become a stronger, more effective and more decisive force than what the AD has ever been. The agenda for environmental protection must become the PN’s because that is the only way it can become part of the system rather than constantly in battle with it.

Muscat’s “movement” has been uncovered as a travesty. His courting of the environmental lobby has been proven time and again to be just words for short term game. There is no space for a real environmental agenda in his plans because it jars deeply with his dealings with constructors and vendors. He has chosen to keep the Sandro Chetcuti and Jordanian investor cards closer to his chest. He still believes that his job-creation words can charm the population into submission and acceptance of hideous plans that threaten our eco-system. If not that than the false battle against the elite in mimic of his hero Mintoff should do the trick.

Movements have a temporary and transitional role in our system. They are intended to influence the parties that matter in a system that is sadly and insufferably a bi-partisan tragedy. For too long have we tried to be convinced that the third way could be an option by driving a wedge in between the parties of the status quo. While in theory it should and would work, in practice it faces a system that was scripted and written for the preservation of the bipartisan alternation notwithstanding the dangers of a race to mediocrity. The weakest link in the system is actually the citizen who reinforces it with his vote.

It is only in moments like these – of crisis (in a philosophical sense) – that movements can play a role. By taking control of the PN agenda on environment and forging it in a lasting way that can guarantee the creation of positive policies for present and future generations much more can be achieved. Obviously this does not mean relinquishing the role of opposing current projects.

The battle to preserve Zonqor and Hondoq and their surroundings has only just begun.

Podemos.

 

The Bird Brainer

birdbrain_akkuza

This Saturday vote No. Simple. Just vote No. You don’t need to be told why in truth, unless you are one of the horde of energumens who believe that “hunting is a right”. Legally we should not be here. The ‘derogation’ we are reluctantly discussing should never actually be triggered. Someone in the IVA campaign finally decided to explain this reality (a factual legal one) – the derogation’s conditions would rarely be triggered (if ever at all) in a decent country. This is no special derogation negotiated over blood, sweat and tears in some pre-accession death-wish with the aim of keeping up an “age old tradition”. All that is bollocks – bollocks that has been regurgitated by the PLPN quarters because… well… because it is a sweet lie that fits their alibi. What alibi? It’s the one where they keep trying to seem appeasing to the hunters.

Not that Muscat is hiding his hand. On the 1st of April he was photoshopped into hunting pose as some form of April Fool’s joke. He’s convinced that he can fool some of the people all of the time though. It’s obvious that he would do anything to get the Yes vote to win – and he’s more than hoping that Busuttil gets associated with a No debacle. Sadly for both the leaders of the parties that keep us firmly attached in the mire of mediocrity this vote concerns them not one bit. They should only be waiting for the result to implement it. We said this when the referendum was announced and we will repeat this now.

Why should the No vote win? Because the people of Malta should stand up and show that they disagree with the decisions of successive groups of representatives who have twisted and turned the interpretation of what should be a strict derogation in order to appease the hunters. Has Malta ever correctly applied the derogation? I strongly doubt it. Will it ever? Seriously? The only way we can ensure that our house of representatives apply the laws of the land (and that includes EU laws) properly is by going over their heads and giving them a strong “No’ when it comes to Spring Hunting.

As I said before, repealing the legal notice by referendum does not remove the derogation nor the possibility for a future parliament to re-enact legislation that allows for its use. Which is why the No vote must be clear, loud and unconditional. It is the sovereign people taking their power back into their hands and ordering those entrusted with its management to obey their will.

It’s a small step. The next day after the referendum we will still be in the thralls of a government-opposition game that treats the population like a mass of mentally deficient robots. We keep getting the government we deserve. A No vote next Saturday might be a step towards getting a better one in the future.

Hope Springs Eternal.

the edge of politics

LA FEMME NUE DANS LE DESERT-1 There was a time when this blog would devour any news political coming out of the island in a voracious manner. Analyse, chew, criticise and expect viral reaction. Or so went the music and momentum. It’s hard to put your finger on the moment when you stop caring so deeply – for want of a better description. The irony is that what goes by the name of politics in the republic has followed the most predictable path foreseen by this blog from the very earliest of musings. The phrases “race to the bottom” and “battleground of mediocrity” had become a cliche in these columns long before the realisation dawned in other observatories.

There is little or no comfort in having been right though. With clockwork regularity every stroke and news item from the political milieu seems to confirm even the wildest of suspicions that we may have had as to the heartless direction that political representation could have taken. The blatant cynicism of one party combined with the clueless misdirection of the other can only be fuelled by an electorate that not only hangs on dearly to a partisan vocation but also throws in a level of short-sighted calculation that baffles even the most prophetic among us.

There is a moment of realisation that the business of government still owes much to the governed. J’accuse was much enamoured with the phrase “you reap what you sow” and playing the blame game with an electorate that is often reluctant to shift the goalposts remains a sordid temptation. It’s all there to see though – as much as the “paese di coglioni” formula that remains just as apt as when it was first conjured up mid-blog. What to make of a governing party that has rewritten all the rules of the game and manages to make transparent the dirtiest truth of the political game : everybody has a price? Somewhere in the Labour unconscious lies a stock market of sorts where every shaping factor in Maltese society has a price and a trade to work upon. Morbid calculations mean that everything goes so long as the final judge and jury can remain sufficiently opiated with new age doses of newspeak.

On the other hand the party in opposition remains at sea grappling for an old fashioned tidal wave of a rallying factor that would bring it back to drier and safer ground. It’s internal conflicts and failures are evident even in what should be mini-triumphs while it has still found itself unable to redefine itself and give itself a purpose. The opposition runs the risk of being stuck in opposition mode (and it is not even there yet) for a long while to come. It finds the new playing ground a very uneven place to work and is still unaccustomed to the shifted goalposts. This is not about shifting to trendier liberal stances but about being a more congruent, consistent whole once again. Without that newfound centre of gravity it is destined to play second fiddle to the puppet master’s shenanigans.

Right now, in what should be an important maturing point for the young republic, non-partisan observers have been pushed to the edge of politics. I like to think of this as our moment out in the desert in the manner of the prophets of the old book. The current order is a disaster in the waiting. Policies of appeasement and populism are destined to fail in the long run and there is only so many hacks at its breast that the golden goose can take.

In the meantime we observe the events unfold. At the edge of politics.

Crossing the threshold of faith

believe_akkuzaCriticising the workings of a government or an opposition is what this blog has done with consistent regularity. No matter who was in “power” the line taken from these pages has always been consistent. Also, very consistently, this blog has always managed to ruffle some feathers in some quarters. More often than not it would be the partisans of a faction that is being criticised who would vociferously disapproved of the contents of J’accuse’s latest missive. More often than not it would be the messenger and not the message that would be shot at.

In these halcyon Tagħna Lkoll days I often find myself in a quandary as to how often I could put finger to keyboard and criticise yet another mind-boggling move by the people who purport to manage this country. The fear (or self-censorship) is really unjustified. The worry is that repetitive ‘assaults’ on the same tribe gets you quickly labelled as a member of the “other”. Having said that what really gets at me is the way Joe Public is prepared to gloss over the inconsistencies of the PL brigade much quicker than when the Gonzi team was in government.

No matter how shallow, how inconsistent and how potentially corrupt the Labour programme is seeming to turn out, Joe Public is still thinking in terms of the perceived evil that was. I particularly liked a comment on facebook by the man who goes by the moniker “Ze Heckler” – not for reasons that he would appreciate. Here’s his status update:

Min bi Snowden, min bil-Pussy Riot, min b’Grillo, min b’Wikileaks u ahna b’Daphne. You get the rebel you deserve, too.

Admittedly the class of “rebels” is not exactly your average Che Guevara, nor is it your Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi. Heckler’s list is a list of non-conformists (Grillo might be verging on the breakdown though) but I am not here to create a scale of “rebelliousness”. I just found it weird that Daphne would fall in the rebel category. Is it the anti-government streak? The brazen nature of her posts that openly target the above-mentioned inconsistencies? Does that a “rebel” make?

The way I see it, to be a “rebel” in Malta you cannot operate within the system’s parameters. Daphne, like anybody else operating in the system is guilty of accepting the general wider parameters and rules by which our system is run. Throughout the Gonzi years the “rebelliousness” was nowhere to be found. On the contrary, much like the prominent “journalists” of the time (now either retired, MEP candidates or playing to the Labour fiddle) Caruana Galizia would selectively pick out the “interesting news” in order to help preserve the status quo. That kind of blogs must have been grateful for the fact that Malta was kept in election mode for long periods thanks to the antics of that other fake rebel – Franco Debono.

The (quite predictable and understandable) position of Caruana Galizia’s blog is not among rebels but among anti-Labour blogs whose aim is to simply get Labour back out of the driving seat. Nothing wrong there. What is missing is the realisation that the framework within which the alternation takes place is only destined to produce the same. Or worse. “Rebels” are those who are pushing for a paradigm shift that moves the whole framework into a new dimension. A real second republic if you like (not the marketing one that Muscat smartly nabbed).

A failure to acknowledge that the system (the framework if you like) is faulty and will produce more and more of the same means that you are a willing participant in the system. That’s not rebelling. That is opposition. Thankfully, there are signs of early realisation, even in the quarters such as Caruana Galizia’s blog, that much more must be done than simply playing along. Whether such elements would be willing participants in a discussion about (let alone action) the possibilities of a paradigm shift is another question. Old habits die hard – and more messengers will be shot.

As things stand we are moving further and further into a system built of two parallel worlds in which the value scales are very very different. Which is why all Labour’s moves will continue to be accepted by a large chunk of the Maltese population. Their value scale is different from that of those who might have shared a value scale with the PN in the near past. The same applies vice-versa. The dynamics of democratic representation should have allowances for such possibilities. In our case though, the inertia caused by the PLPN system is gradually moving the very tenets of representative democracy towards a breaking point. This too is what is meant by the race to the bottom.

Our parties have created two faith systems within which it will become less obvious why and how people will cross the threshold to the other side. A re-calibration of the value scales of one party might serve to trigger the beginning of a change.

* One final note. This blog post is not meant as some kind of competition in comparing the size of “light sabers”. Consider it an observation – as we always have done – of the current situation on the ground. The interesting thing of inhabiting a system with multiple value scales is that suddenly there is not one “right or wrong” but a multiplicity. Take the following simple example: “Selling citizenship without residency requirements rakes in millions”. Value scale one cannot agree more – Malta gains. Value scale two is appalled – Malta is sold cheap. Value scale three examines a European dimension. On each of their scales they are “right”. Not the “it’s my opinion so it is true” kind of right (which is irritating) but right in the sense that in each case the policy position is feasible – the consequences are different.

 

 

The unpredictable past

portents_akkuzaThe Russians had an interesting expression while under the communist rule. They would say that even the past is unpredictable – because it kept getting rewritten in order to better fit the needs of whoever was in power at some particular moment. I was reminded of this when I read about the PL Deputy Leader’s surreal “Thank God for Simon” speech at the opening of the Labour Party Conference. Particularly interesting was the section about how Mintoff had transformed Malta into a chicken that lays golden eggs and how the nationalist party in government had managed to turn these eggs into leg. Presumably the chicken was not stolen from someone else – seeing how our potential new residents seem to think that Maltese are “chicken thieves” all.

Elsewhere on the net during my latest period of self-imposed exile, we saw that not too endearing man or woman who frequently gets pride of place on the blog that we still like to call the Runs hit the nail on the head a couple of times. It would seem that certain arguments that would not have been seen as valid under a nationalist administration are now worth entertaining. Ah well, the past – as they say – is so unpredictable. The gist of what the Scooter persona said was very much a summary of what was oft repeated on this blog and hence very acceptable to our ears. It had much to do with with why the nationalist party in power lost the plot – particularly with regards to the (un)conscious re-prioritisation of certain values.

Prominent among these values is that of wealth, translated unfortunately by our political aficionados into an idolisation of “money”. In a letter to the press that I had co-authored and co-signed a couple of elections ago we (the co-authors) had pointed out how the Nationalist Party only functions as an efficient vehicle of popular sentiment and representation whenever it manages to put its thumb on a “proper and just cause”. Thus 1987 with all its promises of change from the socialist block, 1992 with the continuation of the change and the beginning of the mission of European Membership … all the way to 2004 and actual membership. Having dragged an overall skeptical nation into the EU, the PN failed to regalvanise its sense of purpose with new blood. The downfall from then on was all too easy to predict. No purpose, no party.

A pragmatic and cycnical Labour has stuck to one purpose – transparently clear through all the marketing stunts – hanging on to power. Labour is the perfect machine of the PLPN era. It sells an idea of representative majoritarian democracy (with hugely familiar consonances with Gaddhafi’s Green Book of Instructions for Popular Democracy) while actually dealing solely in power-trading politics. The ultimate unit is not values but greed in a wider sense. You get what you want if you are willing to play along with the tune. Lobbies are transformed into piglets running around the teat of a mother pig that is itself busy swilling at the trough. Rights are not really so much a matter of discussion as much as a form of barter in the power game. Which explains the roughshod manner in which even those rights that could be described as universally desirable are suddenly introduced.

With the PN currently in “renewal” mode and the PL preparing for its first reshuffle, the present is not half as clear as it could be. The first headlines to trickle out of the PN reform conference seemed to me to be heavily reliant on cosmetics and the cliché point winners (more women, more participation). I may be missing something but I did not really see much that was related to the PN soul-searching for that new basic sense of purpose that builds upon past ones (notably upon EU membership). Ironically much of the way that the Labour government played the EU side with regards to the citizenship issue was not too different from how the PN itself had “used” EU structures for other sensitive issues – and I have hunting particularly in mind.

The PN would do well to examine the possibility of becoming stronger on Europe. More Europeanist. Yes, it is possible. For until this moment what with all the “good” it may have done by forming the bulk of the movement for EU membership, the heritage that the PN left behind points to anything but a Europeanist wave. Our knights in shining armour (as they portray themselves) might have galloped all the way to the door of Europe but their horses are still tied outside. Europeanism might be a solution that the PN could explore and embrace. It will not be easy because for too long has the PN kidded itself that it carries a 100% Europeanist movement behind it. It does not. A battle would still have to take place for such Europeanism to assert itself. And there is no guarantee that such a philosophy and politics could be a “winner” on the Maltese stage.

A murky past, an even murkier future. Things are definitely going to get interesting.