PLPN

Minority reports

If it is up to the victors to write history then the losers are busy writing reports. That is just what the PN has just finished doing and it has published an executive summary of this analysis of the 2013 election result. Chaired by the papabile Anne Fenech the committee produced a litany of reasons divided into three parts: Why the Nationalist party lost, Why the Labour party won, and a part that includes suggestions for the future. Unlike the trend in Labour documents the executive summary does not have an obsession with numbering (check out the Law Commission’s latest report for a veritable OCD of numbering) but contains a list all the same. In the words of Eco “We like lists because we don’t want to die“.

In actual fact the first two lists are just a survey – a sort of vox pop  the likes of which could have been obtained by any kind of survey company operating on the market. They are not in themselves the reasons why the nationalist party lost the election (or why Labour won) – they are the reasons why people did not vote for the PN and voted for the PL (sometimes, but not always, “instead” could fit at the end of that sentence). It might seem to be the same but it is different. A survey company would only have omitted those grating praises of the outgoing nationalist party and its achievements (the truth is hard to swallow indeed).

As a political party (and for heavens’ sake don’t give me the movement crap), the Nationalist party is duty bound to look deeper into its soul than simply listing the ills of the people in a quasi-maniacal manner. Idiots without a clue about politics had come up with such lists and polluted the facebook pages with obsessive statuses much before the commission could even start applying its enigmatic PESTLE approach (Ghallinqas kelli ragun fuq din). Worse still the report falls short (but only just) of blaming an ungrateful electorate for not rewarding a highly successful administration – admittedly the temptation is always there (just look at AD).

The report also risks glorifying Joseph Muscat’s “success” notwithstanding the jibes and qualifications that are present at every point in part two. The two lists  – the anti-PN grievances and the analysis of the carrots that Labour distributed for its success – are dangerous in that they seem to push the PN into the ugly ground of emulating the Taghna Lkoll formula. That formula is not about politics but about marketing and building on dissatisfaction. It is the push towards the most mediocre of “political” methodologies represented by a manipulation of people’s needs in order to get into power (promising Turkeys to abolish Christmas) followed up by a display of ineptitude, abuse and lack of direction once such power is achieved.

The PN is in a much luckier position than AD in that it holds the lucky seat of alternation and the dice are seriously tricked in its favour when it comes to having to convince a Labour voter to switch back to itself. The committee is aware of this and has grounded its third part on that type of recommendation – of bringing voter into the fold of this “familja nazzjonalista”. J’accuse has always found this hermeneutic apartheid that grounds our political thinking both distasteful and counterproductive. The labour backlash in government is also a result of this way of thinking.

What the PN needs is to think different. To think outside the box. It risks wasting lots of precious time falsely “rebuilding” by thinking in the same terms as its Commission. What the PN really requires at this point is a look within itself – a hard thought evaluation about what the party means and what it wants to achieve for itself but more importantly for the nation. it needs to ask important questions that define its value and ethical make-up and build upon that block. As the Golden Circle goes it needs to be asking less about what it does or how it does it and focus much, much more on Why.

Once that message is clear Chris Said’s horses and men can begin to put Humpty together again.

The Emperor’s Purse

Much like what happened in the case of his new clothes, the emperor’s purse and his dealings with it tend to be talked about in a very circumstantial manner. The norm is either that of criticising the corrupt wastage or applauding some genius plan – much depends on which side one’s bread is buttered. There are a few reflections to be made as to recent developments in matters relating to the Emperor’s purse.

First up, the Emperor in government. We read that the Commission has recommended the opening of an Excessive Deficit Procedure against Malta and that Malta is the only EU state that will be facing this predicament. What it means is that since Malta has exceeded the 3% deficit threshold it will have to succumb to recommendations and suggestions by the Council as to how it could reduce that figure to below 3%. Still geared in “opposition” thinking, the Taghnalkoll government is eager to put the blame on its predecessor – insofar as the existence of the excessive deficit is concerned (and this even after Muscat claimed that he did not want to make a political football out of it).

There is a contradiction that was identifiable early on – while cost-cutting measures such as creating the world’s first part-time eternal flame were still being announced  (and less than 10,000 euros will be saved by the cabinet that is costing the citizen 60 million 6 million euro more than the previous per year) we heard this absolute gem from the government in reaction to the Commission’s assessment:

Although Malta is the only country set to be placed under fresh EDP, the Maltese government insisted that the Commission’s recommendations were a positive sign for its own economic and fiscal plan in its reaction to them this afternoon. It pointed out that the Commission did not impose additional measures on the country’s budget, stating that this showed its confidence in the new government’s plan.

Which is great no? Only there is one big flaw. Everybody who is anybody knows that the budget referred to in this quote is the same budget that was first voted against by the current government (disguised as a constructive opposition) then approved quickly once it was in government (disguised as a progressive government). Whatsmore that budget is the very same budget devised by that devious and scheming ex-Minister Tonio Fenech – yep, the Nationalist Party In Government Budget. So the emperor is lying… because if anything the fact that the commission did not deem fit to impose additional  measures on the country’s budget only goes to show that the previous stewards of our financial ship had steadied it in the right direction.

Which brings me to the stewards’ current predicament. The appointment of Ray Bugeja to head the PN commission on party finances has been hailed as excellent because the commission is supposedly full of competent people. The whole hand clapping and back slapping exercise might still prove to be futile because what many people are failing to see (or to want to see) is that this is not the case of a company with a profitable product needing tweaking. This is a political party that operates very much in the PLPN tried and tested system of bartering that is only another way of trading in influence.

Short of recommending a complete meltdown of debt-carrying party “resources” there is little that any bunch of King’s Men could do in an honest fashion to put this particular Humpty Dumpty together again. Though the work of Bugeja’s commission is shrouded in economic terms (Sibna sponsor!) the truth remains that it is an issue of party finances and financing – one that has recently been pushed to the discussion table without any particular happy ending in sight. It is a political and maybe even a constitutional issue that will only be solved superficially by an internal party committee. Bugeja’s work seems doomed to be a rubber stamp for more bartering systems, more trading in influence… in short more of the same.

Unless of course the PN gets serious about the business of politics and abandons that very damaging route of politics of business. Int taf x’ifisser!

Parties crossing the threshold of faith

If René Descartes and Anselm of Canterbury met in a fictitious room in some other dimension we cannot be sure what the resulting conversation would be. Provided they overcome linguistic difficulties of sorts (but heck, if we create the fictitious room we can create a Douglas Adams Babel Fish – or they could just both revert to Latin, simples) there is a high probability that at some point they might bring up the two maxims with which they are closely associated. For every “Cogito, ergo sum” shot by René we would have a “credo ut intelligam” from Anselm. Then again they might end up talking about something else altogether – like for example whether the fact that they were together in a fictitious room was proof enough of the existence of a God.

Leaving René and Anselm to their conversation, we could take a quick look at the Maltese political scene from a philosophical and sociological point of view. This blog’s fate is irreversibly linked with the “PLPN paradigm and theory” that links the hegemonic performance and presence of the two monoliths of Maltese politics to a general degradation of quality and value in political thought. The latest step in the evolution of Maltese politics – the Taghna Lkoll/Joseph Muscat phenomenon – has opened a new chapter in this saga and I’d like to think that it is one that confirms the general trend of dilution in quality.

In a way we are witnessing a delayed confirmation of sorts of the Fukuyama “End of History” notion that however takes into account new circumstances such as the forced abdication of ideological trends in favour of populist scenarios. Not only was the political game rigged to confirm the careerist mechanisms of the few (witness the semi-failure of the M5S in Italy to usurp the throne from the old system) but it managed to adapt further by eliminating any qualms of rigorous policy and adopting il qualunquismo (populist ideas that please everyone and everything).

Revolutions whether Orange, Silk or Arab seem to have only served to change the actors but not the methodology. Potestas omnia corrumpit? Not only. Do not forget the concurrent revolution in systems of communication – the massive power of tweets, facebook and direct marketing. The irony is that the democratisation of the media has been accompanied by a post-9/11 adaptation of Orwellian Newspeak – witness the shift of the hegemony to the new methods of delivery – and the consequent blatant violation of data protection and rights in the local scenario.

The most shocking aspect of this all was not the adaptation of the hegemonic forces to the new ways of promotion, nor was their unabashed abandonment of principled policy in favour of pragmatic manoeuvring. What shocked was the unquestioning acceptance of their methods by the larger part of the population. “Jiena nemmen f’Joseph ghax iwettaq dak li jwieghed” (I believe in Joseph because he delivers what he promises”) went one of the pre-electoral ads. Even if we were to cast aside the blatant fallacy that was underlined by the fact that Joseph had hitherto never had any occasion to deliver anything we are still left with an important groundbreaking statement – one of belief. Faith.

“I believe in Joseph”. Sure the vocabulary was not new to the Maltese political scene that linguistically crosses the borders of emotions (pain, suffering, glory, guidance, shepherding) but this time there was an even deeper pronouncement of faith. The profession of faith was transformed into a mantra – the Taghna Lkoll – of words, words and more words. Meanwhile Joseph divested the party of its very essence – this was no longer a party, it was a movement. If you believed in Joseph then you were part of the movement and this would include apostates from the other big religion in the country.

The party had transformed itself into a sect of unquestioning believers attracted on the back of various emotional baits such as anger, promises of merit, undeliverable plans of solving the energy dilemma as well as individualised packages such as free for all for hunters or those crazy campaign moments when tablets were promised to all. If you needed proof of this you had to wait no longer than 50 days from the movement’s ascension to power. Gone was the meritocracy, the promises on energy were teetering and amended while the true cost of bandwagon promises began to be seen as in the case of the hunting farce (and Galdes’ infamous loophole jibe). Did the acolytes protest? Hell no. At least this government was not the previous one. It could commit the same indecencies, it could vote itself more expensive costs but so long as it was not the devil incarnate as announced by Joseph in his book then it was AOK.

It’s dangerous, this sect business is. It is far, far worse than a political party abusing of its relative majority to create a wider gap from the people. Meanwhile on the other side of the dichotomy there do not seem to be signs of an abating of the trend towards relative nullity. Sure, the pomp and circumstance of Nationalist camaraderie was respected through and through in the leadership election and the “look no backstabs” performance might have gone down well with the general public still finding it hard to digest the Franco Debono indigestion. Still though, was so much politeness and mutual deference really necessary? (L-aqwa li “well behaved”).

The eagerness of the nationalist milieu to anoint a leader with as little acrimony as possible does not bode well. “We are all behind Simon” is not necessarily a good thing given that in more ways than one Simon Busuttil remains a virgin to local politics barring his stuttering performances in the last general election. The early signs of a “solution” within the PN fold stinks very much of the sectarian option that Labour has so successfully adopted. Less critique and more monolothic acceptance seems to be the order of the day – allowing parties to spout nonsense wrapped and packaged in propagandistic bling.

If the PN really does go the PL way then we have the two parties finally crossing the threshold of faith. Less cogito and much more credo. The Maltese have a saying “iwiegħed l-ilma jiżfen“(literally “to promise dancing water” best translated as “to promise the moon”).

Our parties have long shifted to promises of moons and dancing waters. The danger is that instead of questioning them and their policies more and more of us are preferring to believe.

Amen.

 

The Road to Castille #1 : The marketing

It began with a bang. As the contestants unveiled their mutual electoral colours we could tell from the get go that this would be a campaign heavily dependent on the marketing. Malta Taghna Lkoll and Futur fis-Sod relied heavily on not being one colour, on not being monotone. Here was the visual realisation of what the parties had already attempted 5 years back – being something for everybody. The PN’s MSN clone segued from Blue to Green to Yellow to Red with ease while Labour’s naïf collage spoke of “everybody” – or rather “us” a distinction that would later bear on the message.

The fanfare and explosion of colours was blinding and the inspiration from across the Atlantic could be seen from the start. Our political leaders will continue to be Obamafied until a new source of inspiration comes along. The mychoice.pn site was stuck in a mental masturbation for anything Obama-ish with the banners and the ribbons and retro fonts unabashedly cloned from the Democrat intitiatives. Labour was not to be outdone in that department. More heavily funded this time round, Muscat’s party did it’s utmost to get the feel of the “Change” wave that Obama had created the first time round. The videos and the “Taghna Lkoll” mantra seemed to do the trick as well as those very impersonal and trumped up photos with people holding little placards as though we all go through life holding pieces of cardboard in our hand.

The main parties steamrollered over personal data protection rights. Nothing is new there. The PL and PN operate under the assumption that the world needs them to exist and that the rules are only there in case things go out of hand but otherwise they are swept under the carpet during a campaign. Incidentally yes it is PLPN – the Labour party might have spent the larger part of the last 25 years in power but it never ever challenges the status quo with regards to the rules of the game. Labour does not seek change from the PLPN system, it simply seeks more frequent alternation within the PLPN system. It’s not an obsession of mine, it’s the sad truth.

The campaigns are best characterised as a bombardment of half formed lies (it’s like a half-truth but with less substance) that land sporadically and indiscriminately on the acolytes and the unconvinced alike. They’ll tell you that their party organised your flight home to vote – giving you the impression that you owe the PN or PL your life. They won’t tell you that this is taxpayers’ money being used to satisfy their control freak mechanisms and that all the while the data of the couple of thousand using the flight is controlled by both parties in full and blatant violation of data protection laws.

You will receive an Amazon-forestful of propaganda in your letterbox from the two parties who claim to have put the environment at the heart of their policies. As Caroline Muscat documented well enough in “A threat to electoral integrity” it is blatantly obvious that both parties operate with a much higher budget than would be allowed by law. I have to highlight that because the extent of the importance of this statement rarely hits home. The PL and the PN operate ILLEGALLY every election. They overspend in blatant disregard to the rules of the game. They will tell you that it is because the rules are outdated – and that somehow gives them a god-given right to ride roughshod over the rules of the land. Would AD be able to state that the rules of representation are outdated? Tough chance.

The hype about manifestos (or electoral programmes if you’re into this latest technical distinction) came and went as stealthily as ever. From the early rumblings when Konrad Mizzi was still a real person and not a figment of our imagination we thought that the main highlights of the manifestos would be discussed in depth and torn apart or elevated to Nobel prize material depending on the party proposing. This soon evaporated into uselessness after the “tablets for all” farce that risked showing the true colours of the PLPN manifestos – an auction in a supermarket, buying votes with promises tailor made on the spot. After the tablets we heard little or nothing of the content of the party’s promises as stage two of the marketing campaign required a concentration on scandals.

The dark side of the PLPN system came out in full force here. The inevitable weak points of corruption and connivance with the darker side of society would be painted into the tableau in accordance to a party’s needs. Thus the PL would do its damnedest to link a real ring of corruption in oil procurement to a tenuous connection with the minister concerned. Reality – the existence of corruption in various sectors of our PLPN patronised system (from Maritime permits, to driving permits, to VAT inspections, to oil procurement, to environment decision) – was being hyped for electoral purposes. The PN fought back with undercover tapes and recordings that would only end up exposing another side of the PLPN – their network of kazini  as a useless relic of politics past now in the hands of little entrepreneurs who would turn a blind eye to illicit methods of making a quick buck.

The warts and all phase would simmer down when the yelling was over with no real victor and a deeper entrenchment by the two sides was confirmed. At this stage the parties would morph into some sort of religious Messianic cult sect.

Muscat’s Taghna Lkoll would pull the non-divisive rabbit out of the hat and this would turn out to be a surprisingly catchy concept. The hordes of flag-waving tribal acolytes would suddenly adopt a questionable neutered approach of “Love thy neighbour” complete with a full revisionist approach towards history. History need not be made when it is being re-written and Labour is banking heavily on being the proverbial victor that rewrites history (at least for a while). It is a re-legitimation of the stigmatised “Labourite” that is so appealing for the hardcore while at the same time sterile enough for the doubting thomas to actually contemplate the vote. At this point actual tangible plans become useless – replaced conveniently with buzzwords such as “costings, roadmap and injections” that make the speaker sound deceivingly competent.

Gonzi’s reaction to all this has been the calling of the troops. His Gozo mass meeting speech also drew upon history. Not history with a big “H” but rather the historical personalities of the nationalist party. His was not to deal with the recycling of Eddie’s “reconciliation” as Muscat seemed to be doing. No. Gonzi, preceded by a catch-phrase generating Simon (Gas daaaawn gooool-haaaajt! – seriously?) would call upon the spirits (dead or alive) of the giants of Nationalist history and then would rightfully move on to list tangible achievements. No need for rewriting there but a legitimate claim of the success – a give credit where credit is due of sorts. Which is the closest we got to talking about actual stuff and not the pie in the sky sweeping statements of the Muscat kind. It would be a mixture of nationalist (as in the party) pride peppered with little hints of remorse for the arrogance that seems to have miffed so many. Then like the Moonies and the Jehovah Witnesses Gonzi would send his masses out to proselytise – convince two other people to vote PN. Still it’s always better than Simon’s grocer idea.

In the end the campaigns ended up doing just what was expected of them. To raise the ante on noise, colour and special effects in order to hide the unshamefaced prostitution of values for the sake of votes. In this latter category I believe that Muscat’s bandwagon of opportunism wins the game hands down. His last minute deal with the hunting community (where he promised nothing more than what the nationalist government already provides – observation of EU rules) was the final cherry of the cake after much flirting with his ghettoised concept of society – from women to LGBT to businessmen to workers to students. To each a promise without actually showing how the money will be brought home.

Gonzi’s team seemed to be a mix of desperation and anger. You cannot blame them – whatever is said they have been the “bahrin tal-maltemp” that Gonzi describes. Their fault mainly lies in  obstinately persisting in playing the same game within the rules of the PLPN system and this will undo their government in the end. They can blame the voter they can blame those who will move on to the hope being given by a third party but the truth is that Gonzi’s PN’s greatest mistake is that of playing along with PL when it comes to the wider rules that mold our institutional and societal structures. The greasy poles, the career ladders, the inevitable cronyism, the tribal approach, the winner takes all mentality, the divine right to govern with a majority without listening to anyone else – that is what will undo this government. No amount of marketing could avoid that.

Sadly another party is rearing to take its place under the great rules of PLPN alternation and the campaign has only proven to us that it will be more of the same. If not worse. Once the mask of unity and taghna lkoll falls the impact will be terrible.

We’d like to say we told you. But it would be as useful as our vote.

Cross-voting and angry voters

Let’s begin with the unequivocal points. Cross-voting, or the practice of filling your preferences in the ballot across party lines, is allowed. It is legal. It is legit. It does not nullify your vote. You can start with a 1 next to a candidate from AD, you can continue with a 2 and 3 next to PN candidates and then you can even move on to a 4 and 5 next to PL candidates. Hell, you can even go back to the PN for number 6 and back again to AD for number 7.

So you see. Do not believe the lies that are out there. You can and should cross-vote. Why? Because elections are not only about governance and governability but also about who represents you in parliament. Even if there is a remote chance that the number 5 on your ballot becomes useful to select a member from your district it is advisable to use it. Cross-voting allows you to influence not only which party goes on to govern but also allows you to select which members of the other party you would prefer to represent your district in parliament. That, my friends, is the “single-transferable vote” which is a much happier term than “cross-voting”.

In a way you could see STV as trying to make your vote as effective as possible since it keeps bouncing from one candidate to another until finally one of the candidates you chose actually gets to use it to get into parliament. As for government forming the all important number is the number 1. That is the vote that also counts for your party of choice – it allows you to say two things: (1) that you would prefer the candidate you marked number 1 as the best option to represent you in parliament and (2) that you would want his party to govern. That second assumption does not move down the lines. The governance assumption starts and stops with the number 1.

So why vote AD with a number 1 if they can never govern? Well in that case this vote takes on a new and fundamentally important meaning. Voting AD number 1 has nothing to do with if and when it will form a coalition or form part of the opposition. (It could eventually but that should not be your motivation). Voting AD number 1 is you telling the system that you want to damn well make sure that a third party gets into parliament. You are saying that you damn well want to make sure that the only open party unencumbered by private or business interests and that is honest and clear on every policy gets to have a seat in our chamber of representatives.

That, my friends is a positive vote. So here are some do’s and dont’s from J’accuse:

1. YES YOU CAN – cross-vote.

2. YES YOU CAN – move from one party to another.

3. YES YOU SHOULD – vote AD number 1 if you REALLY want to make history

4. NO YOU SHOULD NOT – scribble on the document, use X’s or any other signs that are not numbers

5. NO YOU SHOULD NOT – believe the PLPN lies.

 

Spread the word. It appears that there are quite a few who ignore these basic principles. It also appears that our two main parties who are the paladins and guardians of our democratic process are quite happy to nurture this ignorance. You need another reason to vote AD? Seriously?

 

Voting like it’s 1992

What follows is a strange kind of guest post. It comes to J’accuse via a serendipitous trip through time and space. It’s the kind of post that has been just been waiting to surface and I cannot agree more with the argument being made by the guest writer whom I shall call DeLorean. It is an impassioned argument set out against the constitutional provisions that were framed in 1991 to keep the PLPN system working. It’s not pro-ad, it’s pro-democracy, representation and choice. Read it. It’s important – for you and for future generations.

The argument

Many people have been misguided into thinking that the fight over [the electoral laws] has something to do with Alternattiva Demokratika. It does not. It has everything to do with resisting the entrenchment of the two-party system.

During a discussion on broadcasting […], one prominent government minister (that was gratuitous… all ministers are prominent) remarked that he “firmly believed” in the two-party system “because this makes the country more governable”. It was all I could do to fight the urge to throw my handbag at him, and point out that, following his line of argument, the most governable countries of all should be those with one party. But that, as we all know, has failed.

Belief in a two-party state is belief in a form of totalitarianism masquerading as democracy. All we have now is a political see-saw, with a fat Nationalist boy sitting on one end, and a pudgy Socialist boy on the other. First one goes up, then the other. Is this a wonderful state of affairs, to be preserved at all costs? Should governability enter the argument at all? Who cares about governability, if in ensuring governability we strangle the democratic process? Governability is not the Holy Grail, and we should not allow the government to sell it to us as such.

Individual members of both the government and the opposition have expressed their delight in the two-party system. They have not dared express their real longing: for a one-party system. When a party believes that it fulfils all the needs of all the Maltese people – how dare anyone claim to do so, and still they do – the next step is to claim that it should govern ad aeternum. Why not, once it is so damn perfect?

Third parties cannot be created out of nothing. They must grow, and their growth must be spawned by a real need within the people. Even if this need exists – and there is no doubt at all, it does – all growth will be warped by Malta’s all-pervasive fear and ignorance, which has effects similar to that of radiation on a growing foetus. Through this fear and ignorance, the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party survive, thrive and continue to grow.

Meanwhile the Maltese population lives in an atmosphere of political instability. I define political instability as not knowing what life holds for one after each election, of the necessity of mapping one’s life in a series of five-year plans.

Austin Gatt is right: on paper, the [constitutional electoral provisions] favour the small parties. In practice, they mostly do not. It is practice that concerns us here, and not theory. Dr. Gatt is almost certainly unable to stand up and say, with his hand on his heart, that the [constitutional provisions] will not, in practice adversely affect any small party. They will be a death knell. They will also discourage the growth of political parties in the future, which is a cause for grave concern.

Alternattiva is not the crux of the problem. The hypothetical small party is. Many people might disapprove of Alternattiva, but they should not be so shortsighted as to assume that they will disapprove of any other political party that might grow out of unrest and discontent over the next two or three generations. We must be unselfish enough to think beyond the next two or three generations.

We must be honest enough to admit that we do not want our children to live their adult lives as we are now living ours. We must stop thinking in terms of our immediate future, because many of us will live for a great deal longer than that, certainly longer than most of the politicians [who are now readying themselves to vote, using a hammer and chisel, on amendments to our Constitution].

What if we find ourselves, in 20 years’ time with the choice of two absolutely disreputable political parties? What if the Nationalist Party disintegrates into the kind of sagging, soggy, useless mess of the Sixties… a heap that gave rise to the joke “Tgħajjatx għax tqajjem il-gvern!”? What is a traditionally Nationalist supporter supposed to do… vote for the Labour Party, vote for a mess, or not vote at all?

[… fragments lost]

This article originally appeared in The Sunday Times of Malta on the 3rd November 1991.

 

(To understand the future, we have to go back in time).