It appears that Obama's honeymoon is over as his ratings have slumped to 55% this month, that is 9 points less since January. A 55% approval does not look all that bad at first glance but it is 1 point less than what Bush had during the same period when he was President in his first term. The main reason for the poor results is that people are losing confidence in his economic reforms, particularly his health care plans. Ironically it is one crucial electoral proposal which made Obama so popular last January.



The New York Times reports that conservative Democrats disagree with the proposed package concerning health care, arguing that it is too costly. The typical argument is that in times of crisis you do not spend a trillion dollars, especially on what many American conservatives perceive to be a form of ungodly "socialised healthcare," reminiscent of communism. Perhaps they fail to understand that access to healthcare should not be a privilege but a fundamental right. Many may argue that no public service is free. Indeed many European socialists, especially in Scandinavian countries which have shaped one of the most remarkable welfare states in the world, have put into place high levels of taxation to make good for the costs of public spending. In America its quite a different story. If you're working class and work three jobs you still won't get insured. If you're middle class and have medical insurance, the insurance company does all in its power to avoid paying for your healthcare. I believe that Obama wanted to take the first bold steps to change all this.



But in come the so-called 'conservative Democrats'. Democracy is a beautiful idea but, as with all things, it has its drawbacks. Somehow I fail to understand how you can be democrat and conservative, especially with Obama at the helm. Comedian Bill Maher was very convincing on this particular point. He argues that once the Republicans are at their lowest point "if he can't shove some progressive legislation down their throats now, I don't know when it's gonna happen." Interestingly enough he says that he needs to adopt a George Bush personality in the sense that although Bush's ideas were "horrible," particularly the Iraq war, he got things done (reminds me a lot of Austin Gatt). "Obama needs to get things done. I don't care who's with me, I don't care who I'm going to upset, I don't care what kind of popularity I'm going to lose over this, but I'm going to push this through and I'm going to do it now and I'm going to do it in full measure."



Again, this reminds me very much of the situation in Malta where ultra-conservatives have hijacked the center-left for a very long time. Muscat can never create a "progressive coalition" for this reason, especially when you have Labour MPs who openly and vehemently reject basic civil rights such as divorce on the grounds that is immoral and against the teachings of the Bible. At best you have a moderate and very centrist collusion of liberal and conservative ideologies which cancel each other out. Muscat needs to tell these people "you're either in favour of the kind of politics which I would like to shape or you should consider running with another party." Ultimately and more boldly he has to put his foot down and state that there is no place for conservatives in the Labour Party.



For if not, would we have a democracy where there is a true variety of ideas between the different parties or two quasi-identical political organisations where stagnation reigns?

Beyond the puerile bickering, vociferous attacks and pleas of innocence that characterise all scandals there is something far more interesting at play in Bahrija. With some effort one can note a hint of intelligence which inspired me to write this piece when I would otherwise have just steered clear. Mind you everybody loves the odd scandal for the human affection for drama seems limitless. But scandals are becoming so commonplace nowadays that they've merely become part of normal day to day events in the bitter-sweet life of politics.

What prompted my trail of thought was a guest post by an anonymous journalist on DCG's blog, entitled 'Guest Post: The Victims of Megaphone Posturing'. It has a lot to do with the rule of law, democracy and individual rights, namely the right to private property. The author's first of many scruples is with the environmental NGOs or the green lobby - call it what you will. The latter has proven itself to be the greatest nemesis of the current government despite the fact that (as many commentators before me have said) in the 2008 elections one of the focal points of the Prime Minister's campaign was the environment. There was much talk on sustainable development and the Prime Minister himself proposed to assume responsibility for MEPA, which responsibility he occupies today. The author, like DCG (and the former PN president), equate the green lobby with mob-rule. He or she argues that 'Loudspeaker-wielding lobby groups have made mincemeat of the rule of law'. So powerful have they become that their 'loudspeakers' are, metaphorically speaking, above the law. Ironically however, it is the law itself which gives them the right to gather and have their say. I'm sure that the author fully agrees with me that such rights are inalienable. Just as much as certain comments made by the MEPA auditor in his assessment of the Bahrija scandal may seem outrageous, so to is the comment that environmentalists are no less than mobs. In my opinion, this rhetoric speaks volumes both on the fundamental rights of association and expression as well as the government's environmental credentials, to whom both the guest author and the blog owner are sympathetic.

The crux of the author's argument is that there has been a lack of equality before the law. It's time for a little rewind. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister uttered a bold statement: "ODZ is ODZ" meaning that development on ecologically sensitive land, legally dubbed as 'Outside Development Zone', is to cease once and for all. We took his word for it - why shouldn't we? After all, pristine valleys are very scarce on an island the size of Malta and it is common sense as much as an obligation towards future generations that we should preserve what little we have. For me at least, it is common sense that development (existing or potential) in ODZs should be strictly controlled if not outlawed. The author argues otherwise, claiming that "In this case, what was normal and legal for other citizens - to build a home on the footprint of an existing building in an ODZ - was ruled out for someone who happened to be a PN politician, by a ‘people’s court’ that is taking on disturbing similarities to something proposed by premier Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici as a substitute for due process."

To be honest I very much doubt whether the development was a mere reconstruction of an existing building. I think the author was being economical with the truth here. The massive crater we have seen on the papers seems to suggest otherwise. And if others are allowed to reconstruct and develop an ODZ in such a manner than the law is wrong for an ODZ is no longer an ODZ.

Through the author's reflections I also sense that very same paranoia that not so long ago (and perhaps still does) haunted the Opposition, i.e. that the applicant, being the president of the PN, was willfully and maliciously targetted by environementalists with a personal and political agenda. He or she argues that they have turned a blind eye to other similar developements made by equally prominent politicians. I have no idea what specific permits the latter had obtained and I have a suspicion that the author doesn't exactly know either. But let us assume that they were equally heinous and that the lobbyists did not know about them or turned a blind eye. Does this justify the continued degradation of the island's habitat? Is it a case of 'if they did it, than I can do it to' ? This defence has become so conveniant - the laws can be flouted left, right and center on the premise that 'in the 80's it was worse'. Remember that the author is making a stong defence for the rule of law. Quite contradictory, don't you think?

Equally interesting is the author's little thesis on the individual right to private property. There's far more political and philosophcal debate involved here. He or she claims that "The right to enjoy one’s private property is being undermined consistently now by megaphone-driven outbursts.." and "Anything that impinges on his property rights impinges also on ours." Granted that the author is dismayed by the fact that Victor Scerri lost his battle prematurely with the green lobby and not in the halls of justice where, he or she argues, it should have been fought. But here's a little flash news: if ODZ is a 'misnomer' so too is the right to private property. As much as you wish it to be so, you cannot do as you please with the things you own and this for good reason. For individualism has to be reconciled with the concept of the common good, a.k.a the public interest. The aim of the law is to strike a balance between the two concepts which have stirred the intellect and provoked anger centuries ago. That is democracy, that is the rule of law. Either extreme, be it individualism or collectivism does no good to the individual nor to society in general. It has now long been recognized both in domestic and EC legislation that certain areas of ecological importance are to remain unencumbered by man. The green lobby wanted to drive this point home and they were succesful in their endavour. Now they are being hounded not because of some malice or personal crusade but simply because they (together with the Opposition's media) exposed and made popular something which should have been kept under wraps.

However, Victor Scerri is still at liberty to take legal action in the courts of law.

Dear readers,


It's been a while. They say that the summer brings with it a sense of nonchalance which is partially true but not altogether veritable. Sometimes you just need to take a long break from politics, especially the Maltese specimen which is on display 24/7 both in the obvious and subtle forms. For the moment I intend to do just that so I have decided to dedicate this post to what I have termed 'rebels with a cause'. The people about whom I shall relate are not gun toting revolutionaries fighting for what they believe in. They are far far braver. For what its worth, this is my little tribute to them.


The first is Neda Agha-Soltan who's dissent and unquenchable thirst for a basic, transparent democracy led to her death on the streets of Tehran. A mere victim of circumstance, she was shot dead by what ordinary Iranian citizens themselves have exposed as a brutal regime. Indeed, they would have us believe that her very death and most of what occurred since the 24th of June has been a manipulative construction of the Western media. This is the unreasonableness that you get when fundamentalism overcomes those who hold the reigns of power. Not so long ago I watched a film on the Mayan civilization which began with an intersting quote by Will Durant - A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within. Although not wholly fitting to the present context the similarities are subtle but striking. Neda's death has surely caused much pain to her loved ones but it has also symbolised the human passion for basic liberties and civil decency in all corners of the world lingers on. In this sense her death has not been in vain.


The second is a more recent victim. Her name is Natalia Estemirova, a passionate human rights activist. She was shot dead for exposing to the world the shocking brutality of human rights abuses in Chechnya. It is yet too early to point out with certainty who was behind this act of cowardice but as they vow that her killers shall be found there is a suspicion that we may never get to know or that the "culprits" will be no more than a smoke-screen for top-level statesmen who ordered her death.


My third tribute goes to the Palestinian people who, for want of a better expression, are suffering the brunt of ethnic cleansing by the seemingly untouchable rogue state of Israel. We have all seen the pictures of grossly disproportionate Israeli agression as well as the unfortunate backlash by Palestinian fundamentalists who mistakenly believe that the rocket is the only way to proclaim their inalianable right to exist. Israel bases its arguments on the notion of self-defence. Yet I wonder what justification exists for putting people behind barriers, for stealing their homes and systematically shattering their lives. A group of Israeli soldiers have also made a bizarre but unsurprising confession, namely that in urban warfare no one is innocent and that the illegal use of phosphorus shells is 'cool'. Without any distinction between citizen and militant the entire Palestinian race becomes no more than beasts for the slaughter. An even greater travesty is that whilst we pat on ourselves on the back for having an International Criminal Court which succesfully puts dictators of the third world in the dock, equally guilty men and women of more powerful nations, such as Israel (who has great influence in Washington), seem to be outside the confines of international justice.


Last but not least my final tribute goes out to Suleiman Abubaker and Abdifatah Muhammed. Both are victims of a racism that is haunting our country. On many ocassions in this blog have I commented on racism and whilst it has not been altogether in vain for I have met many who share my sentiments, my words - our words of alarm are making very little difference. The problem is that in this country the persons who have the greatest potential to effect radical policies in countering and punishing racism are either too busy trying to remain in power or too busy trying to gain that power. And on controversial issues which have the potential to sway the balance of popularity even the slightest inch to either side they speak not. Despite the futility I beckon one and all to come to terms with the reality of the situation which we find ourselves in and act before the nation that we all love so dearly begins to whisper "whites only" - words which we hoped were forever replaced by "Free at last!"