Showing posts with label Local Politics. Show all posts

Post-Vote

By Unknown | Published Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Here's a couple of thoughts now that Election 2013 has come and gone. In droves, the people have spoken and voted for change. They gave a massive middle-finger and a righteous ass-kicking to the status-quo. To be honest with you, I was skeptical to the very last moment. When they were banging on the perspex 30 or 40 minutes past 11 on Sunday morning I still couldn't fathom who had won. But my distrust or pessimism was entirely misplaced. The electorate has not feared to change when change was needed. It did it before on several occasions, 1971 and 1987, 2011 (divorce referendum) to name a few. It was, beyond a shred of doubt, a historic result in a local context (any delusions of grandeur would be misplaced).

The Victor

As a natural consequence of its campaign, the PL now faces a tall order and high expectations. In its first 100 days of government it must set in motion its energy plan, enact the Whistleblowers Act, party financing legislation, and the removal of time-bars on political corruption. In the first year it must embark on a thorough reform of justice and home affairs. Coupled with this would be a much needed (and anticipated) Constitutional reform. This is just the bare minimum that is being expected. Equally important would be to instill a culture of meritocracy and transparency in public appointments, but it would be foolish to assume that Muscat's government should be devoid of persons who enjoy his party's trust and vision. In all European democracies this is a sine qua non.

A fundamental aspect of PL's campaign was its energy plan. Had it failed to be credible on this issue its entire edifice would have crumbled and I would assume that we would have had a possible 2008 repeat. But it is rather clear that it has been credible on its plans. Now it must transform that credibility into concrete action. In doing so, however, it will surely face fierce criticism on three crucial aspects: (1) the two-year time frame, (2) the public procurement aspect, and (3) the environmental impact assessments. It must be prepared to tackle these issues and give clear answers.

One also expects crucial reforms on social issues such as gay rights. I also wish that PL will revise its position on IVF both on its social aspect by making it accessible to all persons and on its scientific aspect by allowing for the freezing of embryos.

Most importantly, however, PL must be closer to the people. This, in realization of the most basic fact that it is there to serve them, and not the other way round.

The Loser

I am elated that the PN lost the way it did for the simple reason that it taught them a much-needed lesson that the days of nepotism and political patronage are over. All that talk about "arrogance", "cliques" and "oligarchy" might've sounded absurd but there was a lot of truth in that absurdity. Now this is a golden opportunity for the PN to renew itself as a modern Christian Democrat/centre-right party. European Christian democrats might stand for conservative social policies (ideally mild or moderate) and liberal economic policies but they should never treat people as numbers or scum as that would be a gross betrayal of their supposedly Christian roots.

In my opinion, Simon Busuttil should not even be considered as a contender for the PN leadership. His oratory my be calm and sharp but he sounds (and acts) like a patronizing priest preaching from the pulpit. He has proven to be sickeningly condescending as well as gaffe-prone and, therefore, a liability. More serious contenders for this post would be Mario Demarco or Chris Said who are (I hope) more amenable to collective/national interest rather than political/partisan interest.

In essence, PN requires a thorough cleansing of its entire political structures. Rather than embarking upon the project of building a new parliament building it should have seriously invested in rebuilding itself. Yet, despite these much needed calls even from significant insiders the PN continued to pander to personal interests and never distanced itself from scum like DCG, il-Bocca (who has laughably taken credit for PL's victory) and the WE crew.

Kudos go to Dr. Lawrence Gonzi for being more than gracious in defeat although I do respectfully disagree with certain statements I've seen that Lawrence Gonzi's exit was a mistake. Lawrence Gonzi might have fared more than well on the economy but he was dethroned by major political and personal interests throughout these five years and had failed to do anything about it. If not direct acceptance it was a tacit one.

The Minnow

AD was once again the minnow of the electoral result. But this time it got its best result yet with a respectable 1.8% of the national vote (roughly an increase of 38% - 40% over its 2008 result). Hand on heart, however, I truly believed that AD would fare better by making it to the 2% - 2.5% region as polls were showing. I think AD believed this too, or were at least highly optimistic about it. AD must take stock and do away with the profound belief that as a party it is infallible, rather it is the system and/or the electorate which is against it. Blaming everything or everyone but itself would be a grave mistake. I also maintain that AD erred (big time) by ridiculing and generalsing about everyone who would not vote for it. Instead of ridiculing it must ask why. Blaming DCG and Lou Bondi for a swing in Labour's favour is feeble. AD must also accept that even though a mere 8 or 15 minute appearance on public broadcasting is undemocratic, it did get far more airtime, publicity and endorsements this time round. AD also ran an impeccable campaign in social networking. Furthermore, whereas Michael Briguglio's chairmanship might have garnered the respect of the radical left wing, AD needs to stop relying on disgruntled Nationalists (which might explain the great disdain for Muscat) and move beyond the 10th District.

However those 5,500 AD votes should not be forsaken. These votes exceed the national quota. I am delighted that Evarist Bartolo has already spoken up about this issue concerning electoral reform and hope that it is taken on board in this legislature. Bartolo extended the olive-branch before but unfortunately it was shot down by Cassola and (especially) Cacopardo who I respect and admire. Unfortunately an arrogant streak (i.e. a belief that progressive politics is the sole domain of AD) got the better of them at the time. I hope for AD's sake that this does not persist.

I do not expect a co-option in this legislature but I do seriously hope for amendments to the 2007 electoral reforms through which parties or independents can be represented in parliament if they obtain a national quota. I also concur with Mark il-Biwwa that proposing an AD speaker would be a sign of good-will.

*** Fin ***

Posted in Local Politics | Leave a comment

Vote 2013 Explained

By Unknown | Published Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The primary concern

The first thing that comes to mind is change from the status quo. This change must not be based on a mere transition of faces, colors and slogans but it must be deep-rooted; that is to say from the top-down, from the bottom-up and from side to side. It must reflect a change in political culture and ultimately socio-cultural mentality itself. It must therefore be a change that resists and overcomes the culture of patronage and individual interests. It must defeat divisions and destroy divide-and-rule. It must, at the very least, lay the groundwork to eradicate nepotism and cronyism which, in turn, give rise to abuses, clientelism and corruption.

Secondary but (pretty much) equally important concerns

A - Social Equality and Liberties

Equality is a social issue that is closest to heart. It must be real and it must be felt. The underlying motif should always be that basic fundamental norm that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights. All distinctions based on race, sex and gender, creed, sexual orientation, political grouping and so on must be slowly destroyed. But I do not realistically expect that on the morrow of the election we will have a complete liberalization of all social constraints. Socia liberalisation, secularisation and europeanisation cannot be completely divorced from historical identity at the click of a finger. Prudence demands patience, mutual understanding and compromise and I am somewhat irked by the mentality of "all or none". The same reasoning applies to addressing immigration. I expect much more to be done to safeguard and enhance rights and dignity of asylum-seekers but won't go to the other extreme by claiming that greater efforts at EU-level on responsibility sharing is taboo or unjust, especially considering Malta's limited size and resources.

B - Social Justice

Social justice is equally as important. I am not against success and profit so long as it is shared prudently and fairly. I want to be able to be truly proud to pay taxes in the full knowledge that they are going to benefit those who are lesser off. Having said that, no one should simply live off social benefits for the simple reason that they couldn't be arsed to at least try. I am somewhat averse to means testing but I find nothing wrong with giving people the choice to opt out, voluntarily, from benefits such as stipends - guided by civic duty and social justice. Also, austerity politics should be overcome as it is short-sighted and self-defeating. Saving and spending should be wise and prudent. My basic economic compass tells me you should tighten the belt when the economy is strong and smooth - to spend when rainy days come (and not the other way round). Furthermore, spending should be made on things that matter and reap long-term benefits.

C - Social Corporatism

I am not anti-capitalist and have faith in the private sector but I expect employers and laborers to have equal seats at the table. I also believe that the state has a role to play in guiding and regulating economic practice when necessary. This is no taboo and should never be treated as such.

D - Transparency and Accountability in Governance

Transparency and accountability are pretty much tied up with my primary concern. It goes without saying that enacting transparency and accountability requires a holistic approach and not 1 or 2 pieces of legislation. Nonetheless a Whistleblower's Act, party-financing legislation, appointments on public authorities and boards, and stronger action against political corruption should be mandatory for a new government (although I do agree that with respect to political corruption - the same measures should apply to the corrupter whoever he or she or it may be - and not just the politician).

E - Justice (Law & Order)

Justice is also close to heart especially now that I work in the field. The judiciary and organisation of the courts require urgent reform ranging from the way appointments are made to increasing court facilities and staff. There are many issues that need to be addressed which I have briefly touched upon here (paras 18 to 24) and here.

F - Other issues

Several other important issues that must be addressed such as ending moral paternalism, sustainable development and planning, constitutional revision, child-care, employment, energy poverty, electoral reform and so on.

The Choice

I confess that, being a social democrat firmly on the side of the liberal left, the most obvious choice would be to choose AD in these elections. However, you would be mistaken to think that it is so straight-forward. AD has made grave errors in this election and it is not infallible or beyond reproach. AD is right to claim that is has been consistent and progressive. Yet, in claiming the mantle of "the voice of reason" it has zealously overstepped limits of even basic courtesy and manners by dubbing anyone who votes otherwise as "tribalist", "sheep" or unable to "think freely". This is insulting to say the least and betrays its progressivism and inclusiveness by giving way to quasi-unbridled arrogance which really puts me off. It seems that AD has become an exclusive club that measures intelligence and free-thinking on the basis of your vote. I am also completely against the "PNPL-dichotomy" label because it is a historical falsity. It is PN which has been in power for the last 25 years and not PL. There is no wrong in differentiating oneself from other parties (actually this is a sine-qua-non in politics) but to lump all the country's faults as "PLPN" is misleading.

PN

The only thing that PN has going for it is the relative economic stability in a turbulent economic climate. Of course this has to be qualified by conservative and prudent banking policies. And to be fair, one must conduct a thorough audit of all public authorities and corporations to be able to get a better picture of the state's finances. Other than that PN represents the status-quo defined in my opening paragraph. No chance.

PL

This leaves PL. The thing that put me off most about PL throughout this entire campaign was Muscat's answer to push-backs on asylum-seekers, even if he has qualified this insofar as Libya is a "safe country". Secondly, the hunting issue will cost more votes than gained; that is a certainty. I don't appreciate hunting and have difficulty appreciating law-breaking hunters even more than hunting itself. But the portrayal of Muscat as a reckless gun-toting-bird-killing redneck irks me when you consider that he has been very clear: hunting strictly within EU-law framework and increase in enforcement. If you are truly against hunting then criticize the law that allows it to happen in the first place including the judgement that allowed for a spring-hunting derogation under strict supervision. Furthermore, if you are truly against hunting you should call for it to be banned outright. In my opinion, Muscat's true mistake on this issue was not inviting ENGO's such as Bird-Life to also have a seat at the table of discussion. Because of this omission, ENGO anger is merited.

Whilst there are clear red-lines for me on immigration, I will not base my entire vote on spring hunting as the major issue of this campaign. One has to also acknowledge the fact that it is simply not possible to agree with absolutely everything. If I want a party with which I can agree with 100% I'll just go and become a candidate myself. Indeed, Michael Briguglio himself had disagreements in 2008 with AD. Unlike Briguglio, however, I do not think that either-all-or-none is a valid approach to take. I will not abandon ship (as I've done before) but do my damnedest to vocally-crticise and sway opinion, and I do believe that Muscat is not averse to changing his opinion.

These issues aside, PL has opened up. It has been firm and consistent on the need for change from the status-quo, as it has been firm on equality, transparency and accountability.

Decision

Sorry to disappoint, but my "very limited cognitive faculties-cum-tribal instinct" tells me to vote for PL candidates best placed to bring about change. Don't worry though, insults aside, AD will still get my cross-vote, with a higher preference than you may think.

Posted in Local Politics | Leave a comment

[Minimum] Discrepancies

By Unknown | Published Friday, September 28, 2012

Somewhat of an uproar has been caused by the recent PL declarations on the minimum wage. I use the terms "somewhat" specifically and "uproar" loosely because I am not entirely sure whether this particular round of annoying electoral propaganda and spinning is on everyone's minds to be quite honest. Nonetheless, terms like "wage-freeze" and "wage-gate" have been banded about bringing to mind a dark atmosphere of foreboding. The heinous and unspeakable crime? Joseph Muscat and his Labour Party have declared that, should they be elected in government, they will not increase the minimum wage but will reduce utility tariffs. Whatever the case, how interesting it is to see how easily people forget and how convenient convenience has become.

First let us begin with the deeply-rooted notion that "MuscatPL" has established a political philosophy grounded in populism, a.k.a. "being everything for everyone". I wonder now whether such arguments may still be made by those whose sole agenda is driven by a personal hatred for the man. If Muscat is purporting to be everything for everyone would it not be rather obvious to advocate an increase in the minimum wage (or the establishment of the so-called 'living wage') for workers and, simultaneously, a reduction in utility tariffs for businesses end employers? For better or for worse, Muscat - and by extension the PL - have changed their minds and ditched the living wage proposal. Truth be told, this was never set in stone. In fact a timesofmalta.com article dated 18 November 2010 reports Musact telling employers [on the living wage]:

"I am here with an idea and an open mind, asking you to join forces with me. I am ready to change my position as long as you too are prepared to shift yours towards the common goal of raising living standards."

But alas, it is very convenient to twist facts and to spin isn't it?

Secondly, let us take a look at "MuscatPL's" policies on fiscal responsibility. Of course, Muscat and his party are the most fiscally irresponsible people on earth and should never be trusted. They want to take us back to "Mintoffianeconomics" coupled with wage-freezes, dire poverty, hunger and bailouts. Now here is MuscatPL, prepared to pursue a core party policy (reducing utility tariffs) by sacrificing an increase in the minimum wage for the time being. The idea is obviously to boost the economy by lowering recurring business expenditure and, consequently, to lower the cost of living which has catapulted in recent years. This can reap beneficial rewards such as boosting the tourism and manufacturing industries and increasing employment. Now I am no economist, so I cannot say with any scientific precision whether this will work out in the long-term. But do you remember how often you used to ask MuscatP: "How?" Well here is just one answer. But alas, MuscatPL is still irresponsible. In the euro-crisis MuscatPL should have lowered utility tariffs AND raised the minimum wage. That would have been the more responsible route, surely. Speaking of crises...is Malta now not part of the euro and the rest of the world? I would like to know how it isn't all of a sudden. For while other countries are bludgeoning their populations with punitive austerity we are taking Muscat to task for not increasing the minimum wage.

Thirdly, I cannot fathom how we can so easily equate Malta with the Scandinavian countries. I'd love for Malta to become more Scandinavian, mind you. Excellent wages and the best social-safety net in the world. A quasi-socialist and liberal utopia. Leaving aside the fact that such countries impose heavy taxes on the rich and big corporations (50% +), they also have something that we surely do not: resources. Can you envisage, for instance, a flourishing oil industry in Malta? Or arms manufacturing? Car manufacturing at best but from where do we get the raw materials? And you know what? None of the nordic countries have a statutory minimum wage. Neither do Italy, Germany and Austria. The United Kingdom adopted the minimum wage in 1998 - not in the 70's. All minimum wages in these countries are regulated by collective agreements. Read here.

Fourthly, it is interesting to see how we expect Labour to be a fully-fledged workers' party but to simultaneously move on with the times. True, the working-class struggle has been rekindled of late (assuming that Malta is part of the world that is) but I cannot understand how we expect PL to burn all bridges and become the arch-enemy of both business and employers and yet remain modern and mainstream. Please tell me which modern European socialist-democrat party speaks only in terms of working class -vs- bourgeoisie. I even doubt whether the most radical Greens and committed but forward-looking European Communists in the vein of GUE/NGL adopt such attitudes. Like it or hate it, the fact of the matter is that PL is not only a government in waiting but has also to be seen as a government in waiting and not a radical left-wing party with nothing to lose. Like it or hate it incentivising business and investment can also benefit the working class.

Now here's a little twist. Truth be told, I'm no major fan of this policy even though I do believe we need to tackle cost of living and energy poverty seriously. It has a "trickle-down" tinge to it which tends to put me off. I am also a firm believer in the idea of spending more - not less - as a means to boost the economy. But sometimes the world does not work this way. You can never get exactly what you wish for and in life you have to compromise. Yet I've had enough of all the lies and spin; the propaganda and the mediocrity. Why can't we criticise maturely and without hidden agendas? Why can't criticism in this god-forsaken country be intelligent and not tainted by agendas, whether political or simply personal? And why does it have to be so childish? Beppe Fenech Adami took Muscat to task for not suing Maltatoday for libel for being the first paper to report that PL will not increase the minimum wage. Did it also say that Muscat intends to adopt a wage-freeze and deny COLA-increments? How low can you go?

With the elections round the corner, the PN has just announced a lucrative public-sector wage increase (including pensions...even though government has been berated time and time again on pension reform) and I bet my bottom cent that if they actually do go for a budget they will implement an increase in the minimum wage believing that this will be a 'political coup'. I just wonder if there will be anyone who has no axes to grind or not blinded by partisan tribalism who will dare to ask: where are you going to get the money from and how will it affect our public finances? But I forget. Such questions are only reserved for MuscatPL.

Posted in Local Politics | 1 Comment

A Fair Society

By Unknown | Published Friday, June 1, 2012

Here is my take on what should seriously be looked at to ensure a fair society. Several points do not touch solely upon social matters but taken together they would, in my opinion, ensure a fairer society. There is no particular order of importance. I'm sure that there are other valid and more important points to be added here.

Ensure that all citizens residing in Malta can keep the public administration in check by widening the concept of juridical interest (e.g. Body A implements a measure which negatively affects the surrounding environment but does not directly and personally affect individual B - individual B would still be able to make a claim). Ensure that registered NGOs such as environmental and consumer organisations are allowed the right to institute class actions without delay.
Ensure that any Whistleblower's Act would also provide for the protection of persons involved in the offence where possible or that punishment is drastically reduced for accomplices who blow the whistle. Furthermore, ensure that the Act applies retroactively to cases of corruption.
Ensure that a Freedom of Information Act is broad and that it allows for easy and unfettered access to all public documents with very limited exceptions (e.g. for the safety of national security and public order).
Ensure that a clause providing for a right to a basic yet decent and dignified standard of living is guaranteed in the Constitution - to accompany a balanced budget provision. This right should be enforceable in a court of law.
Ensure that wealth is more distributive. Consider heavily and progressively increasing taxes for any earnings exceeding €230,000 annually. Consider also the adoption of a windfall tax on banks and profitable industries. Adopt a tax on financial transactions.
Reduce public expenditure by reducing investment on non-essential and frivolous works such as fancy bridges, underground tunnels, dancing fountains and all the pomp and ceremony that goes with them.
Reconsider the notion of civil partnership and opt instead for gay marriage with full rights (including adoption).
Adopt an effective cohabitation law which would give registered cohabiting partners (even if homosexual) all adequate rights and obligations including medical and inheritance rights in case of intestate succession and the right to demand the reserved portion as well as the right to all forms of prison visitation (whether ordinary or conjugal).
Abolish all remaining discrimination with respect to the inheritance rights of children born out of wedlock.
Ensure access to IVF treatment without exception or obstruction.
Insert an exception to abortion in the Criminal Code where the life of the mother is in serious and grave danger as a cause of the pregnancy.
End moral paternalism and treat adults as adults with respect to all sexual or otherwise 'obscene' matters (physical, audio-visual and literary). The regulatory powers of the State should, in this respect, be solely limited to the protection of minors and ensuring that obscene acts or articles are not foisted on the public without precaution/warning as to the content where applicable. Remove or amend all vague offences concerning injury/offence to public morals and indecency.
Invest in child-care facilities. Where possible all public buildings and facilities that serves as a place of work should have an in-house or adjacent child-care facility (similar to the one currently found at the University of Malta).
Remove all discrimination in the Criminal code with respect to religious offences. Consider decriminalising blasphemy and the removal of reference to a state religion in the Constitution.
Give local (councils) and regional (EU) voting rights to all who pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the economy, including refugees and persons with subsidiary or temporary protection domiciled in Malta. Such right should also extend to general elections after a specified period (e.g. 10 years) of continuous residence and economic contribution.
Treat people as humans not parasites or scum. Mandatory detention for asylum seekers should be drastically reduced to a maximum of three months (2 months prior to first hearing and 1 month prior to appeal). This should only serve as a transitory measure until effective responsibility sharing is guaranteed at an EU level (adoption of a concrete Common Asylum Policy) whereupon mandatory detention is removed altogether except in those cases were effective steps can be taken towards repatriation.
Ensure that all children of settled migrants are accorded full citizenship rights as another concrete step towards integration in the community.
Ensure that all members of the judiciary and all high level officials in the public administration and public companies are appointed by a resolution of a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives. Such persons should initially be nominated by a special and fully representative parliamentary committee which should also be able to invite members of civil society for discussion where appropriate. Enhance supervision and scrutiny of said persons by increasing the powers of the Commission for the Administration of Justice with respect to the judiciary and by making it easier to institute public inquiries with respect to public officials. Consider increasing the salaries of the judiciary to ensure greater impartiality whilst reducing excessive salaries and perks for certain public officials such as the Chariman/CEO of MEPA.
Ensure that all members of the judiciary are provided with suitable facilities and staff to aid their functions and to make proceedings more efficient. Consider, for example, allowing members of the judiciary to employ judicial assistants on a full-time basis and invest in a proper legal library at the law courts or in the vicinity.
Desist from transferring or terminating Court staff periodically. Sacrificing experience would reduce the efficiency of justice.
Empower Magistrates to conduct inquiries independently of the executive authorities such as the Minister for Justice/Home Affairs or the AG.
Institute the office of a Public Prosecutor who is solely tasked with prosecuting cases o.b.o the Republic of Malta in front of the Criminal Courts (both superior and inferior: thus removing the power of the Executive Police to prosecute). The Attorney General would be a distinct office solely tasked with representing the Government in executive matters and vested with judicial representation of the Government in the courts of law.
Ensure that all prerogatives and discretion of the Public Prosecutor (see above) are subject to judicial review. Where possible ensure that all individuals accused with a crime are ensured equality of arms during investigation or inquiry and the course of criminal proceedings.
Ensure that persons investigated by the Police are afforded the right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation who is empowered to intervene on his or her behalf (as opposed to a mere 1 hour communication). Limit or disallow the inference of guilt if the person investigated refuses to speak after obtaining legal counsel.
Ensure an adequate and serious party funding law where any donations (singular or cumulative) exceeding the threshold of €2,300 are to be published with all relevant details. Consider the adoption of a state-funding mechanism for parties based on the percentage of votes garnered.
Consider increasing the salaries of Members of Parliament only on condition that they are to be disbarred from practising their profession or engaging in any other employment (no second jobs) during the course of their tenure. Furthermore, consider reducing the number of members elected in the House and imposing penalties for failure to attend a number of parliamentary sittings without proper justification.
Consider amending the electoral law to ensure representation of political parties that reach an established quota (e.g. 5% of the national vote).
Consider the adoption of incentives for identifiable property owners to sell derelict buildings to the State for an appropriate fee and without a property tax so as to ensure that development is more sustainable.
Enhance patient rights and ensure unobstructed and unfettered access to personal medical files. Reduce waiting lists by investing heavily in primary healthcare and consider allowing patients to sue the State for damages (moral or physical) for poor and inhumane treatment (e.g. being placed in corridors).
Reduce energy poverty by reducing utility bills but only on condition of drastically increasing fines and fees for polluters as well as businesses and households that exceed a specified quota. Invest heavily in renewable energy and incentives for renewable energy.

Posted in Local Politics | 2 Comments

Naivety

By Unknown | Published Thursday, January 26, 2012

The Franco Debono saga, culminating and anti-climaxing today, was a lesson in naivety from all parties concerned. It was naive to actually believe that Franco Debono would hold his ground and vote out the government. He has huffed and puffed before but never did he blow the house down. And he never will because there is, simply put, too much at stake for him. That was a lesson not learned by PL exponents and media, including independent media, who built up the tension or hype and planted the idea that elections are now inevitable. Having said that, I do not believe that Joseph Muscat was immature in calling for such a vote.

It is also ludicrously naive to think that this was some victory for PN or government. This was a motion of no confidence in government. Constitutionally this motion has failed to pass. But only just. And to believe that a 34-34 tie means business as usual or that Labour lost is absolutely insane. That is like telling me that I should dump all reason, logic and intelligence in the toilet and pull the flush. The political ramifications of being saved by the Speaker of the House in a vote of no confidence are clear enough for those who are not blind and guided solely by partisan zeal and idolatry. Gonzi's government did not lose but it came out more bruised than it ever was. There is no stability or certainty in a government that is literally hanging by a thread. Therefore, I do not believe that PL (and also AD it seems) have been arrogant to state that the PM should call for early elections.

It is also naive, and here is the crunch, for Franco Debono to believe that those who failed in the administration of government will now assume responsibility; that the infamous 'clique' will magically disappear; that transparency, accountability and individual or collective responsibility will become the order of the day; that all the hate will be supplanted by intelligent criticism. 4 days of constant rosy rhetoric and nauseating propaganda in Parliament by government ministers is proof enough of the mentality that everything (save for a few, isolated and half-hearted utterances of "we're not perfect") is just dashing. And hey, if it's not broke, why fix it? This is why I believe that, save for a few short-term cosmetic changes, there will be no deep-rooted and profound constitutional and democratic changes which Franco Debono has been harping about.

Just as it is naive to think that the Maltese do not want an election (that would actually be a historical cultural shift that should keep anthropologists and sociologists busy). Fact of the matter is that it is the Nationalist Party which does not want an election. And again, the reasons why, are clear for all to see. Nor is Labour fully ready for one.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Posted in Local Politics | Leave a comment

Democracy not for sale

By Unknown | Published Thursday, January 19, 2012

In a time of political instability there has been talk of changes to the electoral law to the effect that "the party winning a majority of votes at an election would be automatically given a three-seat majority to be able to form a stable government". The idea is that "in our system, there is the danger that a government will be held hostage by a single MP" and that there might be "too much power in single MPs hands" (see here). The automatic knee-jerk reaction is to (arbitrarily) tweak the electoral law to the advantage of the political parties (Nationalist and Labour).

I claim that such amendments would continue to erode our democracy. Many have seemed to develop the atrocious idea that governmental stability is a cornerstone of democracy. It most certainly is not, for democracy is founded on the most basic of principles including, amongst others, free speech, equality and tolerance, universal suffrage and other fundamental liberties and duties of free citizens.

First of all, if the electoral (constitutional) law were to be tweaked in this way it would not be truly representative of the electorate's wishes. The electorate, whilst willing to give one particular party the right to govern, might not want to give it a strong mandate simply because it might not trust it enough to govern unfettered and in a unilateral manner. We should recall that notions such as 'bipartisanship' and 'meritocracy' assumed greater public importance as a result of a mere 1,500 majority (or 750, rather) between the governing party and the opposition. The idea is that: "Yes, you are the governor, but only just. Do not forget that and do not discard the other 49% that did not vote for you".

Secondly, such amendment would almost nullify the idea that MPs can keep the government in check. It is a sacred constitutional principle that a well-functioning democracy is one where the institutions of the state 'balance and check' each other. This is a particularly strong weapon against arbitrariness and unfettered power. Just to prove my point: a government minister once said that the legislature simply need not meet for government has a five-seat majority in parliament (pre-2008).

Thirdly, it would effectively destroy the purpose of having third parties. Even if a third party manages to get one member elected in the House I would assume that the party with an absolute or relative majority would still be automatically given a three-seat majority. Although a major victory for the third party, the whole concept of coalition government would be redundant. That third party would not be able to influence the policies of its coalition partner.

In a true democracy, government should be challenged and scrutinised consistently. It might win a comfortable majority and in that case other institutions (especially the press) would have to do an even better job of scrutinising the workings of government and public officers. But if it does not, we should not fear the influence or power a single MP might wield. MPs, after all, should not be gagged and demonised simply because they do not swear blind fealty and submission to government.

Posted in Local Politics | Leave a comment

Crucify him!

By Unknown | Published Saturday, January 7, 2012

The 6th of January 2012 has proven to be a veritable climactic and political mess for the otherwise serene and sturdy islands of Malta. It falls upon us then, as rational human beings who are not inclined to view everything through partisan lenses, to try to make some sense of it all - if such is indeed possible. After all, if the press is not willing to ask questions, somebody should.

Let me start with the Hon MP Franco Debono (Nationalist Party). Franco seems to me to be a politician of the highly ambitious species, yet childishly innocent in the manner in which he displays his ambition so publicly. A more skilled politician would certainly be shrewder, more cunning perhaps, willing to bide his time and plot subversion in the shadows ultimately to get what he or she wants without ruffling too many feathers. But Franco has openly defied and criticised the Prime Minister to a point where there seems to be no turning back. The parallels with Dom Mintoff under Sant's government are striking. Sant's fatal mistake was not to tie a simple vote to a vote of confidence. What Lawrence Gonzi and so many others declared as a 'mistake' is to me an act of gentlemanliness of the highest order, for Sant had the courage to sacrifice power for the sake of serenity and stability of the country when a backbench MP was defying him so openly and consistently in a one-seat majority scenario. No, just like Sant, Gonzi's mistake was indeed not to give Franco a portfolio that would truly satisfy him. Let's face it, a Prime Minister should not be held hostage by a backbench MP but this is precisely why he should also be cunning enough and have the foresight to ensure stability in his own party if he is to ensure stability in the nation. Such is the game that is politics. Of course, this is the case only insofar as we make the assumption that Franco Debono did what he did purely out of spite for not being given a ministerial portfolio - something that is not yet absolutely clear for this whole story has yet to be written.

Now, Franco's rebellious streak has been characterised by Nationalist Party stalwarts and diehards alike as nought but folly, immaturity, disloyalty and even madness or mental lunacy. The established default position is one of absolute loyalty to leader and party. Obviously, for Labour Party diehards he is a veritable hero (further echoes of the Sant-Dom Mintoff saga of 1998). From a partisan perspective this seems to make some sense but it troubles me to see this default position advocated by most mainstream independent press and journalists, which, as the nation's 'fourth institution', has an utmost duty to ask questions and uncover the truth, especially from those that govern and seek to govern. Vicariously, it seems, the independent press also advocates absolute loyalty to leader and party and this, I must say, is highly disturbing in a democracy.

For all his "lunacy" Franco Debono has advocated very reasonable and much needed changes or updating of our laws, such as for example, the right to legal counsel during police interrogation (which entered the statute books in 2002 but was not enforceable until 2010); a complete separation of powers between inquiring magistrates and magistrates that adjudicate; the splitting of the justice ministry from home affairs owing to a conflict of interest between the two and so on. In my opinion these are all positive steps tending to strengthen the administration of justice and, ultimately, democracy. Why hasn't the press questioned the hesitance to bring about such reforms I wonder? Yet, since time immemorial, it seems that the "gadfly" must make the apology and take the poison - and I am shocked to see that this is also endorsed by the press. In other democracies, such as the United Kingdom and Italy, open dissent and criticism within political parties is run of the mill. British philosopher John Stuart Mill once said that people holding objectively true and just opinions "ought not to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth". It is a shame that such spirit and vigour is looked down upon and trodden; it is a stain on our democracy.

This is not to say that Franco Debono is flawless. He is indeed imperfect (as are we all) and, at times, highly volatile or perhaps stubborn and politically immature - traits which expose a certain weakness and do no justice to his cause in the end. Franco, publishing your Form 2 Mid-Yearly report to prove your sanity was utterly unnecessary and counter-productive.

Now to Lawrence Gonzi. He says that we should all be proud that we have weathered the storm of financial trouble but we are not immune; that he was right to give a significant pay raise to himself and his Ministers behind even his own party's back but, even though we are faring perfectly fine economically (albeit not immune), it is somehow...not right any longer. He also says that what Malta needs now is stability but he is perfectly satisfied with the scenario where one MP (Franco Debono) has openly declared that he will not support his government any longer. In fact Lawrence Gonzi has said that he will do everything in his power to hold off elections until the last day of the current legislature. I wonder if this will translate into parliament not being reconvened for as long as possible and a complete lack of parliamentary debate for the next fourteen months. Perhaps laws will only be passed by means of legal notice (around 90% of them already are) without any debate whatsoever. How's that for democracy and stability? And I wonder, who is really desperate to cling onto power?

If the press continue to trod on so negligently and refuse to ask such questions by adopting a neutral position in reporting only what has been said and, to top it all off, crucifying rebel MPs for their lack of loyalty than I will lose what little hope I have left.

Posted in Local Politics | 2 Comments

Captain Hindsight

By Unknown | Published Sunday, September 18, 2011

Well it looks like my job here is done. Goodbye everyone!

If you're a South Park enthusiast I bet my last cent that you must be pretty familiar with Captain Hindsight. Just in case you do not know, Captain Hindsight is a fictional super-hero in the Trey Parker/Matt Stone mould who is fortunate enough to have, well, the power of...extraordinary hindsight. Thus, in one example, Captain Hindsight saves the day not by rescuing people trapped in a burning building but by suggesting ways the tragedy could have been averted by placing fire-escapes in the higher floors and by building a reinforced structure on the roof so that a helicopter could have landed on it. When the wisdom is spoken everyone is relieved - the day is saved and everyone can go home. The only catch is...the building is still burning.

Nobody other than Trey Parker and Matt Stone could come up with a more perfect analogy to "oh-what-a-shame-it-was-to-be-associated-with-Ghaddafi-in-the-seventies-and-eightees". Oh yes, what a perfect harmonious country Malta would be if it had absolutely no ties with Libya back then and how the Labour Party would have prospered if it hadn't been so. Yes, I bet today it would have been perceived as a bastion of democracy. Thus did Lawrence Gonzi spake and saved the day.

There seems to be some incy-wincy problems with all of this though. Just to mention a few:

Geographical Proximity

The most obvious link to Ghaddafi is that Valletta, unfortunately for all of us, happens to be a mere 221 miles (356 km) away from Tripoli. That's like, a half-hour flight on a Boeing 747. In fact, it's faster to get to Tripoli than to get to Mellieha from Valletta these days. This leads to an entire mish-mash of perks and goodies such enhanced trade links, market access, migration and migration control, consular relations, etc, etc.

Political Current (Zeitgeist)

Linked to the above point, it would be pretty naive to assume that Malta would be absolutely uninspired with the political movement that spread across the Maghreb and the Arab World in general - the one that ousted monarchs and gave rise to Peoples' Presidents and Brother Leaders instead. The Arab-socialism that peaked in the 60s must have been more in tune with the ideologies of people like Mintoff and KMB who are nationalists at heart (and by nationalists I do not mean PN-Gonzi-Eddie-etc - I mean simply and purely 'nationalism', i.e. Malta l-Ewwel u Qabel Kollox). At the time, this framework of pan-arabism was a better ideological tool in the struggle against colonial rule and becoming an independent and sovereign nation with no-strings-attached than acceding to the Treaty of Rome surely. With hindsight, we now realise that these new Arab Leaders actually turned out to be full-fledged dictators and we wouldn't have known it if Gonzi did not point it out to us.

Cash Cow (Mooo)

Mintoff is renowned for being a manipulative son of a gun and getting his way even with the more esteemed statesmen. I am told that at one point, if it weren't for the millions of dollars (or Liri) poured into Malta's coffers courtesy of Ghaddafi, the entire post-independent civil service of Malta would have collapsed because at the time there just wasn't enough money to go round.

***

The downside to all this is that perks and favours have to be returned. As the saying goes "it takes two to tango". Another one is "nothing comes for free". Thus the Arabic Language became compulsory in all state schools and Ghaddafi's infamous Green Book a relic of the "IN-YOUR-FACE-REAGAN" enthusiasts of the day. This is Realpolitik and if you come and tell me that the current administration, indeed any administration in the world, bases its entire diplomacy on purely-ethical premises and considerations than you must really be naive. Of course, the once beloved neighbour next door has now become enemy number one. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

The more disturbing aspect of this entire debauchery of historical revisionism is in using a brutal dictator such as Ghaddafi against your political adversary to score political points. It's just as absurd, if not a whiff more revolting, as exploiting a revolution for economic gain (tourism in our case). But then again, that's political realism served on a platter right there.

Ultimately nobody can tell what the future will hold. Do we know, with absolute certainty that the Jibril and Jalil of today will not become the Ghaddafi of tomorrow? Did we know with absolute certainty that the liberating army in Egypt would hijack an entire revolution as Mark Camilleri so aptly put it? No, we did not. But do not fret. Captain Hindsight will set us right.

Posted in Current Affairs, Local Politics | 2 Comments

A Victory Against All Odds

By Unknown | Published Sunday, May 29, 2011

It is truly liberating that the myth of the "staunchly-98%-Catholic-nation" has been dispelled once and for all and put in the dustbin of history where it belongs. Christianity is founded on strong principles, which I deeply respect. But these have been utterly corrupted by those few men of the cloth who want nothing else than to cling on to power: the power to control and the power to impose their own values on everybody else. I hope they realise now, that the tyranny of fear serves no purpose nor any good. The Christ that I respect is the Christ who preached compassion, even for one's own enemies, and not the Christ who built his entire Church on the fear and wrath of God. The Christ that I respect was the Christ that got angry; the Christ that wasn't afraid and not the Christ who preached docility and told people to shut up and do what they were told. I will be ready to forgive these few men for the shame, division, ignorance, hypocrisy and bigotry that they have sowed in the foundations of our country for so long if, and only if, they are ready to reform and move on with the times. If this is not possible, because some scripture of Canon says so, they can stuff their apology and if that makes me "anti-clerical", than so be it.

To our politicians I say shame on you all for not having the guts to legislate on a basic civil right. This issue should never have gone to a referendum in the first place but I am realistic enough to accept and admit that, as things stood before the 29th of May 2011, this could not have been possible especially because of the divisions in both political parties on the matter and because of its unfortunate controversial nature. It is sad that before today divorce was a controversial matter, despite the fact that lone figures openly spoke about its introduction - even in the mid-90's.

My deepest respect to Alternattiva Demokratika for being on the right side of history, ever since their conception in '89, on matters that concern civil rights and civil liberties. Now is your chance to push for a third party in parliament. Do not let it go to waste. But do not tread the path of arrogance and isolation. Love him or hate him, do not forget that Joseph Muscat himself put this issue in the limelight ever since he contested for the Labour leadership in 2008. Neither should you forget that if it weren't for him Labourties "who would have otherwise voted NO instead opted to stay at home"; that, in a sense, this was a cross-party campaign; and that several thousand Labour supporters voted overwhelmingly in favour of divorce legislation. The numbers speak for themselves. The denial of these truths would destroy the respect that you have built by the conviction of your principles.

To the Hon. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and his coterie I have only one thing to say: your belief in the nanny-state has rubbished your pro-European convictions. Not for a moment have I felt that you represent a modern, secular and European Malta. You are nought but the purveyors of isolation, intolerance and close-mindedness. On the other hand, I congratulate all those Nationalist Party supporters who believe in a modern and European Christian Democracy, who weren't and aren't afraid to disagree against their own party, where disagreement is merited. I hope that work will begin for reformation (a complete overhaul I would say) within the Nationalist Party.

But the biggest victory and the greatest thank you goes to the Maltese people: the David that beat Goliath and the social movements that represented "David" in this battle for civil rights. I admit that I was wrong about the Maltese people. I was certain that fear and intimidation would win. But the Maltese people proved that they are strong - that they are not ignorant. Thank you, all of you, for doing your part in this victory against all odds.

Posted in Local Politics | Leave a comment

Constructing the Progressive Left

By Unknown | Published Tuesday, September 8, 2009

The construction of a progressive movement may be Muscat's greatest ambition and ultimately the largest 'earthquake' on the richter scale. Unfortunately, in a country which has become somewhat infamous for being thirty years behind every other and in which politics is characterised by tribalism, parochialism and the exploitation of ignorance it is no surprise that this grand project has been met with a great degree of cynicism by many who profess to be progressive, including myself. The greatest spoke in Muscat's wheel is undoubtedly from within Labour itself which houses some of the country's staunchest conservative politicians and which at times finds itself on a fast-forward march towards a brand of excessively populist and nationalist-oriented politics instead of building upon the basic ideals that characterise the left.

Possible or not, the idea is a good thing in itself, not just for Malta but for the rest of Europe where social-democratic, labour and green parties are finding it hoplessly difficult to overcome the neo-liberal mainstream. Unless things do not change we will soon see the rise of the Tories in Britain, the fall of Zapatero in Spain and fascist parties across Europe going from strength to strength with victories for the left becoming far and few between (one hopes that PASOK will emerge triumphant in Greece). Meanwhile, Germany's Merkel, France's Sarkozy and Italy's Berlusconi are not set to leave the political climate any time soon. This is not a rant but a wake-up call for progressive parties across Europe to do something about it.

The primary starting point for constructing a progressive coalition of the left is to reconsider this strong infatuation with Giddens-inspired 'third way' which made Clintion and Blair role models for social democrats and progressives across the Western world back in the mid-90's. However, main-land Europe now finds itself in a situation with no distinguishable political platforms when you consider that social-democrats are just as equally free-market oriented as conservative neo-liberals and conservative neo-liberals tend to be just as socially-liberal as social democrats (Sarkozy comes to mind). The differences have become so minimal that it is no surprise that the Greens have (thankfully) emerged as a considerably strong force by proposing new and ambitious ideas such as 'The Green New Deal' which seeks to create millions of jobs by harnessing the earth's sources alternative energy; a great response to rising unemployment and a global environment in peril. The problem is that the greens cannot bring about change alone, which brings me to my next point.

It is time to realise that no political party enjoys a 'monopoly of wisdom'. The my-way-or-the-highway mentality must be eradicated once and for all. To form a popular progressive movement, progressive parties should respect the premise that 'we are all in this together'. A pluralistic approach should become the core of the progressive left. This does not mean that progressive parties and their supporters should abandon their ideals for the sake of forming one popular front. It is about respecting our differences as well as our common vision. Britain's Respect Party leader Salma Yaqoob explains that "We all have our loyalties and allegiances and it is futile to demand from each other that we renounce them as a pre-condition for unity. On the contrary, we need to find new ways to exert pressure on the political establishment, and forge new alliances that bring together a progressive coalition that can start to shift the political centre of gravity to the left." Left academic Pat Devine wrote in Red Pepper that "one way forward is to work towards the formation of a loose-knit electoral alliance united in opposition to the neoliberal mainstream and dedicated to campaigning for electoral reform and a green new deal."

A progressive coalition musn't become a militant minority which is hardly able to converse with anyone beyond its patchwork of colour but a progressive majority for change. The plural left should thus strive to move social democratic and green values to the mainstream where they belong as opposed to being occasionally hip sound-bites, disconnected from everyday and everybody. For privatising idealism and comfortably preaching to the already-converted will only lead to many progressives finding themselves politically unrepresented and cursing in anger at a world they thought would be different.

This post has been largely inspired by Mark Perryman's critique "We’re all in this together: - Towards the political practice of a Plural Left" published by Compass think tank (UK).

Posted in Local Politics, Political Theory | Leave a comment

Democracy or stagnation?

By Unknown | Published Tuesday, July 28, 2009

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?

Posted in Local Politics, World Politics | 3 Comments

Dissecting the Bahrija Scandal

By Unknown | Published Thursday, July 23, 2009

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.

Posted in Local Politics | 1 Comment

The Opposite

By Unknown | Published Wednesday, October 22, 2008

"jekk xi hadd jghidli ghaddi minn dit-triq
jien nimxi n-naha l-ohra
b'dispett
naghzel il-lvant
u minghajr skrupli
nghodd is-soldi
meta haddiehor jghodd il-liri
dak li jhobb haddiehor jiena noboghod
dak li jobghod jien inhobb
u ma tigini l-edba ghira
jekk nisfa wahdi fuq gzirti

ghalhekk twelidt jien."

My father had written these few words some 40 years ago. Some may interpret it as an expression of solitude. Yet I prefer to interpret it as the revolutionary spirit of a young man who is disgusted with the status quo; a non-conformist who is not afraid of doing things differently even if he has to walk such paths alone. One should know (or perhaps remember) that at the time (we are talking about 1968/69) things weren't so great under what was largely a theocratic Malta. At least for a considerable portion of the Maltese population it wasn't.

Incidentally, the honorable Government is today also infused with a revolutionary spirit and certainly goes about issues differently. How? People may be afraid to say it or to face reality but we are currently undergoing an economic recession. When other governments around the world, for good or for bad, are doing all they can to stimulate the economy the government here seems content to do the opposite and create larger burdens through infamous water and electricity tariffs. When other governments (unfortunately not all of them) hold true to the virtues of transperancy and accountability the government here is content with what seem to be vast immunities from any wrong-doings and so-called 'scandals'. The concept of ministerial responsibility seems to be dead and buried. The concept of ministerial machoism is however healthy.

I am glad that the government is slowly changing its opinion on the first point. I am certain that it will not even consider the second. But some things never change, revolutionary spirit or not. The old tricks are still the same, the old rhetoric still in place. Create fear now, instill hope later. Then divide and conquer. We always fall for it, don't we?

When we should be marching for our welfare, civil rights and government transparency we march instead to vent our frustration at other races and cultures who have done nothing to hurt us in any way. When we should actively be calling for change in the way things are done we sit down, tight-lipped, without much ado save the odd moan and whine.

We love doing things in the opposite. But for the wrong reason it seems.

Posted in Local Politics | Leave a comment

Rainbow Coalition

By Unknown | Published Wednesday, September 17, 2008

As I have stated before and shall state I again I believe that a coalition in the strict political sense between socialists (MLP) and greens (AD) should not take place now - it is still to early. In this regard I am in full agreement with Arnold Cassola's comments on today's (17/09/2008) issue of maltatoday midweek.

However, I am somewhat incensed by Carmel Cacopardo's comments on the same article. Possibly, for the first time you had a particular politician, being Evarist Bartolo, who by forsaking political partisanship, proposed something unique for this island. Cacopardo maintains that "it's only now that Labour is talking on issues that for years were AD's exclusive political agenda" - does he mean to say that progressive issues should be at the sole discretion of AD? He further states that "Labour never said a word, fearing it would lose votes" (I agree with him on this point) but what I deem to be questionable or rather close-minded is his belief that this call for an alliance is "a matter of pure political convenience."

To me this instills a sense of hopelessness and a morbid sense of joy in destroying this discussion before it even properly begins. Yes, for too long Labour has been mum on issues of social liberties, civil rights, greater political freedoms and the environment. For too long have they hid behind the facade of mainstream party populism at times even politically straying towards the center-right.

I would like to mince two phrases, not my own, to make a point - you may say I'm a dreamer but I believe in the audacity of hope. I believe that things can change. Ultimately I believe that Labour can change and is changing regardless of recent internal blunders. I would not be progressive if I do not believe in change and that change can happen. The conservative/populist forces in the MLP may have the upper hand but believe me when I say it's not all doom and gloom. Not everyone in the MLP is a political dinosaur. Thus I completely disagree that Labour should be entirely stripped of this hope and I cannot fathom how such an open-minded party such as AD, for which I have great respect, can come up with such close-minded remarks.

I would like to say that Evarist Bartolo's voice is not alone and that he should continue believing in such an alliance which in my opinion should also stretch to other progressive/leftist organizations who share the same ideals.

See: Unite the Clans!

Posted in Local Politics | 3 Comments

Bound and Gagged

By Unknown | Published Friday, May 9, 2008

The mere and simple inspection of social networking domains and online journal blogs can reveal surprising realities in regard to the parochial and ever-present divide between Left and Right discourse.

When the left, most notably the MLP, speaks in terms of equality and respect between the two great political parties of this nation, especially in the light that it has the backing of half the people, the right is quick to quash such argument stating that no matter the electoral outcome, their party has won and in no way should the two parties be regarded as equals. Moreover, when the opposition performs its given duty to scrutinize the government in sectors where it has inadequately performed or where it has failed to deliver, or where it is turning its back on the people, or when it breaks a promise; the right is quick to depict such duty as inconsiderate, negative and unworthy. Basically, their premise is simple. The Left has no right to be considered equal, has no right to be consulted, has no right to criticize the government. The Left should not exist, or as things now seem, it is better if the Right dictates what the Left ought to be.

Ironically the government declared it will be a government for all the people and its apologists (the same people who are quick to dispose of and to ridicule anything the opposition says) are also quick in declaring their desires for a strong Opposition in the interest of democracy.

This ridicule and demonization does not stop at the MLP. It is also extended to other parties, NGO's and trade unions such as Moviment Graffitti; Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar; the General Workers Union; Alternativa Demokratika - The Green Party.

Thus, one cannot but argue that the rightist movement (or center-right to be more precise) seem to desire a voiceless opposition, one that is bound and gagged - a great infringement of the entire notion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Posted in Local Politics | 1 Comment

Andrew Sciberras

Showing posts with label Local Politics. Show all posts

Post-Vote

Vote 2013 Explained

The primary concern