Throughout the European Union government leaders and heads of states from both sides of the (central) divide are being chucked out of power. This is a testament to the utter failure that is austerity economics/austerity politics which seeks to appease the markets purely out of human misery. Pardon my French, but let's face it, you have to be absolutely fucking mad to expect people to give you gratitude for ending up jobless, hopeless and in complete disarray largely through no fault of their own. Why should people have to pay for the gross negligence of a select few?

This failure, which mainstream parties seem to be unable to appreciate, has given a great boost to extremist or fringe parties thus putting centrist parties at the cross-roads. With the exceptions of Portugal and Spain, which have both elected mainstream conservative parties respectively (and that after long-term centre-left or socialist governments), the political centre is paying the price of its obstinacy and blindness. Francois Hollande, who hails from the mainstream French Socialist Party, got elected on an anti-austerity/pro-growth ticket. Whether he would be constrained to drift towards what I call the "pure centre" during his tenure remains to be seen. But I see no reason why he should unless he also wants to get the boot after one serving one term. 

Recent elections also point towards a rejection of a Franco-German hegemony that has completely usurped the European Union.There is simply no "Union" if Member States are constrained to the diktats of France and Germany, regardless of how well-meaning their ultimate intentions may be. Europhiles and federalists alike should reject this powerblock hegemony, not embrace it - and one can only hope that Hollande remains true to his word; that is, by remaining steadfast in reshaping France's diplomatic relationship with Germany and thus its overall outlook on Europe. 

But it is not all rosy for those, like myself, who are anti-austerity and welcome le changement. The rise and rise of the fringe also translates, very evidently, to the ugly rise of fascism which can easily capitalise on hopelessness and fear. This is a big challenge for the common-sense politicians who must convincingly establish that they can offer ordinary people a hope that is greater than populist isolation, protectionism and xenophobia. 

The recent tidal shift in contemporary politics requires a new mindset. Until recently politicians seemed content to justify their actions because of global economic constraints. This is clearly no longer a legitimate excuse. Furthermore, reducing budget deficits by cutting spending is no longer the be all and end all. Keynesian economics, expansionary monetary policy and so on should no longer remain anathema.

At the end of the day people may be willing to let go of privileges and luxuries like travelling abroad, eating out and so on and so forth. But to go so far as to deny persons a basic yet decent and dignified standard of living is not only absolute madness but completely self-defeating. This right, in my opinion, is as fundamental as free speech, freedom of conscience and all the other basic rights and should be enshrined as such. It would surely be a good accompaniment to a constitutional provision which demands a balanced budget. 

Who knows if politicians will ever learn from this crisis? 

Nobody seems to know exactly what the new "fiscal compact" is comprised of and what form it is going to take. Any hope for formal treaty change comprising all 27 EU Member States died with Cameron's "no" so it is most likely that we are going to end up with an intergovernmental agreement amongst the 17 eurozone States and, possibly, other non-eurozone states that may want to join. The legality of this agreement, compact, or whatever it turns out to be, is shaky to say the least.

The idea, however, is to move towards fiscal union, meaning that national budgets and fiscal policies would become 'Europeanised'. This is an odious step for advocates of national sovereignty and a misguided triumph for European federalists. I say misguided because it is a breed of federalism born from intergovernmentalism which, in my opinion, is bound to fail in the long run. This is one of the most basic flaws that emerged from the Brussels Summit on December 8th. The second is that it hasn't done much, it seems, to calm the markets and the credit rating agencies. 

Thirdly, this compact is born from the premise that individual (mostly southern) European states are solely to blame for the crisis. Surely, Greece's fudging of numbers and projections contributed to the euro debt crisis but to say that this is solely Greece's fault (coupled with Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland - PIIGS) would also be misguided. It basically leaves out the banks and financial institutions (who also contributed to the crisis) which states like the United Kingdom and Malta shockingly want to protect in the "national interest". 

Fourthly, the idea that states can spend more than they earn and incur deep budget deficits has to end. To this end the compact places a cap on a budget deficit of 0.5% GDP and automatic consequences (penalties) for countries that exceed 3% GDP. Perhaps this would mean that a budget deficit below 0.5% GDP is fine whilst a budget deficit of between 0.5% and 3.0% incurs a warning or possible sanctions. Any budget deficit exceeding 3.0% of GDP would be automatically punished, presumably by the Commission. National budgets will no longer remain sovereign but would now be scrutinised by the Commission and the European Court of Justice. 

This notion of fiscal discipline and budget surplus sounds great on the face of it. However, I fear that deep down such policies would effectively kill off any hope for fair wealth distribution (social democracy) within Europe. By legitimising (constitutionally - as member states are bound to do) the economics of austerity, discipline and punishment, this compact will criminalise expansionary fiscal policy and Keynesian economics. Basically the only outcome is for member states to tax more, slash wages, privatise everything and spend less, thus dismantling the social welfare safety net and with it, any hope for a decent living for those who are not well-off. It is beyond me how certain politicians, who should know better, advocate the protection of major financial institutions over the social protection of ordinary working citizens by opposing measures such as taxes on financial transactions. Perhaps they endorse the concept of "trickle-down" economics even though it is proven to have failed? At least they should thoroughly explain their position and define, credibly and objectively, how a so-called Tobin tax would be detrimental to the economy.

The irony is that I endorse fiscal union and European oversight but not in the manner that is being proposed, largely because it is anti-democratic and completely removed from the general populace. If we are going to have fiscal union we should also demand more democratic institutions such as more powers for the European Parliament; an elected Commission and an elected EU Council President. I feel more and more dejected by Europe if it is going to be run by France, Germany, conservatives, eurosceptics, banks and unelected bureaucrats. The least Europe can do, to ensure its survival, is to give some measure of power to the people rather than simply deny and take away. 

I believe in the European dream. I believe that it is absolutely essential towards achieving peace, prosperity and cooperation in a continent once ravaged by war and bloodshed. And yes, I also believe that it is beneficial for states like Malta not merely from an economic perspective (the single market) but also because less national sovereignty is likely to translate into enhanced social, consumer, and environmental protection; better access to justice and enforcement of justice; less clientelism, cronyism, nepotism and other such 'isms' - and, above all, a sense of openness towards basic civil liberties and human rights that some forces in this country still want to brand taboo. I believe that a day might come when we shall vote for a local governor and a local legislature to enact local laws and regulations but that this would be merely ancillary to voting for a European president and parliament. I do not fear that day should it ever dawn upon us. Perhaps it shall never come to pass.

Yet, I am not comfortable in the manner we are approaching (at a snail's pace, admittedly) that day. Federalism should not be created inter-governmentally. It is a paradox which makes no sense whatsoever. Federalism should be, above all, democratic and supranational. If countries like the United Kingdom fear Europe than so be it. In fact, it is better for countries such as the UK, that revel in traditionalist-nationalistic pride to leave the Union once and for all. Good riddance I'd say. However, although France and Germany represent (historically, culturally and ideologically) the very heart of the Continent, there is no democracy in giving them carte-blanche to decide what's best for the rest. It simply does not work that way for it reinforces the so-called 'democratic deficit' that has plagued Europe since its conception. As things stand, the purely intergovernmental Franco-German compact, leading to a 'two-speed' Europe, is simply the lesser of two evils. 

I also have deep doubts about the workability of the new fiscal treaty that is being proposed. I agree that fiscal prudence and discipline should be key and especially endorse the notion that countries should not spend more than they have. The constitutionalisation of such measures can work and act as a good incentive for governments but only if it is couched in vague and flexible terms, to at least leave some room for manoeuvre in times of emergency. But I am not so sure whether the German concept of 'discipline' (which is extremely strict) can work everywhere. This would be a huge culture-shock to southern states like Malta where issues like public healthcare and stipends make or break governments. Surely, being restricted to a 0.5% deficit would translate to the erosion of social services, pensions, stipends and free healthcare. These would, at best, be replaced by a system of means-testing and, at worst, gradually abolished. Choosing Heavy-Fuel-Oil because it is cheaper would become the default rule of thumb thus casting aside any long-term scope for proper environmental protection. Basically, politicians would have to master the art of spending less and less in a country like Malta whose major source of income is tourism, financial services and betting. In a perfect world it could, perhaps, discourage flagrant spending in useless capital projects and dissuade the spend-spend-spend rush before general elections. But this is not a perfect world and not all economies are like Germany. It is also hypocritical that many in Europe ridicule, say, Republican presidential candidates for their economic follies (eg cutting spending in times of recession when governments should spend more to incentivise job-creation that lead to more overall wealth) but then pursue the same policy back home to rounds of applause. I believe that such measures would legitimise the austerity-culture that has taken root in Europe and which frankly did nothing to calm the markets and only to stoke the fury of ordinary workers.

Time will tell.        

I would have thought that the progressive alliance in the European Parliament would have at least made an effort to vote NO to Barroso instead of abstaining. So what if he was uncontested? A close yes-no margin would have sent the message that Barroso has won the battle but alerted him to change his ways of pleasing national governments first before working in the EU's greater supra-national interests. With a comfortable and absolute majority I very much doubt that this is going to happen. I reckon that once the [second] honeymoon is over and the light begins to glisten at the end of the [financial crises] tunnel it will be back to business as usual.


It is unfortunate that the European left finds itself in such a mess that it could not even push for a suitable alternative to head the European Commission. But one augurs that serious and constructive effort is made to take the left back to its winning ways. It is going to be a tough five years but with a little less moping and bickering and a little more of doing and working together positive results can certainly be achieved.

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?

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!"

If there is one thing today that the USA can be commended for it is the democratic electoral process that it pursues. Granted that it is not as smooth and transparent as one would wish we have still witnessed a long and significant journey that has led to the cross-roads of my generation.


It is a journey that has seen the rise of a new and formidable movement of hope and change; of a world that can be built upon solidarity, freedom and the progressive ideal. It is a movement that destroys the divide based on race and religion and sexual orientations. It is a movement that holds mankind to be equal wherein the weak are given all the incentives to prosper and the strong are willing to help out whilst remaining fundamentally strong. It is a movement that holds diplomacy and peace to be far stronger than the thunderous roar of destructive warfare. It is a movement that is willing to jointly work for a better future together with peoples who do not necessarily agree with it. It is a movement that realizes the fundamental significance of safeguarding our environment and battles its ruin and exploitation. It is a movement that pursues civil rights with vigor including the fundamental right to affordable healthcare and education for all.


It has also been a journey that has seen a call for the maintenance of the status-quo; the maintenance of warfare; the maintenance of divide and inequality; the maintenance of corporate greed; the maintenance of fear mongering and fact twisting; the maintenance of robbing earth of its wealth and its people of their dignity; the maintenance of ignorance and robbing people of their political, economic and social power in pursuance of undignified totalitarian power; the maintenance of robbing people of inalienable human and civil rights. It is a call that fears change and champions conservatism and disparaging traditional principles in the name of patriotism and nationalism.


Today the world has come to the cross-roads of its future. Americans have been given the choice to continue pursuing the decline and destruction of our earth. They have also seen the bold vision of a man which has shown us that hope still exists for a brighter future and which has instilled us with a sense of change that we can believe in.


America, it's time for the world to change. Vote for hope, vote for change, vote for freedom, vote for equality, vote for justice, vote for human and civil rights, vote for economic and social prosperity, vote for peace and diplomacy, vote for a better environment. Vote for Barack Obama.


Obama '08 - Vote For Hope from MC Yogi on Vimeo.

Has the golden age for right-leaning capitalist politics come to an end or has it merely become a little less golden and a lot more tarnished? The recent downfall of a once steady global economy almost single-handedly brought down by big businesses themselves may suggest that thirty years of laissez-faire capitalism is writing its final chapter in the political cycle.


It is said that history repeats itself. Particularly, what is known as a 'zeitgeist' or 'spirit of the age and its society' goes through cycles. Capitalism was born during the early Renaissance when mercantilism was the order of the day for prospering nation states and became a formidable order in the industrial revolution of the 18th/19th centuries when vast amounts of capital were amassed by factory owners. It then saw a steep decline in power during the Great Depression of the 1930's and in the post-war era, only to rise once more as the brainchild of none other than Ronald Reagan in the US and Margret Thatcher in the UK in the early 80's. Parallels can also be drawn in the Maltese scenario with the decline of the socialists (MLP) and the rise of the christian democrats (NP) during this period (1987).


The surge of right-wing populism has seen little to no resistance in Europe, give or take a few member states, leaving moderate and far left-wing parties doing a lot of soul searching for the past two decades. Again parallels can be seen in the Maltese political system where the MLP has been confined to the opposition benches for approximately twenty years. Yet the recent economic disaster, the worst of its kind since the 30's, has left laissez-faire capitalist advocates doing some soul searching of their own and low to middle income earners fearing the worst.


Could this be the transition point between one cycle and another? Has the capitalist-dominated zeitgesit become stagnant and out of date? Is it now the turn for socialists and progressives to take over the reins and end the greed that has led to the self destruction of the global economy? I am fairly optimistic that will eventually happen but it is not all that rosy for the left. Next month could see Obama elected as US president and I believe that this would be the prologue of the new cycle which would set the wheels in motion. One can even argue that in actual fact the first steps where actually taken in South America which has seen a huge resurgence of socialism.


But in Europe things are still bleak. I strongly suspect that the British Labour party will suffer a heavy defeat in the next election and will remain in opposition for at least a decade. Things are also looking considerably dreary for the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE). They say that the European's Peoples Party (EPP) is set to make further gains in the next MEP elections whilst the Barroso Comission, which has made Europe less and less social, is strong. Other factors, such as the immigration phenomenon, has seen far-right parties and coalitions set the agenda by directly confronting the situation (and using racist sentiments to their advantage) leaving social democrats and conservatives questioing their next move or even sublty following in the footsteps of the far right.


But if the cards are played right hope remains for Europe and indeed the rest of the world which is yearning for a new cycle to begin. The life-blood of the global economy has been sucked dry and it must be replenished. That the left wins just to change the cycle is not enough, refreshing as it may be. It is very important for social democrats and progressives to find new, efficient and also attractive solutions to the current economic and social policy problems whilst placing the environment equally high on the agenda.

Who ever thought that the extremist right-wing political ideology termed as 'fascism' would be alive in Europe after the grave horrors witnessed during the Second World War and the eventual downfall of Hitler and Mussolini? Think again. What should be a dead and buried political extremity for the very sake of human dignity and social justice is still very much alive in Europe. It may not be there on paper but events are happening around us that are brutally shocking to say the least.

One need only take a look at what has and is happening in the vibrant, beautiful and passionate country - Italia.

Date: 21 - 07 - 2001

Prime Minister: Silvio Berlusconi

Deputy Prime Minister: Gianfranco Fini

Subject: The Police State

Genoa is hosting the G8 Summit held at each calendar year. For those who are not exactly what a G8 summit is, it is an international forum of eight major industrialized countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, USA) which discuss global concerns such as the environment, health, economy so on and so forth. It is therefore quite common that these summits are met by significantly large protests by people who perceive that these country are only meeting to pursue their own hegemony and interests over the entire world through multi-national corporations, the international bankers and serious political machinery.

Around 200,000 of these anti-globalization protesters amassed at Genoa, a handful of which were radical anarchists known as the 'black bloc' who caused mayhem. The rest were ordinary citizens who exercised their right to protest peacefully. Amongst these protesters was the international press exercising their right to gather information. A protest of this caliber is naturally met by riot police, simply to keep law and order, whilst allowing people to protest peacefully. But the Italian riot police under the control of the deputy PM, Gianfranco Fini who was the former national secretary of the neo-fascist MSI-DN (Movimento Sociale Italiano–Destra Nazionale) party were not there to simply keep law and order.

The riot police entered a school were other non-radical protesters were permitted to stay and amongst whom were members of the press. 'Black Bloc, we're coming for you' they said. And then it began. These innocent human beings were subjected to brutal punishment, rape and torture, literally being treated worse than pigs in a slaughter house. "Uno, due, tre, viva Pinochet!" they were forced to sing after there bones were broken and were beaten to a blood pulp. "Who is your government?" they asked. "La polizia" they were made to reply.

Prime Minister Berlusconi, who was happily dosing in luxury whilst this brutal behavior was being adopted by Italian riot police, is currently making political maneuvers to delay court cases dealing with issues that happened prior to 2002.

Date: 17 - 07 - 2008

Prime Minister: Silvio Berlusconi

Deputy Prime Minister: Franco Frattini

Subject: Ethnic Profiling and Cleansing

It is a sunny July day at the beach in Naples. Men and women are basking in the sun, catching up on their tan. A couple is enjoying a quiet picnic. Beside them lay the bodies of two dead Romani (gypsy) sisters, Cristina and Violetta, covered with towels. They have unfortunately drowned. Yet the couple keep enjoying their wine and treats as if nothing is the matter. It took 3 hours for them to be collected by the authorities.

Meanwhile the Italian government goes on with its policy of racial and ethnic profiling of the Romani people by compiling a fingerprint database. They have been singled out as Italy's main source of crime. Italy was shocked that a gypsy was caught stealing a baby earlier in May. But according to Interor Minister Roberto Maroni this is ample justification for Mafia thugs to destroy and burn their camps in an orgy of violence. The Romani people who are spread around Europe live to this day below the poverty line.

Umberto Bossi, the leader of Lega Nord, a fascist party and Minister for Institutional Reform in Berlusconi's cabinet. is one of the masterminds behind this racial discrimination.

This is what is happening in Italy today, a prime member of the European Union.

I am glad that this is not the case with Malta and I hope that it shall never come to be. But I dread that we are slowly moving in this direction. The racial hatred overtones amongst the public is very strong against migrants as witnessed on online journals. Not to mention recent allegations of police brutality against an African migrant (see my article below). Admittedly such a small country cannot possibly handle such a great influx of migrants single-handedly. We need help. But yet there are many who overlook this fact and simply attack migrants. Little do they know that many of these people are suffering great injustice, opression and abuse of human rights in their homeland. Little do they know that they are being detained in shoddy army barracks for several months, living in fear and anxiety literally to the point of insanity. How do I know this? Because I have been there for a brief period of time giving legal aid voluntarily with the NGO - JRS.

I sincerely hope that our people open their eyes as to what is happening around us.

Sources:

The Bloody Battle of Genoa

'Why do the Italians hate us?'