Andrew Sciberras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear readers,


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


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


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


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


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

They say that a day is a long time in politics. How about twenty two years? From the very year I was born till this very day I have known nothing but a nationalist government. For 18 years I didn't bother with politics at all and had absolutely no opinion, therefore the short stint of a Labour government from '96 - '98 was of absolutely no value to me. Ignorance was bliss. Indeed the first time I had voted was in the 2006 local council elections and I developed a bitter-sweet addiction to the pettiness of the Maltese political system since then. The more addicted I became, the more I began to despise it.

On the one hand you have the ever-growing arrogance of the nationalists who, having been victorious for so long, start to believe that the throne of power is theirs for the keeping ad aeternum. The more they win the dirtier they become and should anyone high up dare threaten that power in any way, he or she will quickly find life hell. Harry Vassallo summed up such tactics in superb form last Sunday on illum. Anyone who dared protest by not voting was swiftly given assurances and promised paradise in secret meetings but so tired has government become that this time it did not work so well. And instead of the politics that this country needs we end up with the politics of staying in power at all costs. The massive onslaught of a Labour victory in MEP elections will not change this. Instead it will just prompt the PN to make the necessary changes to its machinery by ousting all the threats in its power circle and beyond. I would not be surprised if the outcome of the recent election turns out to be a blessing in disguise for PN.

Then you've got the alternatives which for me are the PL and AD. Let me start with the PL which is the second major player in Maltese politics. I fancy myself a socialist and did indeed vote PL in the 2008 general election. I wanted to play a role in changing the political climate but above all I wanted (and still do) a political party that takes decisions rooted in the ideology of the center-left. But twenty-two years in opposition has damaged Labour big time as well. Despite Muscat's plea for Labour to start 'dreaming' once more (meta l-Partit holom, rebah), Labour seems to be abandoning certain basic principles (which for me are non-negotiable) because on the chess-board of Maltese politics ideas and principles would not and cannot kill the King. The idea may be to play dirty now, that is to fight fire with fire, and once you're at the top you can then take the decisions based on your ideals. Some (or many) may argue that this is the only way to change the face of Maltese politics: pragmatism first, ideology after.

They tell me that as I grow older the more I will realise that this is the only way. Well I can be on my death bed and I would still view it as a tragedy but let us for argument's sake assume that it is the only way. The most ideal scenario is that we would have 4 years of a Labour Party making statements based on polls and the statistics of popular opinion. During this time Muscat does not act as a leader per se but more as the face of the party, i.e. we would have a MuscatPL. Secret meetings and promises of paradise are abundant especially in those five weeks before the 2013 election. Once it is in government we witness the PL we all wished to see from the very beginning of Muscat's leadership. Muscat sheds the populism and takes the decisions that need to be taken. We accept that the means justified the end and rejoice that we finally got that which we wished for: a Malta making progress. After a while we realise that a group of people are openly attacking Muscat for making u-turns and deceiving them in the run up to the general election and we mock them, we vilify them and the more we do so the angrier they get. The angrier they get the more we try to make their life hell. Three, four years down the line we begin to accept that at least some of these people had a point.

Do you see where I am getting at?

Finally, twenty(-two) years of poor results has put a great big frown on AD's otherwise smiling sun. My fear is that the final blow has been dealt and AD bows out of the scene. It's been a tough time but hey, at least they tried. Straight from the horse's mouth, Briguglio said: 'disband or be more radical...even if we don't win'. This seems to suggest that AD has given up hope on ever winning at all. Perhaps they have accepted that they are the victim of a hopeless political system and I'm sure they're pissed off when in places like France and Germany the greens became the second strongest political force in the respective countries.

Twenty two years of the same has really messed things up for Malta.