Daphne Caruana Galizia, Maltese Society, and Partisan Politics

 Journalism is one of the most important pillars of our democracy, there is no denying it, as journalism is what guarantees that those who are supposed to live up to our democracy - those who are in power as are politician and influential individuals of  our society - are held accountable for their actions. Politicians should accept and also respect that journalists are going to be critical of them when there is the need to do so, and that it is their (the politicians') responsibility to prove to the journalists that they are wrong about what they are saying about them. And, if politicians are unable to defend themselves against what is being said about them, about their honesty and integrity, then they ought to resign from their respective positions. There should be no doubt allowed about the integrity of  politicians by those whose country it is their duty govern, nor should there be doubt on the integrity of those who are on the opposition benches in a liberal democracy, as doubt is what will subsequently bring a lack of trust of the political classes, which will not happen without repercussions to that same liberal democracy. Moreover, it also boils down to an issue of competence: imagine how competent politicians are at living up to the interests of their country and society, if they are unable to live up to their own interest in portraying their true selves as honest persons  (i.e. if what is being said about them is not true). And, it goes without saying that people who lack honesty and integrity should not even be trusted on more trivial matters, never mind politics. Daphne Caruana Galizia had written in her blog allegations that are more than unflattering towards some politicians, corroborated by documents, that albeit inconclusive if some want to make them so, make the position of certain politicians untenable. The untenable nature of their positions still stands today even that Caruana Galizia is dead, and even if these politicians decide to withdraw their libel cases against her, possibly to cover up their own alleged wrongdoings. From allegations of brothels to money laundering to failed promises of credible audits, accountability runs very low in our country,  too low for us to consider ourselves as a normal EU country. For this reason, one trusts that  Daphne Caruana Galizia's family will continue to seek answers, by being exigent that all the libel cases by politicians on her are brought in front of the court as planned. They have already done so with a minister, and for we should all be grateful to them for that, as they continue the fight that Daphne Caruana Galizia had started.  


 Malta is a hostile country to independent and investigative journalism, and also to journalism that requires some kind of thinking or discernment, as people are more inclined to being impressed by what they hold at face value. For this reason, some kinds of radio programmes go down pretty well with the general public, especially if these are of a partisan nature, and require no discernment at all, as opinions are fed to them ready cooked in the form of what one may define as propaganda. Unfortunately, certain kinds of blogs or newspapers (including foreign newspapers) that require more thought and discernment are only read by the very few, and there are some who would read them, because of the allegations they make against the foe of the party that they support. These blogs and newspapers are read by some when they are endorsed by the politicians who they support, and are attacked if they are attacked by those same politicians, or others who they have come to support. It is easier for people to listen to a one sided attack on the party, politician, or journalist they disagree with and come to hate, than to adopt an attitude of true analysis of a situation. And, moreover, we are a country that is happy with sermons and dogmatic speeches on the radio stations, and frown upon free thought or speech, especially when this goes against our parochial and partisan attitudes. People adore politicians, as if they were statues in our parish churches - demigods of an infallible sort, who ought not be questioned, as it would sinful to do so. The same attitudes of scantily dress young women on the shoulders of men of a macho disposition in parish feasts, is seen in mass meetings of our political parties, as these consider politics as if what matters are the piques that lie deep in our culture. With this kind of attitude, and with an inability of some form of discernment, what we get is an attitude that says that the only important aspect to politics is to win, over and above what is best for our country and for the future generations, as it is good to celebrate in the way they do in their parish feasts, and the more satisfactory to spite one's own adversary. Our choice of a leader is based on whether our party will win or loose under his/her leadership, not on the principles that should guide our choices for a common good.

Some people find Caruana Galizia's pictures taken of random individuals at mass meetings or elsewhere, and her comments on the way that they were dressed and/or even behaved as unacceptable. Those who are critical, especially those on the left of our political spectrum, believe that this kind of journalism is prejudiced and brings class hatred into the equation. I am sure that that wasn't the intention of Caruana Galizia. Albeit there might be some truth in their criticism that it isn't right to invade one's own privacy, I can also see a failure on their part to understand what stood behind those pictures i.e. a critique of and against the parochial attitude ingrained in our culture - the macho culture of some men, and the submissiveness of certain kinds of women. She never limited her critique to class, as one may see from her commentary and photos of ministers, members of the opposition party, as well as businessmen/women. Caruana Galizia was critical of the same aspects in society that her own critics were also being critical of. The difference was in the way she did it.

We may see how some politicians do thrive on the attitudes that Caruana Galizia used to hate. The problem is that that kind of attitude is widespread and dominant in our culture, and that it is difficult for any journalist to promote a kind of position in society that goes against this ingrained culture. During the past decades, Caruana Galizia's blog was perceived as if it were a beckon of truth by people who supported the P.N, and was seen as the opposite by those who supported the P.L. Some of those in the P.L who were against what Caruana Galizia spewed hatred against her, calling her a witch, threatened her, and used all kinds of violent adjectives to describe her. Then came the leadership election of the P.N., and some in the party stopped supporting what Caruana Galizia had to say before the general election, and blamed her for the P.N.'s drubbing in the 3rd June general election. Rightly or wrongly, she was  critical of Adrian Delia who then became party and opposition leader after winning the leadership election. At that point we began to witness the same kind of violent attacks on the social media by the supporters of Delia. The attacks were no different to the venom that spewed out of those on the other side of fence, it was the same kind of venom by different people belonging to the same culture of parochial ignorance.
 


         

Who is harming the P.N.?

Sometimes I expect too much from people. Then I am befuddled by what they say, and I think to myself - and sometimes think so aloud on the social media - that there are people who are just unable to grasp things as they stand. We can all see  - i.e. if we are not too  myopic to do so - that there are a significant number of people who are just not convinced by Adrian Delia's leadership. This is a fact that cannot be denied, and whoever does deny this fact, or tries to give an impression that this is not the case by stating that there has been 600 new members in the P.N. are living in a parallel universe that few people know of. We need to face the facts, even if they hurt, or are so unpalatable for us that we manifest our denial and anger with an indignation that sounds more like a tantrum than anything close to somber or constructive reasoning.

In no way am I suggesting that because of this haemorrhage Delia must go. It goes without saying that it is only fair to give the man a chance to prove himself. My point is that there are people who support Delia who are harming him unknowingly - and the party also - and who are so blindly livid, or possessed by a paranoia of an acute kind that they are unable to understand that what they are doing or saying is what is leading to what they themselves are dreading. I will state fairly and squarely that telling people to join the P.L., because they do not support Delia is stupid to say the least. Don't these people realize that if doubters leave the P.N. altogether, there is little chance of any kind of inroads in the next electoral challenge in less than to two years time? Don't they realize that intelligent people do not follow leaders at all cost, and that honourable people are those who are true to themselves? It seems that they are unable or unwilling to reason that way, and for that reason, I am able to state with a degree of certainty that their attitude is what will be the downfall of the P.N., not those who are critical, and who are entitled to be so. You do not tell an intelligent person to shut up, without repercussions.

My advice to Adrian Delia is that he should attempt to calm people down, by telling his own supporters - obviously by persuading them about the harm they are inflicting to his leadership and the party - to stop kinds of comments such as: "you are negative for discussing the idea of a free vote in parliament" or worse still: "you are annoying a lot Nationalists, because you are giving an opinion". People are entitled to an opinion, and a debate on issues of different kinds should transcend the walls of the Dar Centrali. If you want to bring politics to the people, the worst thing you can do is to treat the leader of a party as some kind of titular statue in a village festa, or attempt to shut people up, or worse still, expect everyone's brain activity to be so backwards that the only contribution that they could give to a political debate is: "Delia!!! Delia!!" That's not what the P.N. need. The P.N. should be in the kazini, the grocer etc., but must also be a party that accepts constructive criticism by people who support it. The P.N. should not be a monastery, wherein things are done behind closed doors. The P.N. should be a party that embraces criticism, and is so close to the people that doubters are contacted, and given a voice in within the party. I will advise Delia that it is easy to be liked by some people, because notwithstanding the fact that you are the leader, you seem to be one of us or them - depending on how you see it - by making coffees in kazini, and playing table tennis, or billiards with students. However, you might also need to address the more difficult task of speaking to those who are less easily persuaded about your qualities.


        

   

Robert Arrigo for Deputy Leader

Robert Arrigo has been working for the good of the P.N. for a long time, even during times when things weren't that good for the party and for himself. If politics is to described as a service to the people, then Robert is one who has definitely excelled in that. His way of looking at politics has always been that of being close to the people. And, knowing what the needs of people are, is of utmost importance in politics, as there is nothing in life that is more important than one's own well being in society. As a party for the people, of the people, I believe that Robert really epitomizing what our party stands for.

His view of politics is that we need to understand people, empathize with their needs. Visiting people in their homes is a must in politics, as it gives a politician an idea of what people go through in their daily lives. A politician who is capable of doing this, is even more capable of bringing people together in a political party. This is very much need at this point in time for the P.N., after a leadership election which was intense to say the least. And, I am sure that Robert fits the bill in bring people together. 

To bring people back together, what is needed is someone who is capable of communicating with others, as Robert is surely capable of doing, as one could see from his popularity in the 9th and 10th district. And, I believe that having him as Deputy Leader on party affairs is what the P.N. need at this point in time to bring togetherness back to the party. 

Moreover, Roberts organizational experience, as we can all see in his past business experience and his position as Sliema mayor, will come handy for the P.N. to restructure itself further. A lot of good work has been done during these past 4 years, especially in the party's finances, and it is  important that we have people who could continue to enforce the good work that has already been done.   

    

On honesty and democracy: the P.N. leadership election result

I consider honesty and integrity as important in politics, as it should be in everything we do. However, there is another aspect to politics which we should all cherish, and work for, which is democracy. One of the reasons that I did not want Adrian Delia as leader of the P.N. was because of the allegations that were being said about him. Allegations are allegation, as there is no proof to say whether they are true or false. However, allegations are also a liability to any politician, and Delia is no different in this regard. And, it is for this reason that I have always held that he should clear his name, as not to embarrass the party. My opinion has not charged in this regard since then. I still believe in the necessity of transparency.

On the other hand, I believe that democracy is as important as ethics in politics. Democracy guarantees that the will of the people is respected. Democracy also ensures that minorities are not sidelined by the majority. And, this is even more the case when considering that nearly half of the voters in the election for leader last Saturday voted for Chris Said not for Adrian Delia. This obviously means that Delia, as the new leader of the P.N., needs to ensure that he brings back to the fold those who did not vote for him, and who went as far as to tear up their membership of the party. This is the first test for Delia as the P.N. leader. There are two of things he needs to do to bring back these people to the fold, and if he doesn't  do so, he would definitely fail to bring the party back to its feet again. The P.N. needs to unite behind the leader, if it is to become strong again, and the leader should do what he could to bring everyone on board.

The first thing that Delia needs to do is to persuade each and every member of the party that he knows of who has shown disappointment by tearing his/her membership, by speaking to them individually. He needs to win their trust. He can only do this by proving to them, beyond all doubt, that all that has been said about him is untrue, without seeming too offended or defensive when doing so. The second thing to do is to explain more clearly that he is not an anti-establishment politician of the kind as Donald Trump, and that he is prepared to work with everyone, even those who have been very much against him during the campaign. If Delia manages to do this, then I believe that he stands a good chance to unite the party. I am sure that most of those people who have torn their membership will eventually warm up to him to the benefit of the P.N., and even the country that needs a strong opposition.

On the other hand, it is important that we all accept the choice of the majority. This is done by considering it as a clean slate for Delia, and allowing him to prove that he can really bring the P.N. forward. It is way too early to judge what kind of leader Delia is going to be, and it is important that we all give him a fair chance to prove himself. I am prepared to do so. Are you?
   

Simon Busuttil, the P.N. leadership election, and honest politics

Honesty in politics, and in all walks of life, is the most important thing to have. This is why I respect Simon Busuttil for what he stands for, and what he stood for as P.N. leader. As Leader of the Opposition, Busuttil fought for and spoke tirelessly about good governance in politics, and made this central to the P.N.'s electoral campaign, and during his four years at the helm of the party. Some people say that he focused too much on good governance, but said too little of other things people want to hear about, such as the economy, or daily problems. My take on this is that Busuttil understood that good governance is what ought to be the foundation of a government that could bring sustainable progress to our country, and daily needs are conditioned by sustainability. It is fallacious to believe that the positive economic wave that our country is riding upon at this point in time is sustainable without the good governance to go with it. Thus, the idea of some that they do not care if people in the present government take what isn't there's, as long as the rest of society is better off, is shortsighted and will come to bite them in the future. Corruption will ultimately catch up on us and them with devastating consequences to the economy, and to our way of life, including our daily needs. This is why fighting corruption was central to Busuttil's leadership of the P.N.

Some people say that the P.N. was being run by the blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia, and that her accusations were unsubstantiated. On this, there may be the relevant point that relying on what the independent press comes up with is not the right way forward for any political party; that the P.N. need to be self sufficient However, in most if not all democratic countries, what journalists discover and publish is taken seriously, and there have been politicians who were forced to resign, because of what journalists said about them. On the other hand, I will argue that the P.N. might need to invest more on it's own investigative journalism, while taking into account what independent journalists say about the situation in our country and abroad. What was said about the Muscat government before the last general election by Caruana Galizia raised questions that couldn't be ignored by Busuttil leadership, and he did right to raise the alarm. The prime minister, Joseph Muscat, was unable to come up with a credible explanation on the Panama papers, and the P.N. did the right thing to ask for his resignation, together with that of Minister Konrad Minister, and his (Muscat's) Chief of Staff, Keith Schembri. For a politicians who believes in good governance as is Busuttil, such accusations made the position of all three untenable.

People were called to the streets by the P.N., and a lot of activists and supporters flocked in their droves. They believed what Caruana Galizia said, or rather I used to believe that they did believe what Caruana Galizia said, and were in it because, as did Busuttil. they believed in clean and honest politics. My experience of many P.N. activists was that they were constantly looking forward to the next story that could damage the P.L., and it's leadership in the Caruana Galizia blog. I was one of those who was there, and who supported the P.N, in its fight against corruption, and in support of good governance. I took part in the protest, because I believed and still do that full disclosure and transparency should be central to politics. I did not do it to damage the government, or to propel the P.N. into government at all costs. Could this be said of some people who were present at the protest? My answer to this is "No!!". Some were just interested in scoring points against the P.L., not to bring a better future for our country.

To some extent, I could understand that some people consider politics as if it were a football match, and that they consider winning at all costs as the most important thing. However, having politicians in the P.N. reasoning in that way beggars belief. They should rise up above the populism of the crowd. I remember Clyde Puli, Jean Pierre Debono, and others who now support Adrian Delia's candidature for leader, agreeing with Caruana Galizia, and publicly stating that the prime minister should shoulder his responsibility for not firing Minister Mizzi and Chief of Staff, Schembri, and resign. They expected full disclosure from those in power. I thought that they genuinely believed that full disclosure is the most important thing to do in politics, and I was fooled at the time about their intentions being noble. Nowadays, I doubt whether their true motive was that of fighting for full disclosure. I am more inclined to believe that they adopted a position, because it was in their best interest to do so i.e. for their political career. If they really do believe in transparency and full disclosure, I cannot fathom how they do not have a problem with the fact that the candidate that they are supporting is being accused of the same things, by the same blogger, as were Mizzi and Schembri. Delia refuses to clarify his position about his business interests, and raises doubts because of it, which will harm the P.N.'s long term future i.e. if he becomes leader. Delia was so unconvincing and hazy about his business dealings, when he was summoned to the ethics board, formed by the Administrative Council, that he was asked to withdraw his candidature by that same Administrative Council.

 Busuttil, who has always been consistent and true to his word, said that if he were in Delia's position he would have withdrawn his candidature. In my opinion, Busuttil did the right thing to respect the party structures, and expect that others do the same. On the other hand, Delia was defiant. And those M.P.s I have mention above who support him, welcomed his decision to go against the interests of the party, by defying the verdict given by the Administrative Council. One must not forget that the decision was taken because of what came out from the ethics board, which was the right thing for the Administrative Council to do. Delia's people always use the word establishment to justify their claim against things being done properly. They suggest that the establishment is working against Delia's candidature, which is nothing but a load of baloney. However, in reality, who could be more part of the party establishment than a former parliamentary secretary, and a Deputy Secretary General who have been there since the time of Lawrence Gonzi? If anything the man who is truly not part of the establishment is the outgoing leadership of Simon Busuttil.

If the P.N. is in any way going to continue the fight against corruption, we need someone whose integrity is not in doubt, and who doesn't need to be constantly defending himself when he is supposed to be bringing the party forward. The only candidate who fits that description is Chris Said.

       

       

The PN's current situation: my opinion.

It is important that we bring things into perspective, and stop the hysterics, if we are to be taken seriously. It is clear that things were done with haste, and the election for leader of the P.N. has not been organized that well, because of an uncalled for urgency. This has caused some problems that have been milked by some, as to give a false impression that there is a plot headed by Daphne Caruana Galizia in the Dar Centrali. This kind of opportunistic electioneering must be condemned unequivocally, as it is causing damage to the party we love, and has led to a barrage of attacks by our adversaries. I was watching a program of ONE TV when the whole thing unfolded the day before yesterday, which was presented by Karl Stagno Navarra. The whole aim of the program was to ridicule the PN. They phoned one of our councilors, Dr. Joseph Ellis, and didn't allow him to speak, after which we had Stagno Navarra aggressively rebuking and ridiculing him. I do not think that this was fair towards a man who we all consider as an exemplary and honest gentleman. This is unacceptable, and to be honest, we are bringing all this onto us ourselves, which is a pity. There was Dr. Simon Mercieca calling the decision of the Administrative Council, Stalinist, Dr. Robert Musumeci stating that this was the same kind of situation that made him and Stagno Navarra leave the PN to join the PL, while Dr. Miriam Dalli (the PL MEP) and Dr. Daniel Micallef (the president of the PL) were having a field day stating that they were so sorry for the PN activists, who have been betrayed by their own undemocratic party headed by Dr. Simon Busuttil. Dr. Musumeci also suggested that the PL, which he still defines as a movement, should fill in the void left by a crumbling PN. The attack was mainly on Dr. Simon Busuttil, which says a lot about the true motive behind the whole program. The intention was to discredit Dr. Simon Busuttil and Ms. Daphne Caruana Galizia for their own gain.

It is clear that the PL are trying to divert the attention off the true issue that is still plaguing them up to this very day i.e. corruption. They know too well that by making Ms. Caruana Galizia look bad they are able to make her claims look unconvincing, and this could well absolve them from her accusations on Mr. Konrad Mizzi, Mr. Keith Schembri, and the Prime Minister. We have fallen for that trap, with some of us going as far as to question her claims before the general election, those which we had fought for, and which we should still be believing in i.e. honest politics. We are fighting against each other, and in the mean time we are heading towards the imminent risk that the government is left to run the show without an opposition to fight corruption. May I remind the reader of this blog that the same Muscat government is there to continue its rampage on our countries assets, and that it was Ms. Caruana Galizia who unmasked a lot of what had happened. We owe this to her.

In saying this, it would be wrong to state or consider Ms. Caruana Galizia as infallible, or as an oracle of unquestionable truth. And, for this reason I believe that the PN needs to be cautious before accepting anything she says. We need to verify facts before committing ourselves to a position. We need to become self-sufficient by having the right information from which to take our decisions. Yet, it is equally wrong to treat her as an enemy of the PN or the country (this is what the PL want), as she has contributed so much to the fight against institutional corruption. She has made claims against one of the candidates for PN leader, and it is only right that these claims are investigated, and that we give him the right to defend himself against these allegations which are serious. This is what the ethics board, entrusted with conducting this investigation are going to do. For this reason, it would be wrong for anyone to see this as a sort of campaign against the candidate by this faceless clique. This is precisely how things are done seriously, and it was the right decision by the Administrative Council to make. Now, Dr. Adrian Delia will have the opportunity to prove that he is up to the job and innocent. It is up to him to rise up to the occasion and proof that he does not have anything to hide.          

Winning is not the only thing that matters

In summer, temperatures are most certainly high. Amid the village festas, attended to by droves of eager people, the marketing strategies of politicians are at full swing. Photos are taken, and politicians smile with members of a festive crowd,  together with their bottles or cans of beer. Politicians know that it is important to be seen, that they make people feel that they are one of them. And, maybe then, or possibly only then they will be voted for by some who are only interested in being part of an "us" against "them" dichotomy, a mentality that has been marring our political culture for decades. This is what brings politicians to act is this way, and I do not blame them for doing so, especially when considering the parochial culture that we are living in. Even well meaning politicians, who are many, need to entice this parochial mentality, if they are to make any headway in their political careers. Political parties are no different to football clubs for this tribal element in Maltese society. Politics is discussed over beers in kazini by rowdy and intoxicated macho men, whose idea of what is good for them and their country is somewhat limited to how certain political decisions have effected them in their daily lives, without them even considering the whole picture, such as, for example, the common good which is so important to sound politics. To add to this, their more generic political approach will be about how bad immigration is for our country, with all the racist bigotry that goes with drunken behaviour, but as they say "vino veritas", intoxication does tell some of the truths about things in this country. Maltese politic's future is being discussed in this scenario, a fertile ground for the worst kind of populist politics. And, this is because a distinction is not being made between a bit of summer entertainment like the local festa or good of football match, which I've got nothing against and even enjoy, and politics that should go beyond the kazin bickering and the drunken men. Winning at all costs is what really matters for a crowd that loves to celebrate their superiority to that of the kazin on the other side of the road. But, this should not apply to politics. Winning is not the only thing that matters in politics, as politics is what effects  people's lives beyond the pique coming out of populism. Moreover, the most incompatible aspect that one may find in the festa to that of politics is that for the former it is not enough only to win, but also to enjoy your adversary's disappointment. With this mentality, it is useless winning if there is no other side with their heads hanging downwards in exacerbation or shame. On the other hand, politics it is about bringing people together for the good of society and the country, not punishing your adversary. Yet it is the mentality of pique that people want, and it is this that politicians have to face and cater for when campaigning amid the stench of beer and whiskey in the "marc ta' filghodu". Politicians need to cater for a tribal mentality, without becoming the kind of populist who does more harm than good to national politics. However, there is a very thin line between being close to the people and being an outright populist.

As amid this festiveness, the fireworks, and the excesses that go with them, lurking in the crowds are those who deem power attractive, and who are willing to do what is needed to gain it when the opportunity arises. Many times, this is because that is what boosts their already inflated ego. These are many times outsiders to political parties, and the political game, but might be presidents of the local kazin. They come out of the woodwork of a tribal mentality, and say things that the tribesman or  tribeswoman want to here, or find attractive. Promises that victory is certain if they are made the tribal chief is rife, conveyed to the festive crowd in a rhetoric that is as colorful and as load as the fireworks and brass bands so typical of a festive climate. That is what these kind of people are good at and the crowds want it. The crowd promotes the president of their football club to become Leader of the Opposition, even without the necessary political experience to go with it. However, experience in politics is what really and truly matters, not running a football club, which is a different sort of enterprise altogether. Populism promotes these kinds of pseudo-politicians who go with the flow, project themselves as one of them or us, as accessible blokes with a can of beer and a load demeanor, with no substance to go with it.  This is empowering for some i.e. that is what makes the non-discerning crowd feel empowered. The crowd believes that having "one-of-us" will  mean that their voices are heard, that problems are solved, and that they will all live happily ever after, and also possibly have a bite at the cherry when the opportunity arises. Yet this is far from what really happens in this kind of situation. People will be disappointed. I am sure about it.

Unfortunately, this kind of populism does not work, and leaves people with far less than what they expect or hope for. A politician is no Father Christmas, who dishes out gifts for all those who have been good disciples. There is more to politics than a football or band club. Moreover, it is not only about winning in politics, as politics is also about guaranteeing that people live their lives freely, without the need of a demigod who looks as modest as one may get, albeit his grandeur is there for all of us to see. There is a big difference between local tradition which is fine, and a politics that has become more sophisticated and demanding than ever before, especially since we've joined the EU. We need a clear-headed leadership in the PN that goes beyond songs that sing the praises of the "l-avukat ta' klassi" who will rid the party of the "klikkek" in Dar Centrali, klikkek that by the way are anything but true. We need a leader who was there when we were fighting corruption during the past 4 years, against a government deemed as the most corrupt our country has ever had. The PN does not need a leader who has decided that he wants to become the Leader of the Opposition just two months ago, without the necessary experience. Here, we are considering the future of our party as well as the democracy of our county, not whether one kazin in better than the other. We need experience. We need Chris Said to be our leader.
                   

All we need is moderate politics not populism

They say that good fun is necessary in anything as serious as politics. It might be said that a song might be a bit of fun, whilst communicating a message, one which resonates with people's aspirations. So, when there was the E.U. referendum we had a song that conveyed the message that joining the EU is a good thing. During every general election, every political party has a song with a message that what they are offering is the best for our country. Yet, in most cases these songs are about a party and its policies, not about an individual being some kind of demigod or savour. The last  time we had this sort of thing was in the 1980 s, when a choir of North Korean women sung Dom Mintoff's praises. I really do hope that this kind of cult making does not happen again in our country. We do not need to create cult figures. All we need is moderate and rational politics that is free of populism.

New faces and the PN party leadership

We all express opinions on how to improve things. Yet, opinions must be expressed in good faith, with the intention of improving things. It is wrong for anyone to abuse of a transitory period in the P.N. to avenge old grudges. Nor is a public attack on the outgoing leadership right, if or when it is intended for favouring one candidate over another for party leader, or even worse as an opportunity for personal gain in having a particular candidate as leader. Let us all hope that all those who are participating in this democratic process for the party leadership are doing so for the good of the P.N. and our country, not as a strategy for winning power for themselves. Power is a means to an end, and this end should always be the good of our country and party.

After a defeat in the polls, it is easy for one to say that whoever was in the party during the past four years is a liability, and must go. I am seeing this from those who are supporting a particular candidate for party leader. It is even easier to promote the idea that the outgoing leadership is authoritarian, and that those who are part of this authoritarian setup must go. The argument is that it will only take a new face to rid the party of the tyrants who have been running the Dar Centali for the past four years and before. The truth, however, is that the true motive of replacing those who are already there is nothing other than the personal ambition of some who smell power, and who are acting upon those with ideological disagreements that could easily be mitigated by the right leader. Whilst the so-called liberals and conservatives (what's in a name?) continue to fight, these new-faces will find ways of gaining power by telling both sides what they want to hear, by saying things to one side as against the other, and by encouraging one side to attack the other to their advantage. Those who are fighting for their ideology to be homogeneous and unquestioned in the party are digging their own grave, when attacking the outgoing leadership, the reason is that these so-called new faces are failing to appreciate the hours spent by those who have volunteered to spend hours in the Dar Centrali without being paid, those "conservatives" and "liberals" who have brought the party forward in the last 4 years. Those who are acting on past grudges and who are fighting for an ideological homogeneous party are not realizing that their attacks are weakening the party and their own position even further. We need to support a candidate who could bring the two sides together.

Most of these "new faces" who say that they want to see many people out were nowhere to be seen during the past four years. Does a clean sweep entail getting rid of those who have tirelessly worked to fight for and promote clean politics, including those who are ideologically at odds with the outgoing leadership, but who are men and women who believe in honest politics and human dignity? Moreover, I do not believe that the comments of some are fair towards those who have managed to improve the finances of the P.N., those who have opened the party to people with different needs and aspirations. During the past  4 years, the outgoing leadership has transformed the P.N. into a people's party that is in line with the way that society is moving. Yet, there are some who feel that their position should be given precedence over that of others, and that not giving them this kind of ideological authority is authoritarian. What I tell these people is that their point of view should be considered together with other positions, and that homogeneous political parties are a thing of the past. We need to respect one another's opinion and work together for the good of our country.

With this in mind, I believe that the P.N. need a leader who does not play upon disagreement, but who manages to bring different positions together, and transform them into a direction for the party. In my view the right person for doing this is Dr. Chris Said.                

Dr. Frank Portelli, and his position on minorities

The P.N. has always stood for people's rights and dignity, whoever they may be. Compassion and social justice have always been part of the ethos of the P.N., and with it a good dose of tolerance towards people of different views, coming from different backgrounds and cultures. It is for this reason that I cannot fathom the fact that nothing is being said by the party to stop or disassociate itself from Dr. Frank Portelli's spewing of venom at the minorities of our country. Dr. Portelli happens to be a candidate for the leadership of the P.N., and for this reason must fall within the acceptable boundaries of what is acceptable for the party, a party that has cherished and stands for tolerance and inclusion in our society. Islamophobic rhetoric has never been accepted by the P.N., and should never be. So, why should we accept this kind of language from a candidate who hopes to lead our party? Why isn't anything being said or done to stop Dr. Portelli from saying things that our party is politically and morally against? Isn't there a red line that makes certain kinds of positions unacceptable for our party? Could anyone say what he or she pleases in any kind of contest to occupy a position in the P.N.? I believe that there should be a red line on this. Language that attacks the dignity of fellow humans should not be accepted by anyone who hopes to occupy a position in our party, and Dr. Portelli is no different.

There might be some disagreement between the more conservative and more liberal elements of our party. The reason for this is that our intentions are good, we debate, even sometimes vehemently, because we believe in our values, and put fellow humans at the center of what we say. We all believe in one important aspect in politics, which is defending what we consider as human dignity. We might have disagreements with regards to what human dignity entails. Yet, none of us will say anything bad about the immigrants of our country, use Islamophobic language, or even treat people of different sexual orientations as some kind of abnormal object. The P.N. was the party that opened our country to the rest of the world, by introducing the internet, liberalizing the media, and campaigned and negotiated tirelessly for our country to join the E.U. So, how are we now accepting a kind of language that goes against what our party really and truly stands for, by allowing one of our own to spew hatred against minorities? 

It is right to point out that the kind of politics that Dr. Portelli stands for is similar to that condemned by E.U. institutions (not by the far right) in Victor Orban of Hungary, who has many times  gone against the political group that he and we also belong to i.e. the E.P.P.    

        

My Choice for Party Leader

We all have got our beliefs on who is the right person to fit the bill as our new leader, and I am sure that we all consider the P.N.'s future success when making our choices on who to vote for. I will refrain from stating who my preference is, but will highlight what I believe the direction of the P.N. should be like. May I also state that it is important that the choice of the councilors and members (tesserati) is respected by all, and that all those who want to be in the P.N. fold should accept the prevailing decision in a free and fair vote. 

Everybody likes to win. It is the same with the P.N. activists. The general election result was a blow for all those who had worked hard during the four years. It has also been a blow for all those who believe that honesty should be the way forward for Maltese politics. However, it is important at this point not to divorce our eagerness to win with the purpose of the P.N. as it has been led by Dr. Simon Busuttil. During the past four years our party has fought a battle against the most corrupt government that our country has ever seen. Yet, our economy is doing well, and the majority in this country are pretty comfortable with the situation as it stands today. There have been promotions in the army, and jobs were given out for votes. Those who have gained from these promotions in the army would not care about the fact that a friend of the prime minister skipped grades to become the commander of the AFM. People consider their immediate needs, while disregarding the fact that corruption will bring the country to a situation in which the present standards of living will not be sustainable. All this will implode because of corruption, but alas people do not realize this. For this reason, it is important that the leader that the P.N. will be choosing, will continue to fight corruption, and that he sets an example by being accountable to the country and his party, while making sure that the message is being communicated to the electorate. Honesty should be the foundation of the P.N.'s new leader, as it was with Dr. Busuttil. By stating that we should not divorce our eagerness to win with our mission as a party that militates for honesty in politics, I mean that our eagerness to win should be, because we believe that if we win we will bring honest politics to our country, and eliminate the kind of institutionalized corruption that we have today. We want to win for a purpose, unlike a football team that bases its successes on how many trophies it gets. 

I do not believe in a revolution in the structures of the P.N. Revolutions have always led to dispute or tragedy, while evolution is what brings progress to an institution, party, or country. A revolution is based on conflict, while evolution is brought through dialogue and the goodwill of those of different opinions within an institution, with the aim of bringing sustainable progress. I believe that there are many things that might have to change to make the P.N. electable. These kinds of changes should be made intelligently by consolidating what is good, and removing what one may see as not that good. Revolutions oust people to replace them with others. Evolution is about the inclusion of all, without having to oust others who might not agree entirely with a position. I will be supporting a candidate who will help the party evolve, not one who wants to cause earthquakes within the party. 

I do trust that all those who will be voting for a new leader will not allow an eagerness to win to disregard the raisons d'être of the PN i.e. honest and progressive politics for our country.   

     

Should we Legalize Cannabis?

Most people are arguing that whether cannabis should be legalized or not should depend on whether the drug is harmful to one's health or not. My take on this issue will go beyond health, and more on how the legalization of cannabis would leave our country in general. Will more liberties on drug consumption make us better, or would this be detrimental to us as a country? In principle, I believe that it is wrong to be moralist on the issue, as moralism is what many times brings us into the dichotomy of what is "right" as opposed to what is "wrong". I will not go down that road, as this issue is more about the common good than about whether consuming cannabis is morally "right" or "wrong". What is "right" or "wrong" on these sort of issues, those that effect individuals, is more about the perspective on how one wants to live his or her life than anything else. If cannabis is harmful, self harm should not be anybody's business, and no government should interfere on these sort of matters. Yet, it becomes the government's business when medical expenses come in, and the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill for other people's decisions. This also applies to the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and junk food. The question is: should we pay for the medical expenses of someone who has brought trouble onto him/herself? Cannabis might have some medicinal benefits, but might also cause physical or mental health problems if used excessively. Cannabis, like alcohol, has also got some short term effects, namely anxiety and paranoia to problems with attention, which makes it dangerous for users to operate machinery or drive. On the other hand, when one makes an illicit drug legal, it is possible that it no longer remains in the realm of criminal gangs, which is a good thing. People start to pay taxes when consuming cannabis, and there might be more controls over where people consume the drug.

In principle, I am in favour of the legalization of cannabis, as long as things are not rushed into parliament as they were on number of occasions. The government shouldn't take these issues as a way of winning points over the opposition, as they did on gay marriage. On such issues, like all others that effect our society as a whole, we need a mature discussion on how to get the law right, as to guarantee that law and order is kept for the good of all individuals. The legalization of mind altering substances, with possible health repercussions, should be implemented with also those who do not want to consume the drug in mind, who are expected to live side-by-side with those who do. On the health issue, my point of view has always been that any product that harms human health should be taxed according to the medical expenses that these might bring to the taxpayers of our country. Thus, a study on the health risks must be made for this reason. This must include not only hash, but also junk food, tobacco and alcohol. People must pay for their decisions, and it is only right that they do so with their medical expenses. Taxation is good, because it allows people liberties, without putting a financial burden on the rest of society. It is important that the consumption of the drug is restricted to certain places, places that are secure for the users and all those present. This also applies to the consumption of alcoholic drinks (laws exist, but aren't enforced, we should start by enforcing the laws on alcohol consumption). Issues regarding paranoia and anxiety should be catered for in public places where cannabis is being consumed, to ensure the safety of all present, as should be done with alcohol and any mind altering  substance. However, law enforcement on alcohol is very weak, which augurs badly for when or if cannabis is legalized. This is my greatest worry

Another issue that might crop up, and which worries me a great deal, is whether we should transform our country into a partying paradise for foreign young people, and a hell for all the local residents. Some areas in Malta, namely Sliema, St. Julians, and Bugibba, have already become places where partying is rife in ways that are a nuisance to local residents. Legalizing the plant shouldn't be used as a marketing strategy for bringing more young party goers to our country, with the noise, vomit, and bad behaviour that to go with it.
                 

Where were you Police Commissioner?

Things never seem to go away, especially when they are too obvious to dismiss, and thank goodness for that. General elections are not the court of justice, nor do they absolve politicians and public officials from their wrongdoings, if there are any. Try as they may, as time subsides, politicians and officials will need to face the music for not doing their job properly. No covering up is foolproof. as covering up entails shutting the mouths of honest men and women. And, this is what has happened yesterday, when an ex-FIAU official, Mr. Jonathan Ferris, spoke to the Sunday Times to tell us that the police commissioner did not honour his duties, and because of this he has failed to protect the Republic of Malta from alleged criminality. This was also said by the PN opposition before the general election under the leadership of Dr. Simon Busuttil, and no "Simon falz" campaign, nor do the false accusations of negativity regarding the PN opposition change what is cast in stone i.e. wrongdoers will never set their minds at rest, and their actions will one day be apprehended and sanctioned. Misgivings caused by this lack of commitment by Malta's police force will one day come to haunt the government, and will continue to do so till the very last day of this political cycle.

Questions are already being asked regarding why the police commissioner had failed to follow the normal procedures when the prime minister's chief of staff, Mr. Keith Schembri, was being accused of money laundering. Why weren't the allegations registered at the police registry, and given a CID number, as normally happens? Why did it have to be the leader of the opposition to take the initiative for the allegations to become the subject of a magisterial inquiry? Where was Mr. Lawrence Cutajar in all this? Even if Police Commissioner Cutajar believes that Mr. Schembri is innocent, there is always no good reason not to register the FIAU files, and in this way make them seem not to exist.

Mr. Ferris who worked for years in the Criminal Investigation Department before joining the FIAU is known as being a thorough investigator, who had also once prosecuted his own cousin. All he is asking for is that procedures are kept, and that the police do their job. He said about the Pilatus incident that before having his fenkata, Mr. Cutajar should have followed procedures by phoning the Msida branch to get the inspector to open an investigation. Why weren't procedures kept by Mr. Cutajar? Why did it have to be the prime minister to open an investigations on his wife's and his own financial activities, when it had to be the police commissioner to do the job?

My point isn't on whether Mr. Schembri or Dr. Muscat are innocent or guilty, it is about having our country's institutions working properly as should be the case in a modern democracy. In which civilized country do you have the prime minister opening a magisterial inquiry about himself, and have opposition leader doing the job that should be done by no one other than the Attorney General?
.  

      

Politicians and the Needs of Civil Society

We live only once in this world which we know of, and they say that it is what you make of life that counts. This is true to some extent or another. Yet, what we are and the experiences we have in our lives are very much determined by how people treat us as fellow human beings. It is also about how society perceives us and treats us as individuals or as an individuals of a kind, and the fairness or lack of it that governments are willing to give us. If we consider a single mother, the needs she has, it is important that a proactive government is there for her, not out of compassion, but because she has got needs, and it is a government's role to cater for her needs, and  her needs should be of importance to a politician who means well, and who doesn't want to discriminate against a part of society. Considering her as sinful, and legislating with this in mind is surely abdicating of one's responsibility as a politician. We shouldn't condemn her as anything less in a world of unequals, because she isn't what is deemed by some as part of  a "normal" family unit. No government should be a judge of what is "normal" and "what isn't", what is "natural" and "what isn't" and legislate accordingly. This kind of dichotomy is what has led to minorities of our country and others to suffer prejudice. If, one says that a person is living an unnatural existence, because he or she is gay or lesbian, one is saying that there is a superior kind of person who is not gay or lesbian, and that this should give the latter greater rights to the former. This is what I count as discrimination. And, discrimination is wrong and should be condemned.

It is easy to say that one's point of view is right, because it is objective, or because it abides to a natural law. Yet, what is natural or unnatural is culturally determined, it is what some human beings do to come to terms with themselves to the detriment of others. Coming to terms with our own existence in a world which exists materially, but which only gets a meaning through language when   human beings decide to give it a meaning, is our own private business, and shouldn't be imposed on other people. There is no meaning out there, no natural laws, there are human beings who happen to find ways of surviving whatever is thrown at them. Language is what we have, and the language that politicians should be using should be of the kind that liberates rather than suppresses.

On Migration and Oil Exploration

Our country hasn't had migrants from Africa for quite some time now, when our neighbours Italy have had an influx of 12,000 people in just 48-hours last week. According to the Sunday Times of London, there are people in Italy who are asking questions on the reasons why Malta is not taking migrants in, as we are closer to Libya than they are. This is a legitimate concern by our neighbours, because questions with regards to whether a nation respects international humanitarian obligations is of an ethical and social concern. The other question that arises is: if we aren't reaching our international obligations, what has led us to not doing so? In July 2013, the situation of migration to Malta was so imminent that our prime minister Joseph Muscat was speaking about push backs. According to U.N.H.C.R statistics, the highest point for migrants coming to Malta by boat was in 2008. It was also the highest in Italy in 2008, which led to an agreement between Gaddafi and Berlusconi to cooperate so that boats intercepted by Italian coastguards are forcibly sent back to Libya. This  was in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. However, the agreement collapsed with the revolution in Libya in 2011. After that, figures rose again in both Italy and Malta. They reached the highest in 2013, when 2008 migrants reached the Maltese shores by boat from North Africa. However, from 2013 onward numbers began to dwindle to reach an all time low of 25 migrants in 2016 in Malta.

In the mean time, things have become so disparate in Italy that the Italian M.E.P. Mario Borghezio had to recently bring up once again accusations that Malta has traded oil exploration rights to Italy in return for the latter taking the former's share of migrants. My take on this is that this would mean that our country is buying itself out of its humanitarian obligation, which entails not contributing towards aiding victims of war and mass displacement in one of the greatest humanitarian crisis since the holocaust. This is unacceptable, when considering the way in which our country is selling passports to rich migrants, while failing to help those who are really in need. Muscat's government perceives money over and above human life, not to mention honest dealings on an international sphere, which I find as unacceptable as worrying. There are things in life that are more important than money, such as compassion, honesty and integrity. The P.L. government has been failing on this front.
         

Gay Marriage Legislation and a Free Vote.

Our country is made out of people of different kinds, who live their lives differently to one another. We have become a country in which aspirations differ, and it is because of this that the P.N. must remain a party for the people as Dr. Simon Busuttil is leaving it. The P.N. cannot become a party that represents only one kind of people, if being in government is to become a reality. The P.N. must be the party that everyone is comfortable with, because if it isn't people will just not vote for us. We cannot exclude people because of their sexuality, nor should we exclude conservatives who are an important part of our party. It is about allowing democracy to take its course, and not allowing anyone to create a homogeneous situation in within our party. It is all about reaching a right balance, and finding ways of making divergences in the P.N. our strength. This is why I have been suggesting all along that having a free vote on ethical issues should be the way forward for the P.N.

However, there is another aspect to politics that all politicians must be expected to respect i.e. living up to their promises. It must be said that being conservative out of conviction is fine, as M.P.s should feel free to express their ethical position without being hindered by their respective parties. What is wrong is when you get politicians who go along with the party stance, to go against what they seemed to be in favour of after the general election which is nothing other than deceit. If there were candidates in the P.N. who were against gay marriage, these should have said so before the general election not after. It is neither conservative, nor is it liberal to contest a general election with a promise to then break it, when the electorate had decided to vote for you. It is outright deceit to do so. There was nothing about a free vote on gay marriage in the P.N.'s electoral program, thus it is a must that all opposition M.P.s vote in favour of the bill if they are to be taken seriously.
   

On Natural Law and Gay Marriage Legislation.

It is only fair that people are allowed to live their lives to the full. It is fair that people are not insulted in any way by others, because of who they are. It is also imperative that we all understand that in an inclusive society fellow humans are treated equally, in being allowed to be themselves. This is why I cannot but disagree with what some are saying about gay marriage legislation. I cannot but passionately disagree with those who argue that it is unnatural that a man marries a man and a woman a woman. These people speak about common good, reason and natural law, but are far from compassionate. Moreover they fail to understand that common good and natural law just do not tally together. What is common and good is relative to who you happen to be in society, and what is rational is determined by ones own personal outlook of the world around him or her, which is a far cry from reflecting what is really and truly truth.

We create sentences as points of view, as to make sense of situations we come across in the world around us, and no point view reflects the world as it is or was. Those who say it does are just playing at making their point of view dominant and oppressing those of others. A language that is free from truisms equips us with the ability to create language in laws in parliament that encourage greater freedoms for individuals whose way of life has been suppressed by what was a confessional state. A well done to Simon Busuttil for considering justice for gay men and women, notwithstanding the fact that he has been undermined by those who are supposed to honour a pledge made by the P.N. opposition before the general election. A well done to Simon Busuttil for really and truly considering dignity as important, unlike those who use the word freely as to make their point of view unquestionable.          

Jes Grixti: an appreciation

It was some time in 2002, when I was researching for my first degree dissertation at the Cathedral archives that I met the composer Jes Grixti. At the time he was completing his PhD in musical composition at the University of Melbourne, Australia, which required of him to edit Paolo Nani's opera La Mezza Notte. And, it was this that brought him to the archive, and where our paths met. Since then we remained good friends, even after he had relocated back to Australia. I recall attending concerts of his, one of which was at the Manuel Theatre foyer, where his work for harp Requiem for Peace (2005) was performed by the British-Maltese harpist Cecilia Sultana De Maria, another was his We are Young and Free (2004) for solo piano performed at St. James Cavalier, and his Concerto for Guitar and Orchestra (2005) performed at the Grand Masters' palace in Valletta. In all these performances, what has always struck me in Jes Grixti's work are their intensity, structure, complexity, and a high level of technical prowess in orchestration.

Yesterday's concert at the Grand Masters' palace, performed by the Malta Philharmonic Orchestra, was no different. Jes Grixti's Zibeg u Bocci was premiered for the first time, together with the works by other Maltese composers. In this concert, the power and organizational structure of his work stood out from all the rest. The concert entailed Maltese folk instruments and orchestra. His instrument of choice was the guitar, which he used economically and effectively. A well done to all the composers, but most of all Jes Grixti. 
        

On Gay Marriage Legislation

It is quite typical for the P.L. not to consult the opposition, and the P.N. MP David Agius is right to resist this sense of self entitlement that followed their enormous victory. Yet, I disagree with the way in which we are conflating culture with legislation. If it is in our culture to refer to our mother as our mother, and our father as our father, legislation will not wipe this culture out of our discourse i.e. it takes much more than legislation to wipe out certain words from our vocabulary. I believe that removing such terms will cater for those same sex couples that need to define their roles to their children and the rest of society (it is more about practicality than anything else). With this I will add that it is important that children are educated about this new social reality, so that we may avoid discrimination and bullying in schools, and promote more inclusion in Maltese society.

I also believe that David Agius's way of doing politics is exemplary and constructive, as it accepts the fact that gay marriage was included in the P.N.'s electoral programme. In my previous contribution to this blog, I argued that ethical issues should be subjected to a free vote. I am also adding to this that this should become part of the party statute. Yet, it is as important for pledges to be honoured, if the P.N. is to be taken seriously. It is for this reason that I cannot understand how certain M.P.s and former M.P.s are resisting the legislation of gay marriage. Tonio Fenech went as far as to argue that if the P.N. votes for gay marriages, more votes will be lost for the P.N. It is strange that Fenech is not realizing that what brought the P.N. to the current situation are people like him, when he was a government M.P. and after, when he resisted divorce and foolishly brought in the Virgin Mary into the argument, or when he hindered his own party from voting with the government on civil union. That's what made the P.N. lose votes, not it becoming a party for the people as the incumbent leadership worked so hard to achieve. It was this sense of self-righteousness of people of his sort that did not allow those in the party who disagreed with party stand not to voice their opinion in the pre-2013 P.N. government. 

I will repeat that I am for a free vote when it comes to ethical issues. Yet, some who speak of a free vote today were not that in favour of it when their kind of politics were dominating the P.N. i.e. pre-2013.       

The P.N.: Is it about being Conservative or Liberal?

Conservatives in the P.N. are complaining that they are not being listened to. For this reason it is important that the P.N. becomes more open than it already is today. In other words, the P.N. should not become confessional or insular, as some are suggesting, but should become relevant for both conservatives and liberals a like. It is possible for those who are in favour of civil liberties to live side-by-side with more conservative elements, if the party embraces both positions as equal, and doesn't try to silence any position. The P.N. should be more open, so that both so-called conservatives and liberals are comfortable within the party. The questions is: Is this attainable? And if it is,  how could this balance be reached?

I will explain myself by giving examples of how the P.N. tackled civil liberties, and present my ideas on how they could have been tackled better. Let us take the divorce referendum: this all started with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's private members bill for divorce to be legislated, which opened the door for a referendum. The party took a stand against divorce throughout the referendum. The way forward would have been allowing a free vote, and the P.N. not taking a stand in favour or against divorce. However, adopting the latter position costed them dearly. It drove the liberal middle class voters away from the party. Then after the 2013 election came the civil union legislation and the abstention by the P.N. The way forward in both situations would have been to allow a free vote in parliament.

The P.N. should not take a stand on ethical issues. Ethical issues are private matters, and should be represented in parliament by M.P.s., who represent constituents and their ethical positions among other things. The M.P.s should be allowed by the party to represent in parliament what they perceive  the way forward on ethical issues i.e. without the hindrance of the parliamentary whip or party. A free vote should always be the solution for ethical issues of all kinds. This will make the P.N. an inclusive party that allows people of different opinions to live side-by-side in the same party. M.P.s will not need to go against their conscience, because they are part of a more democratic mechanism that allows them to express themselves on the issues that concern them most. Adopting this system will also ensure that civil issues are not exploited for political gain as the P.L. did on L.G.B.T.I.Q issues. Liberals, conservatives, and minorities should always be respected.
           
       

Joseph Muscat and the E.P. Debate

We've  all got our opportunities to defend ourselves in life, even when we are wrong. It is only fair that people are given the opportunity to prove their innocence. And, this is the opportunity that Joseph Muscat had yesterday during the European Party debate. But, alas instead of helping us out of the mess he has brought us into, Joseph Muscat continued to defend his political interest to the detriment of his own country. Most M.E.P.s are harshly against many aspects of our financial service and gaming industry, and against our Individual Investment Program, and were well placed yesterday to show us that. The mafia in the gaming industry was  mentioned by a particular M.E.P., but so was the fact that our prime minister has decided to keep both Keith Schembri as his chief-of-staff and Konrad Mizzi as minister, following the humongous victory he enjoyed in the general election. It is clear that the kind of financial services we are providing to corporate business go down pretty badly with a large number of countries, and that yesterday's debate was the opportunity for them to get a swipe on our system. After all this is what benefits them the most, as we are a jurisdiction that is denying them of what they perceive as their taxes. Unfortunately, this might also mean that there are countries  that want to homogenize corporate taxation throughout the E.U. This would bring disaster for our financial services,  gaming industry, and with them the construction industry.

It was because of this that the P.N./E.P.P. euro-parliamentarian, Roberta Metsola, admitted that yesterday's debate was a dark day for Malta. I agree with her on this, when I consider the damage made by initiatives such as the Individual Investment Program that has already raised eyebrows within the E.U. parliament. Just imagine the reaction when  this is seen in the context of Keith Schembri's and Konrad Mizzi's Panama accounts, Brian Tonna and B.T. group, and the allegations of kickbacks concerning all. This is damning to our country. Yet, what Metsola promises augurs us some respite, as she will not be accepting claims made by critics who use political scandals to attack Malta's financial services. It is clear that Joseph Muscat has opened our country to such attacks, while Metsola is attempting to repair what has been damaged by the most corrupt government that our country has ever had.

Joseph Muscat, on the other hand, is blaming the P.N.'s M.E.P.s and the P.N. for the current situation He says that the P.N. is working against their country. This is as if  this whole saga wouldn't have been revealed all the same, with or without the opposition. He wants people to believe that the situation wouldn't have been revealed in the Panama papers and by the foreign media, had there not been the opposition's hand in it all. However, contrary to what Muscat says, it is in fact the P.N. that is guaranteeing to the E,P. and the world that our country is really and truly against corruption. The P.N. M.E.Ps  might be what will provide Malta with a better reputation overseas, by stating that not everyone is corrupt. This will guarantee that there are prospects that this racket will one day stop and things will be back to normal in our country. On the other hand, Joseph Muscat is stating that he will defend Malta, when in actual fact he does not have the credentials to do so, as it is he who has brought us in this situation by keeping Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri before and after the general election. However, as Werner Langen said yesterday during the E.P. debate, Joseph Muscat will definitely not get out of this scotch-free. Langen and others (including the P.N. opposition) will continue to pursue the P.M. until justice is made. Alas, in the mean time our country's financial services are going through irreparable damage, as our smiling and defiant prime minister proceeds on the route of destruction.
         

Tonio Fenech and Irrelevance

On the Malta Independent today, former P.N. minister, Tonio Fenech, expresses his view that he is befuddled by what the P.N. stands for today, and argues that the P.N. has been left in a vacuum and has become irrelevant because of that. He says that he wasn't puzzled 20 years ago on what kind of party he belonged to i.e. that he knew that he belonged to a Christian Democrat party. He then makes us believe that he is against the new position  adopted by the P.N. on civil liberties, and he goes as far as to the say that we cannot compete with the P.L on such issues, because Joseph Muscat doesn't have a problem when crossing the red line. What Tonio Fenech seems not to understand is that the kind of homogeneous/confessional politics he stands for will definitely relegate the P.N. to irrelevance, rather than the kind of openness brought on by Simon Busuttil's leadership.

He speaks of "a stronger and fairer society"and then says that "while embracing globalization, we did not shy away from protecting our society from its negatives". On one hand he is saying that we need to be fair, and then says that we need to protect society from the negatives (how paternalistic that sounds!!!). Tonio Fenech must realize that people do not need anyone (him included) to protect them from the civil liberties that have reached our shores and made our country fairer. What kind of negatives is Fenech referring to? He speaks about the idea of upholding the values of the traditional family (i.e. as against the rights of LGBTIQ couples?). Does upholding the values of a traditional family mean that other kinds of families are inferior, or that they should not enjoy the same rights as those that he deems as "normal" and "traditional"? Is this the kind of fairness and justice that Tonio Fenech stands for? He says that what he suggests is what Christian Democracy is. Well, yes, Victor Orban of Hungary, who is far cry as far as democratic credentials go, and is condemned by the same E.P. group we and he belongs  to (the E.P.P.) reasons that way. Angela Merkel, who is also a Christian Democrat believes the contrary to what Tonio Fenech is suggesting, and is for the kind of Christian Democracy that the P.N. stands for today i.e. an economically conservative but socially liberal political party. Considering sections of society as "lesser animals" isn't Christian, nor is it just, and worse still it is highly undemocratic as it seeks to suppress the rights of minorities. As a councilor and a Christian Democrat, I will back a more open and inclusive party as Simon Busuttil does. I will fight wholeheartedly against the kind of confessional and discriminatory politics that Tonio Fenech and his kind stand for.        

   

The PN and History

Questions will be asked, in fact they have already been asked on many occasions, and analyses will be made following a defeat of that magnitude, as that is what happens in such circumstances. The P.N. is at a crossroads, we all know that. Better times are in the past for the P.N, and alas they are just memories that belong to a history that the party is so proud of.  History of its successes is important for the P.N., a pride predominant in the party's discourse, etched in stone, and repeated ad nauseam by the party on various occasions. Trust that partisan pride of past successes does works electorally, trust that it would rub onto the electorate is rife as it is counterproductive. Historical success and a glorious past didn't and will not work as far as electoral success goes, as the electorate is not interested in history, nor is the electorate interested in the P.N.'s past. Discourse that aspires is what people want, like those that the P.N. of past successes had. The electorate does not want flaunting about successes that no longer exist, as such flaunting is irrelevant for today's prevailing bread and butter issues, and issues such as civil liberties which the party has failed upon. We need a discourse that  aspires and inspires us as Maltese citizens, as did  Independence, "Work, Justice, and Liberty" after 16 years of a close-to-totalitarian situation under a Socialist government, and E.U. accession. We do not need a narrative about a glorious past, as there is not much to be said about what has already happened (nothing could be changed or be made better in what has already happened). Moreover, if there is too much emphasis on the past, the impression will be that the P.N. is resting on its laurels (past successes), and that it is not open to change and the betterment of peoples' quality of life. Unfortunately, the P.N. still seems to believe that past successes are what guarantee inevitable progress in the future, thus a sense of self-entitlement that is so much criticized. One cannot but also mention the fallacious nature of the motto that says that "what is right will always prevail". My take on this is that what is right needs to be fought for, through conviction and persuasion if it is to prevail. It is not history that people want or need, but ideas that relate to how people imagine themselves in the future. The P.N. policy documents were detailed, however people did not know what they say, because people are too impatient to read what is inaccessible to them to begin with. Even if one considers these documents as good for a party to have as a guideline (which they are), they do little to convince Tom, Dick and Harry. Policy documents should be an internal affair, to be worked upon, and to be amended when the need arises, but surely aren't what people are expected to read. The P.N. has catered for the educated alone, but forgotten all the rest when relying on policy documents to convince the electorate, and for this reason they were punished by a strong marketing strategy by the P.L., a strategy that has worked, as it spoke of better days to come, even if it could be deceitful and untrue. Honesty works, but so do peoples' dreams.