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.