There’s more to life than general elections. We all know that. Even now that we still record the aftermath of the election and start to settle back to a more “normal” life – after the election, after the holidays and after the break – it becomes more and more apparent that change will go its own way as we struggle along to make ends meet. Or enjoy life in all its beauty in truly Mediterranean fashion. At least you can. It’s still cold here in Luxembourg and until last Monday there were still traces of snow around. Such is the life of the Maltin ta’ barra (expatriate Maltese). Now to the punditry...
The Partnership – now you see us now you don’t
So what’s all this fuss about the government reactivating Malta’s membership in the Partnership for Peace? Wasn’t that meant to be a foregone conclusion? Not really mate. You see, when Cabinet chose to reactivate the PfP on 26 March it chose to ignore a number of questions that are best not swept under the carpet. Most of them have nothing to do about whether or not you agree or disagree with Malta’s participation in this partnership but rather with whether you (and many, many other people) have had a say in this decision in the first place. They have a lot to do with the accountability that is linked with governance and with the mandate a party obtains from the electorate when it is elected to govern.
Where to begin? The PfP itself is a sensitive issue by Maltese standards. Partisan perspectives only come later in the “narrative”. One can identify two main lines of thought among those who are genuinely interested in the policy aspects affected by the PfP. If you will excuse my generalising the issues, they fall mainly either within the “PfP is unconstitutional because it violates the neutrality clause” and those who don’t agree. I have my own opinion on this particular issue and it is rooted in the belief that the neutrality clause as it stands is an insufficient benchmark in today’s world. The issue right now is not however what the two sides of the debate think... or what they would think if there had been a debate.
... but there was no debate. The PfP is a sensitive issue. Some people will tell you that it’s anti-constitutional. They believe that it jars with our neutrality clause. Now let us forget for a minute how the neutrality clause was born. Let us forget that there is much to discuss about the neutrality clause itself and its relevance in today’s world. Let us forget all that. We still have a current issue – PfP on which Malta as a nation has shown itself to be undecided to say the least.
The DNA of our country’s PfP participation is as schizophrenic as any decision that emanates from our current way of making politics work. Just go over to the Wikipedia page (www.wikipedia.org) on the Partnership and you will see what I mean. There are Current Members, Signatories who became members of Nato, and then there is Malta – still listed under Former Members but with an addendum posted last week that its membership has been reactivated. Once again Malta will have that farcical position of being in a group but with one foot threateningly holding the door open in case it wants out fast. How useful will that be when speaking in EU security circles is questionable? We are members… but ah yes, we might have an expiry date stuck to our membership.
RCC and our representatives in Brussels will rightly say that membership was necessary to be included in EU talks on security. That can be used as a valid argument for joining PfP, true. Just as much as an argument from a person like Mike Briguglio on the constitutionality or otherwise of Malta’s membership is equally valid. How do we decide which argument is to trump the other?
Right now the country is still split in two about the issue. True, you have the Labour masses still giving a knee-jerk reaction based on Alfred Sant’s withdrawal in 1996 – based on an electoral promise. True, a substantial part of the other half is more concerned about backing gonzipn than about the consequences of PfP membership. Therein lies part of the problem. Like EU membership, the partisanisation of the issue does not help Malta’s credentials abroad. Unlike the EU issue, this time there is no referendum to partially back up the current status of Malta’s policy. In the EU case all forms of democratic consultation were in place – from referendum, to general elections and all sides have accepted the final decision.
For the PfP we have the current Nationalist government – that same party that made a fool out of Alfred Sant’s governmental measures that were not mentioned anywhere in his electoral manifesto – doing an Alfred Sant and presenting the people with a fait accompli. It would seem that this is what electoral compensation measures are for. Writing in The Times, Harry Vassallo asked: “Why don’t we just elect a government? In fact, why don’t we just elect a Prime Minister and let him have a free hand in choosing nine good men and women to run the show? It would be a lot cheaper.” The irony of that statement will be lost on the partitarji (partisans). Harry is a loser now – a tellief. Like more than half of the electorate he has lost his right to speak his mind about anything. Any residual rights he may have will be swiftly taken care of by the character assassins of note that are employed to kill the messenger before any message is driven home. You’re too pompous Harry – you wanted a slice of the government cake and now you are sour. Lemons, lemons and sorrow for you. And please do shut up.
Whenever I say that the mechanisms of representation are being distorted I normally get remarks in return that are related to the importance of governance. But is this the kind of governance we want? Should we do away with Parliament altogether? We might as well at this rate. Forget the peacocks, the chickens and any other birds with wings… we should all just stand in awe and watch another winged monster hatch from its egg… Malta’s volatile foreign policy. Once again… thank you MLPN.
Of poodles, peacocks and other animals
One blogger has taken to describing various members of the Labour galaxy by comparing them to different animals. Leadership contender Joseph Muscat retained his moniker of “poodle”, Jason Micallef gets his feathers ruffled by being called the “peacock” and for a while Alfred Sant was the “chicken”. Needless to say, the kind of debate afforded on this kind of blog has nothing to do with constructive proposals on the future of the Labour Party. It tends rather to attract aficionados who play along with the game to their hearts content – some of whom are happy to get their own back for the not so funny “Run Rabbit Run” jokes of the mid-eighties. Partisan seeds tend to bloom in funny ways – or as Forrest would have it... Stupid is what stupid does.
Last week I wrote, “We are all Labourites now”. It was a rhetorical statement based on the fact that we all have an interest in a strong Labour Party in the future. We have an interest in having a valid Opposition, one that hopefully gets us started on the line away from partisan cross-party slinging. It will be hardest for those on the other side of the deep partisan divide to understand how important it is for the Labour Party to get out of this period of change stronger and wiser. Rather than devoting their energies to character assassination before the leadership race has even taken off, it would be much more constructive to give whatever input as to what the ideal Labour Party would look like. I admit that it may be a tad idealistic to expect a fervent Nationalist to suddenly prescribe the right formula for a Labour Party he might vote for in the future. Still, it’s always worth a try.
And while we are on this point I would like to ask a question. If someone like Joseph Muscat who spent all the pre-referendum time warning of the evils of the EU now seems to have regretted his position and clearly states that he is pro-EU membership, what good is it to still punish the man with his previous record? True, it took the man a long time to finally notice the benefits of membership but once he has, is it constructive to go on holding his previous position against him? Methinks not. Otherwise I begin to doubt the sincerity of those who claim to wish Labour well and then practically rule out anybody who in anyway stuck by his party at a time when Alfred Sant enthusiasm was high.
This is not to say that I back Joseph Muscat in particular, or anyone else, in this leadership race. My worry lies more in the kind of assessment we make of each and every contender. Historic track records do have their rightful place in the assessment but I am not thoroughly convinced that this “you were on the anti-EU side” approach remains a valid point with which to criticise. It does have the worrying effect of ruling out most (if not all) of the Labour Party – with the consequences, five years down the line, too easy to foretell and too sad to imagine. I strongly believe that it is time to bury the hatchet with regard to the EU issue. The nation has accepted the decision of the people. By the nation I also mean the Labour Party. Let the leadership contest go ahead on other matters altogether; I believe that the anti-EU question should no longer be an issue. It will be up to the new Labour Party to make it clear once and for all that EU membership is no longer a question but a happy reality of Maltese politics. In the meantime all elements that have long crossed the line to the pro-EU side should be allowed to work freely in this reconstruction. Malta needs it.
The mosquito, Tibet
and Sarko
Malta managed its first goal-scoring avalanche this week – thanks partly to our Mosquito. No goals were being scored in Tibet. Nor for humanity for all that it matters. Assigning the organisation of the Olympics to China had raised some eyebrows at the time. We were reassured that China had committed itself to improve its human rights record by the time the Olympic flame was lit and started its trip to Beijing. We all know that things have turned out otherwise. The orange of the flame is a sad reminder of the orange robes of the monks whose voices have become louder and louder as they protest against the regime in their own land. Calls for a boycott of the Opening Ceremony seemed to be gathering momentum even though the IOC prefers what it calls “silent diplomacy”.
A loud voice was heard from an unexpected corner when President Sarkozy spoke about the Tibet issue in the Houses of Parliament. It was a moving speech and heralded a possible new era of “Entente Amicale”, which the UK seems intent on transforming into an “Entente Formidable”. Criticise Sarko if you like but the man is a doer. He hasn’t been in government for too long but he has got the Union of the Mediterranean going, he is prodding the UK into a more active participation in the EU and also had words of criticism for the Lisbon patchwork – admitting that the amending treaty was not just “boring” for the people but also for the politicians. I see a man determined to make big changes with all of Europe (and a bit of the Maghreb and Middle East) in mind.
Malta might have an important role to play in these plans. Let’s hope that when the time comes we will be ready as a full-fledged representative democracy with at least two strong parties and that farces like the PfP issue become a thing of the past.
Jacques René Zammit
blogs daily at http://
jaccuse.wordpress.com.
Comments are welcome