Just like the majority of the concerned electorate, I think I have read most of what the public media and bloggers had to say so far about the dire situation our country is facing. To this effect I would like to express gratitude to the investigative journalists who brought to light the extent of the damage incurred and would really like to think that theirs is not a solitary battle such that, should the need arise, as it has, these individuals will continue to find the support of many.

Having said this however, one must realise that reporting, whistleblowing and so on are based on acts of the past whereas real progress is based on acts of the present and virtual constructs of the future. In this regard, the forthcoming election is a barren wasteland. While giving the benefit of the doubt to the opposing parties in that the strategic early election-call did not allow sufficient time to draw up a proper manifesto, it must be said that little by way of real “lessons-learnt” have come out of this campaign. Most of this ‘lessons-learnt” approach sadly limited itself to people feeling they were conned or betrayed by the current administration and with PN acting as a massive counsellor for these individuals, hammering in the message, in typical disingenuous talk, that “it was not your fault” and offering the metaphorical shoulder-to-lean-on. The “disingenuous” in this case refers to the fact that the phrase “Not your fault” is absolutely correct, as it was the PN’s administration at the time which had cornered the electorate into making such a choice. Truly the crimes-against-trust committed in the last four years dwarfed the crimes of the previous administration almost to the point of ridicule, however it is important to note that the recent allegations of misdeeds only varied in magnitude or scale but not in kind! What does this really mean? What kind of crimes are these?

In a nutshell, it means that in the course of the past 20 years Malta, just like any other EU country has lost its sovereignty in terms of financial legislature. It was forced to, or had to adopt systems for “structural readjustment” which at the end of the day placed those in government in a position of regulation only, making do with hands-on administration via subcontracting. This is the ultimate position of trust, just like a custodian, a great idea, if and if those in administration have the public interest at heart. Sadly, as we all know, and as any of the states which have gone through this before us can testify, (for example post-1990 Poland and Russia, to name but a few) those in command do not have our interest at heart but rather their bank account. Thus, in practice, the adopted system leaves all the state-owned (i.e. publicly owned) assets up for grabs. Control on which asset goes to whom (and at what price), is literally in the personal hands of our dear custodians of trust, who time and time again have proved to be human, (Lo and Behold!), and award these to the highest bidder with the real auction not in the public arena. By purposely not allowing any contingency for the known flawed nature of those in administration renders the system itself malign, or in other terms, not in the interest of the public. But as long as money flows who cares, right?

Wrong! The absence of correct address to this problem by any of the election contestants during this campaign means either complicity with, or at best ignorance of, modern world economics and power shifting. In any of the cases, it has numerous local ramifications. The first of such ramifications is the fact that it is irrelevant who is in government, the public will never have the required insurance against such crimes repeating themselves. Secondly, no mention has been made as to whether the current contracts, tying public funds for years to come, would be honoured in the future should these be found to have been signed in such a fraudulent manner as claimed. In other words, should this fraud be true, would the public be left with public-private agreements which are clearly not in its own interest? Again, should this be the case, numerous examples of EU states which had to succumb to this scenario exist, leaving the same electorate paying into accounts of convicted fraudsters.

Thus in agreement with what I regarded as a very well written editorial in The Malta Independent on Sunday (28.05.17), informed choices are key players in this situation, however the way I see it, not much by way of real information, (to the tune of what I mentioned above), on which to base such decisions is forthcoming. Further to this, I would like to direct some attention to the following: a) Information alone, and in the wrong hands, can only lead to a “manufacturing of consent”, a useless exercise of democracy, or even the outright hacking of the democratic process. What is really required is a critical outlook at the provided, or available, information that will allow the famous “informed choices” to be made; b) It might be the case that a critical outlook to the offered information leads one to understand that there is no real choice to be made, leading to the democracy deficit which we are seeing on the rise globally. Thus, in reality, information, analysis and ‘informed choices’ are useless without promises by those vying for election of radical-systematic change, addressing the implemented, corrupt, structure.

Moreover, it is clear (if one was to observe the history of our short democratic period) that the Maltese electorate is evolving. This might signal that the time for a real coalition system (required to keep the majority-seat winner in check), to be in government with a mandate to change the Constitution in favour of small independent parties might be approaching. Unfortunately, however, such a proposal has not been tabled by the current coalition arrangements, to my knowledge!

In what might seem to some as blue-sky thinking, I truly hope that the lessons learnt from the previous years, coupled with some critical understanding of what is at stake, will usher a new era in Maltese and European politics, as the alternative invariably means another contribution to greater injustice and social inequality!