Years later, as he faced the news of his failure, he was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover fireworks.
From that childhood discovery, a life philosophy was born which was to grow into an approach to politics.
As a boy, he was mesmerised by the beauty of the colourful patterns that looked like prehistoric eggs on a riverbed, by the peony that make a spherical break of coloured stars and the chrysanthemums that leave a visible trail of sparks, by the fish that burst and little squiggles of light squirm away from them, by the palm that produces long, thick streams of light, by the crosette that crosses squiggles of light over each other haphazardly, and by the kamuro that has a dense burst that leaves a large, glittering trail.
As a man, he was seduced by the fireworks philosophy. You work hard to sell the lot, you promise the best spectacle this side of the Great Sea, and once it all literally goes up in smoke you face no further responsibility. Your job is done and you move on.
The fireworks mentality permeated much of his political activity.
Two people living together
Let’s be frank: certain legislative changes had to be made. For instance, it was clear that two people living together – and thus heavily investing in each other – had to have their status somehow recognised by the law. In the past, siblings for instance could make an unica charta will, that is a joint will between two people. (The law was changed in the beginning of the 1980s, disallowing everybody except spouses to make unica charta wills.)
Whereas it cannot consider “love” as an element on which to base its provisions – love cannot be objectively determined – the law can envisage rights and obligations based on factual situations, such as sharing one’s life with another person. It is reasonable to suppose that in such factual situations protracted over time, individuals develop a vested interest in each other’s welfare and inheritance.
Reforming the laws to reflect these situations is an inherent quality of the political system we inhabit. In the distant past (the period we refer to as the “Middle Ages”), when the State was weak or even primitive, decisions of this type were taken on a discretionary basis. Somebody in authority would assess a situation and take ad hoc decisions. This, of course, led to the usual problem associated with discretion: discrimination. It was not necessarily a question of a priori discrimination, that is to say discrimination stemming from a policy. Instead, the discrimination would be the result of the different views and values espoused by different office-holders.
One of the promises of the Modern State was to eradicate this discrimination, by removing discretion. The judge, for instance, became a State official whose job was to apply the law, not to make the law. This new system has been called, by Paolo Grossi among others, juridical absolutism. Only the State Legislature can make law; neither its functionaries nor its judges, and not even other “informal” sources of law.
In other words, reforming legislation is part and parcel of the modern political system. Since the State is the only recognised source of law, State legislation has to be reformed every so often as no factual situation is static. Celebrating what should be a routine legislative reform as some great political achievement – therefore reflecting an ideological victory – is not only silly: it is pernicious. It distracts from the real function of the law-making branch of the State, that is the level-headed reform of legislation. It is the fireworks syndrome: keeping the populace happy with colourful patterns in the sky and lots of din in the air, while other, possibly equally important reforms slide away into oblivion, into the less exciting realm of forgetfulness.
Two instances, both reported by the press, come to mind among the multitude of reforms that are needed.
One, the need to update our laws to reflect discoveries made by psychology in the field of co-parenting. Psychological research has found that children need and want co-parenting after their parents separate. This cannot be left to the Courts of Law – the Courts cannot and shouldn’t create the law. This change has to be made through legislative reform.
What has the Minister for Justice done about this? Nothing. The Minister’s only aspiration in life is to metaphorically lick his master’s metaphorical backside to metaphorically make up for his metaphorical incompetence. It metaphorically makes a Metaphorical Minister of him.
Two, the need to update our laws to enforce proper traffic management when an ambulance is rushing to save a life. Not too long ago, the press published a story about doctors being concerned that people don’t know what to do when an ambulance needs to pass. Or rather, people either don’t know what to do or else they can’t do much because of the mess our roads are in. In either case, legislative reform is needed to punish the irresponsible who don’t cooperate with ambulances and to create new rules for the decent who are hampered by the chaos reigning on the roads.
What do we get instead? Fireworks-like celebrations of ideological legislation while other legislative reforms are left to pine away like whales dying on a beach.
When the Nationalists reformed the so-called Family Law in 1992 and 2004, I can’t remember such fireworks-like celebrations. The reforms were necessary and part of the normal government of a democratic State, and were treated as such.
It’s all about him
But the fireworks vendor’s son is not so much interested in State and Country as in his own (now botched) career advancement. According to a story that appeared on an online news portal and has not been denied by Castille, the fireworks vendor’s son employed State resources to lobby for his own appointment to high office. This is nothing short of scandalous. In a normal democracy, he would have had to resign. Instead he wants to go back to his “work” with more vigour, whatever that is code for. If he were toiling for State and Country, rather than his own personal ambitions, he would solve the two biggest problems of the country: chaotic traffic and chaotic, destructive urban development.
Professor Alex Torpiano, the new president of Din l-Art Ħelwa, gave an interview in which he blamed the Planning Authority and politicians for the mess the country is in. I could not agree more. And the fireworks vendor’s son is the prime culprit.
We need a present mindful and respectful of the past, that tries to secure the wealth and well-being of the future. We do not need chaos and short-term “development” which poisons any chance of long-term wealth and well-being. Had the fireworks vendor’s son been doing his job properly, he would have found a solution to these problems. After all, the right to private property is not absolute. It is limited by the Pjan Regolatur from time to time; but it is always limited by the Constitution which imposes the obligation on the State to protect both landscape and historical heritage. If the fireworks vendor’s son were good at his job – as he claims to be (“Best in Europe” and all that) – he would have struck the balance between the individual’s right to private property and the constitutional obligation to safeguard the environment. Instead, he threw his hands up in the air and threw in the towel.
His political philosophy – every politician has a philosophy, even if it is shallow – is short term. It only promises ephemeral excitement based on the deeply-held notion that either there’s no tomorrow or if there is one, there will be somebody else to face the consequences of the short-termism. This is not the philosophy of a statesman, but of an amateur. Yet, his genius has been to transform the fireworks philosophy into a political style. He identified his clients and sold them the political equivalent of fireworks. It worked. (In the festa country, that is; up north, where things are done differently, it failed miserably.)
These two problems – dense traffic and chaotic construction – are destroying not only the quality of life of this country’s citizens, but also the most important product it can offer to the outside world: tourism. Malta simply does not have uncontaminated spots. Everywhere is either a building site or spoilt by some aesthetically-challenged construction. As to mobility: choose any two points in the country and you will realise that it takes ages to get from one point to the other.
No efforts are made to study what’s done in other countries, to emulate good practice. France, the number-one tourist destination in Europe, could be a model to learn from. Is anybody even aware of how the French conserve their heritage?
A visit to the Bourgogne-Franche-Comté region would open some eyes as to how a top-notch tourist destination should be managed. You don’t see cranes and bajliet tal-konkos everywhere. One hot spot in that region is the Abbey of Cluny (or what remains of it – it was partly demolished Malta-style, avant la lettre, in the late 18th century).
The Abbey itself is the main attraction, but the Cluny experience is cemented by the overall architectural ambience of the town. You depart with your spiritual lungs full of the air you just inhaled – the oxygen of beauty. This cannot be said of Malta. We have a few (admittedly very beautiful) buildings here and there, a gem (Mdina), and then... chaos. A chaotic product which lacks identity and focus. A mishmash of the beauty of bygone years and the banality of today’s greed.
In Cluny, one attraction which particularly struck me was La Malgourevne. For the name more than anything else. If I’m allowed a pun, Malgourverne is one characteristic we surely share with Cluny.
Somewhere else in the media, someone opined that “it’s really all about Joseph” (Mark Anthony Falzon, “Joseph über alles”, May 26, 2019) – an opinion that echoes mine and that of the majority of the thinking public. If this were an absolutist State, it would be fine. But in a democracy, nobody is the State, nobody can behave as if he were the Roi Soleil. In a democracy, office-holders administer the State on behalf of the people, not for their careers or other personal objectives.
And while chaos reigns and resources are employed to promote individual careers rather than to nurture the Country and its needs, the fireworks vendor’s son’s best friend – the Panama one – allows his own bald sidekick to boldly go to Libya to conclude only God knows what business. It is becoming clear even to the less bright, that Malta has become a kleptocracy.
My Personal Library (57)
I have not read it yet, but Professor Carmel Borg’s Id-Dar ta’ Faċċata, promises to be a good book. Interviewed about it, Professor Borg said this: “It is not just overdevelopment that is really of concern but the ugly development.” How can anybody in his right senses disagree with such a lucid analysis?
“What is intriguing,” continued the Professor, “is the fact that urban planners are all qualified… so there seems to be a correlation between certification, qualification and the uglification of the island… I refer to it as the adoration of mediocrity.” Again, bull’s eye.
And lastly, his parting shot, again spot-on: “[I]ssues like critical thinking [have] become marginalised. This is happening in our education system. There is very little critical engagement with the world, and obviously the first step in transformation, the first step in social change, has to be this critical engagement.”
Being a professor of education, Carmel Borg’s objective is to teach and form the younger generations. The rest of us, however, who are not directly involved in education, have to think about the present. If no brakes are applied to the current uglification, future generations will have nothing to conserve. They will just have a lot to be nostalgic about.