A pamphlet

I published what I am calling “an indictment on the divorce ‘debate’ in Malta” on Thursday 17th February. When I wrote this I had in mind the “pamphlets” that were made popular during the English Civil War and remained a strong vehicle of popular expression until the advent of modern media. Wikipedia describes this type of pamphlet as a “tract concerning a contemporary issue” that was a product of “heated arguments”. Although I was inspired by the original J’accuse (Zola, 1898), my pamphlet is not intended to stir controversy for controversy’s sake.

My pamphlet is the result of an accumulation of anger at what I see. I feel that as I accuse the Nationalist Party of lack of conviction; of declaring that it is against the introduction of divorce while toying with the representative element of Parliament by allowing a free vote to MPs who have absolutely no popular mandate on the issue and whose vote would consequently transform into a personal usurpation of a seat obtained by public vote and support;

I accuse the Labour Party of crass opportunism and of manipulation of the misinformed; of wilfully misleading voters to believe that support for a referendum is tantamount to a position on divorce; of hijacking the possibility of any debate by linking a minority civil right issue to the making or breaking of government; of being unable to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to explaining what being progressive is all about; of also abusing − in the same way as the PN − of the pretext of the free vote in Parliament in order to abdicate its responsibilities.

As a blogger and commentator I have a duty to express this anger and share its reasons with the wider audience. Anger, as we have seen, has inspired revolutions to the south of our island. Tunisia first, Egypt next and now Ghaddafi’s Libya witnessed a “March of Anger”. We will probably not march in the streets to protest the usurpation of our centres of representation, but I firmly believe that expressions of anger combined with information might drive inroads into the biggest weapon wielded by the two parties: misinformation.

Frankly, I have had enough of watching our parliamentary representation being prostituted, made a mockery of and then sacrificed on the high altar of the short-term needs of our major parties. Three days later, and with all the furore about referendum dates and cross-party accusations, I am even more firmly convinced about the content of my virtual pamphlet. The actions of our political class as represented by the two parties that have over the years contrived to block access to our parliament seats with an unwritten numerus clausus remain obscene by any standard of classic democratic representation.

The People are Dead,

Long live the People

In their spins to the public, both parties placed the idea of public consultation on a high pedestal. There is much to be read into the battle for the paternity of the referendum idea − both sides claim they thought of it first. Meanwhile, the attention of a nation shifted. Having been wooed into a place of false importance, the people felt reassured that the decision was theirs for taking. Few might have perceived the abdication of our entire political system from its duty of representation.

The abdication has a name and that name is the “free vote”. Both the PL and the PN have boiled it all down to that: a free vote in Parliament. What does the free vote mean? It means that people elected to Parliament on a party ticket have their party umbilical chord cut off (there goes one possible link of representation). It also means that if they vote according to their conscience they will be using a parliamentary seat and vote to represent just one person: themselves (and maybe save their souls).  

So the PN could salve its conscience on the fact that as a party (whatever that means) it was against divorce. Yes. But if push comes to shove it’s a free vote. The PL went one further. It proved that it was a collective of blind politicians who couldn’t tell a progressive principle if it stood up in front of them yelling “I’m a progressive principle”. The pathetic view on Monday night TV of Evarist Bartolo and Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi claiming that a position on the holding of a referendum is actually a position on divorce should have signified the death warrant for the travesty of progressive politics that Joseph’s bandwagon has become.

The victim

If ever there was a moment for a trans-partisan movement to seize the reigns of representation from the sorry excuses who are busy having their phones tapped (yeah right), or fighting over who most wants the people to decide for them, then that is now. Unfortunately, this political circus seems here to stay because we are used to it and we would probably miss it when it is gone.

Spare a thought therefore for the minority among us who might have hoped that finally the state was sobering up and that their individual right to take a personal decision about themselves and choose to remarry would finally be granted. They are the only victims of this farce − for in our strange way of maturing as a nation it was their turn to be kicked around in the latest stage of political football.

As for the rest of us, I insist... guilty as charged.

• I accuse the partisan parties of PLPN of wilfully failing to treat a civil right with the dignity and relevance it deserves; of falsely imputing moral reasons to their machinations and shenanigans when it is blatantly evident that their paramount concern is the electoral vote come the next round of elections;

• I accuse both the conservative as well as the supposedly progressive parties of failing to assert a basic set of principles which they believe in and in which a voter could identify come election time; of preferring the rainbow spineless option where ‘anything goes so long as it gets us votes’;

• I accuse the academic and informed establishment for not speaking out sufficiently on the ridiculous notion of submitting a decision on a minority civil right to the vote of the general public; of not having taken a reasoned position on the issue − whether individually or collectively (in groups purposely assembled for the purpose) − of why a civil right is not an issue for referenda in 2011;

• I accuse the fourth estate, made up of what is left of the independent media, for having actively collaborated with the cheap thrill of “controversy” stirred up by the media machines of the partisan establishment and thus for having contributed to shifting the debate from the real point of divorce to that of “who wants a referendum” (read who is a friend of the people);

• I accuse the third parties and movements (AD, pro- and anti- divorce) for not having come out strongly against the idea of a referendum, for not holding the partisan parties up to their principles, for not boycotting any referendum solution that allows the Pontius Pilates of this nation to thrive on confusion, for not insisting on a parliamentary solution − preferably after an election by popular mandate;

• I accuse the Maltese public and voter, for whom I should have the utmost respect, for once again allowing the circus that is our representative political system to take him for yet another ride and allowing himself to be convinced that the “yes, no, maybe, depends on the majority and on how they vote” way of politics is actually a serious way of running a representative system − and for measuring the PL-PN by that metre;

• I accuse the Roman Catholic Church in Malta for not sufficiently believing in its power to convince believers to do the right thing in an open and liberal society where the door of divorce is open to whoever needs it but is not forced on anyone; of being unable to instil among its political flock the idea of an open and tolerant society in which they are free not to divorce but in which others, who might not share the same beliefs (or for whom those beliefs no longer hold true) are granted the civil right to do so; of not sufficiently believing in itself and in its capability to transmit the messages upon which the idea of indissoluble marriage is built;

• I accuse myself of not having sufficiently contributed to the debate and of having allowed myself to be disheartened by the huge wave of ignorant rhetoric and opportunistic politicking that has invested the Maltese political landscape for the umpteenth time.

www.akkuza.com plans to step up the pamphleteering business as we approach the doomed referendum. One last word goes out to little Alex − it was great to see that your op went well and here’s to wishing you a brighter future!