True, as has always happened in this country, the ding dong of political controversy has proceeded with unabated fervour. And no doubt that will continue to happen.
But then how actually different are both sides from each other in the concepts of policy that they concretely advocate? Take economic management: here, for the last two years or so, the Opposition has been vocal in its criticisms but the truth is that the Labour government went on driving the economic model it inherited from the previous administration.
It simply deployed with success the logic inherent in the model while its predecessor failed to do so. If the Gonzi administration had managed with the same model to achieve the same success that allowed the economy to register continued high growth rates, it would have ended up with a result similar to that of today, not least by way of the unbridled development that goes on and on.
Moreover both sides, despite what they might say in public, seem not to really have any idea regarding how to contain the unbalanced effects we see all around us caused by economic growth.
Similar scenarios are being recorded in other leading sectors of governance.
***
FROM BAD TO WORSE...
In Palestine-Israel, or Israel-Palestine, the “political” situation is still moving from very bad to worse. What is even worse, is that Israel as a state has been led into a dead-end: to safeguard in full the country’s security, it will need maintain its defence of the country with total ruthlessness, no matter what the cost. Otherwise (this has become the belief) it would lose all control.
On their side, the Palestinians and their allies will become yet more convinced that there is no other way forward except total resistance, despite the tragedies and sufferings that have continued to increase. The cult of martyrdom serves to justify then no matter which atrocity from both sides.
At the same time, both sides will continue to press hard with their foreign supporters outside Palestine-Israel to supply them with the arms and munition they need to proceed with their massacres.
***
CRITERIA
As in a cartoon, the shabby dispute that arose over the appointment of the Central Bank governor provides evidence, scaled down to our reality, of the limits that exist to the good running of the neo-liberal institutions that run the world. By mandate, economic and financial institutions which take strategic but “technical” decisions should be allowed to do so with complete independence – as if they were like a scientific instrument that measures the temperature or the motion of the stars.
As we have now learnt, the required independence should mean that the ethical criteria covering correct behaviour for these institutions must be decided upon by the very same people who have been nominated to run them as “independent” decision-makers. The president of the European Central Bank Christine Lagarde was found guilty by French courts of “negligence” in her decision as French finance minister to let a leading businessman get favourable state treatment on a big deal he had negotiated.
Beyond the wretched curiosity about who is going to still get how much, and who is going to judge what is acceptable or not for Central Bank appointees, the question remains: what are the criteria to be invoked when considering whether a given behaviour reflects badly or not on “independent” institutions like the Central Bank?