james debono

Franco Debono: Between tragedy and farce

2012-01-07T05:54:00.012-08:00

As Karl Marx observed history tends to repeat itself first as tragedy than as farce. There could be no words more fitting in comparing the dramatic clash between Alfred Sant and Mintoff in 1998 and the farcical one between Gonzi and Franco Debono today.
Surely the emotions invoked by the rebellion of the father of the party against the one who called his bluff, cannot be compared with the antics of an appeasing Prime Minister who is turned down by the ultimate product of an electoral strategy (GonziPN) which sidelined the party and set the stage for a coalition between Gonzi and a dysfunctional backbench.

What's sure is that once again we have been shown that the two party system characterised by one party governments is becoming increasingly unstable...and will become even more so as power becomes concentrated in presidential leaders who shop for candidates outside the party schools or currents (if these still exist).

But there is one similarity, just as Mintoff was temporarily hailed as a saviour by Nationalists who abhorred him for most of his life; Franco Debono has been awarded hero status by many Labourites. Perhaps in the latter case there could be more to the flirt and while it is perfectly natural for the opposition to ride high on the divisions of the other side, I cringe at the ideological poverty of a party which can include literally everybody in it.

That said I would like to make 3 observations on the Franco Debono case.

1) Debono might have some good ideas and clearly Gonzi has some big management issues in keeping all on board but clearly in this case Debono showed a serious lack of proportion on his part; first by turning his legitimate demand for a seperation between the Justice and Home Affairs Ministries in to a condition for the survival of the government and than to revoke confidence in the government as soon as his condition was accepted (in a cabinet re-shuffle which left him in the cold without any cabinet promotion). Let’s just say that the man lacks any sense of proportion and that his behaviour is somewhat irrational. That said he is a legally elected MP with the full right to vote according to what he thinks is right. Calls on him to resign are inappropriate.

2) Gonzi has lost his majority and an election is inevitable. Probably Gonzi will put the onus on Labour to present the motion of no-confidence. In this way he would link Labour to Franco Debono's antics and start the election from the position of an aggrieved party who was not allowed to complete the full term of office by a coalition between Labour and Debono. Franco Debono outbursts to the media, like demonstating his secondary school report, could in fact help project Gonzi's seriousness. Although his statesmanlike qualities are highly over-rated, the contrast with Debono could prove a plus for PN strategists. But while Labour risks being associated with Franco Debono's antics, Gonzi risks appearing as the one clinging to power if he fails to call a confidence vote.

3) Holding an election now is clearly not ideal for the country, not just for economic reasons but also because we won't have time to assess the government's performance in tackling the crisis or the opposition parties alternative programmes. Perversely holding an election now on the Franco Debono pretext could save Gonzi from calling an election after what is promising to be a very difficult year...which probably would mean failure to honour the commitments made in the last budget. Ultimately the writing is on the wall and there seems to be no alternative to an election which labour is likely to win even if the Franco Debono episode could have a highly unpredictable impact especially on a sector of the electorate which does not like Gonzi but recoils at those gloating while rome is burning.

reflections of a christian agnostic

2011-12-22T06:12:00.004-08:00

Although am agnostic I enjoy celebrating Christmas not just for hedonism's sake (I like that bit too especially the eating part) but also as a 'religious' feast.
I think non Catholics can still feel at ease celebrating the birth of a historical figure who preached universal love and intellectual honesty, someone who spoke his truth to power gently but firmly.
Over the past years I came to the conclusion that Christian humanism can easily co-exist with the values of the enlightenment.
On the other hand I came to discover that rabid anti clericalism can easily co-exist with xenophobic, extreme right and the most irrational viewpoints.
So does religious fundamentalism and traditionalism which can turn the cross in to a banner of cultural exclusion.
Not surprisingly while I disagreed with Bishop Mario Grech on divorce, I admired his equally principled stance against the government's detention policy.
During the first part of the year I actively campaigned through my writing for the introduction of divorce, something which I consider to be a vital step in a clear separation of church and state.
In many ways the introduction of divorce was a blessing for the Catholic church as its rejection may well have triggered a resentment of a gross imposition.
In many ways divorce was introduced thanks to good Catholics who not only made a distinction between church and state but who felt solidarity towards people who were being denied a second chance. The same reasoning may one day lead to an acceptance of gay marriage and granting citizenship to the children of migrants.
In fact what both secular and Christian humanism share is a world view in which what counts for the goose counts for the gander, human dignity should be respected in all circumstances.
Obviously there are also issues like abortion or euthanasia where such convergence is more difficult but at least the emphasis on human dignity makes rational debate possible in a way which excludes both eugenics and zygote fetishists.
But there is much room for convergence on protecting the dignity of future generations from short term policies in both fiscal and environmental field, particularly when it comes to climate change policies.
Another thing which runs deep in both traditions since the time of Erasmus and Spinoza is a sense of introspective moderation and sobriety.
In today's world where the politics of anger characterize populist movements like the 'tea party' in the US and 'lega nord' in Italy, one should heed the distinction made by Vaclav Havel, between theater and politics.
"In a theater, our consciences are touched, but responsibility ends when the curtain falls. The theater of politics makes permanent demands on us all, as dramatists, actors and audience - on our common sense, our moderation, our responsibility, our good taste and our conscience".

a pirate state?

2011-12-12T14:19:00.003-08:00

Malta's opposition to a tax on financial transaction exposes the hallow european credentials of both major parties and their tendency to opt for short term unsustainable bounty rather than modernisation within the european mainstream.
It is a tendency to promote a model of development which might reap some benefits in the short term but is bound to face big hurdles as international controls and legislation catch upon us.
This tendency is evident in the pandering of both major parties to the tuna fattening industry and even in the latest energy fad, the sargas carbon capture plan which depends on other countries accepting our carbon as we burn their coal.
Surely the temptation to go pirate is presently counter balanced by the present government's tendency for good behaviour in international fora and the opposition's attempt to excorcise its all too recent eurosceptic past...But this pirate tendency can gain a momentum of its own. Ultimately if left unchecked this tendency will leave us poorer, dirtier and more isolated.

In defence of europe

2011-11-20T13:01:00.000-08:00

The enemies of democracy are xenophobic populist parties in various guises. The only safeguard against a relapse to the dystopia of competing nationalism is federalism.

One of the travesties of the truth perpetrated by the British loony right is that Silvio Berlusconi was removed by a conspiracy spearheaded by fictitious eurocrats.
In reality it was the democratically elected Italian parliament which denied Berlusconi a working majority. This came in the wake of a series of electoral defeats for Berlusconi in strategic cities like Milan and Naples and a referendum which stripped him of the legitimo impedimento-a legal tool designed to delay the corruption probes he is facing.
For the past year Berlusconi held to power with the votes of a motley crew of defectors from the opposition called the responsibili, which included Dominico Scilipoti who in the space of a week changed allegiance from the most extreme of anti Berlusconi parties (Di Pietro's Italy of Values) to the PDL.
Moreover the new government led by Mario Monti was given the support of all political forces including Berlusconi's Popolo Della Liberta,except the separatist Lega Nord, an extreme right party which forments hatred against immigrants and southerners alike.
Mario Monti has already distinguished himself. Unlike Berlusconi he does not dumb down political discourse. Rather than talking down to the masses he
addresses a nation composed of intelligent citizens who prefer being told the bad news and be asked to do something about it than living in an
illusion that all is good and well.
Monti speaks of sacrifices to be made rather than inflating expectations through empty promises or projecting people's fears in a xenophobic direction.
He rightly speaks of the liberalisation of the professions which the right had opposed, easier access to labour market for the young and wants to clamp down on tax evasion. He is the best thing Italy could have in a parliament still dominated by the centre-right.
I do share the concern of those on the left who think Monti's government which includes Corrado Passeri, former CEO of Intesa San Paolo is too associated with the banks which share the blame for the financial mess we are in now.
Another problem is that Berlusconi has already threatened to bring Monti down if he introduces the patriminiale-a tax on wealth favoured by Monti which would give legitimacy to other meausures like a pension reform which would affect privileged sectors of the working class.
But the fact that in a moment of crisis Monti can appeal to the good sense of the centre right and the centre left is a triumph for the politics of mediation and reflexivity.
The greatest risk Italy now faces is the rise of an even more dangerous populism which exploits anger against the surgery and drives a wedge between north and south. Some elements in the Lega Nord in Italy are not so different from those forces which brought about war in former Yugoslavia. But probably Italians including many legisti have enough self respect to avoid such a fate.
Surely in normal circumstances Italy should have elected a responsible government through elections.
Yet one lesson of Italian politics is that the artificial attempt to contain all political views in two rival camps has failed and in some ways Monti represents a more continental way of doing politics through a coalition.
Moreover Italy was not a normal democracy under Berlusconi and restoring faith in the institutions was a priority after the end of the pornographic carnvival of the Berlusconi era.
Democracy is not the simply the rule of elected majorities but a process of democratic mediation involving a plurality of reflexive voices. Berlusconi who befriended autocrats like Vladmir Putin and Muamar Gaddafi held a vision of politics which was more similar to a televoting competition than democratic engagement. In his vision propoganda was the only mediation between the leader and an abstraction called the 'people'.
Like other populists he thrived in an environment where people were insulated from the world. In fact cospolitan Italians felt constantly humiliated by his antics while a vast segment of the electorate ignored all this and believed his hype. Berlusconi appealed to those who think that the world revolves around the few square meters sorrounding them. He was only interested in being loved. Perhaps he had the good sense to bow down when he realised that the people no longer loved him. In fact the redeeming factor in the story was Berlusconi's dignity in exit.
But Italy's saviour was a statesman called Giorgio Napolitano, a relic from an era whose politicians gave Europe peace and prosperity. Napolitano a former partisan represented the reformist wing and pro European wing of the Italian Communist Party.
In fact what Europe requires now is the kind of reflexivity which inspired post world war II christian democratic, liberal and social democratic politicians to build a european social model which is now in crisis but which gave us peace and prosperity for half a century.
At that time Europe had people with vision like Alcide De Gasperi, Konrad Adenuer and Altiero Spinelli.
Technocrats like Monti may fill a gap in an emergency but Europe needs politicians of the calibre of post war generation to recover.
What is sure is that national governments face problems which they can no longer control in isolation. Supranational institutions like the EU is the
only way through which globalisation can be governed and regulated according to social and ecological standards. Otherwise what we will have is a race to
the bottom, in which Europe will become more like China and the United States both in terms of inequalities and political freedoms.
It is no mystery that xenophobic populist parties tend to be the most authoritarian and neo-liberal.
The problem is that the current generation of centre right governments which govern most nation states including France and Germany were always quite sceptical on the European project. While increasingly aware of the need of European solutions, people like Sarkozy have often pandered to national egoism especially when dealing with problems like immigration.
This generation of politicians has failed in creating democratic institutions to regulate a common economic and fiscal policy which became an imperative after the introduction of a common currency.
This would represent a shifting of economic powers from the nation state to a federal state legitimised by new democratic institutions which make European citizenship a reality.
As Joschka Fischer, Germany's Green foreign minister and vice-chancellor from 1998 to 2005,observes 'unless political power in Europe is Europeanized, with
the current confederation evolving into a federation, the eurozone - and the EU as a whole - will disintegrate'.
That would simply mean the end of a perioid of peace and prosperity which characterised our Europe since the end of the second world war, a calamity which will leave European nations weak and their social model under attack as they face competition of China, India and possibly an Ottoman renaissance in the Arab world.
Malta will also have to make choices, on whether it whether to pool more of its sovereignity or to go back to a peripherical existence. The opposition
of both major parties to a tax on financial transactions now favoured even by Sarkozy, shows the weakness of the European commitment strong across the political spectrum.
For while we might momentarily benefit from the highly volatile banking and gaming sectors which can easily move away when they find a better tax regime, our long term prosperity depends on investment in high skills in the green economy which could well be the pillar of the new european social model.

Between Populism and technocracy

2011-11-12T04:39:00.012-08:00

The fall of Berlusconi is a victory for democracy, if this is understood as a process of democratic mediation involving a plurality of reflexive voices rather than as a televoting competition in which propoganda is the only mediation between the leader and an abstraction called the 'people'.
Populism, irrespective of whether it is of a left wing or right wing orientation is a disease which erodes democracy by diminishing trust in democratic mediation and reflexivity.
There is no such thing as the 'people' existing in a vacuum. But there is a plurality of classes, identities, interests, tastes, opinions, religions, sexualities. But all these differences can come together to enable people to constitute political communities which mediate conflicts and establish rights and duties. While popular democratic parties aim at the mediation of conflicts, populists thrive on the illusion that the only conflicts which exist are against outsiders.
Whether the protagonist is a Chavez or a Berlusconi, the problems are similar as populists thrive on a political climate in which people are either followers or traitors.
In the absence of natural resources like oil, populists obsessed with being loved also prove to be bad managers of the economy as they are unable to administer harsh medicine when it is needed. When choices have to be made populists face the difficulty of alienating a segment of the 'people' which voted them in to power under the promise that everyone will benefit.
Populists thrive in an environment where people are insulated from the world. In fact populists dumb down the masses by glorifying the ignorance of those who think that the world revolves around the few square meters sorrounding them. Populists hate institutions because these limit their power. When the international community expose their deceit, they are the first to invoke conspiracies of all sorts.
Populists hate intellectuals because these can see through the trappings of propoganda and deceit. Intellectuals ask questions. Populists hate being asked questions. They hate being asked for alternative solutions when in opposition. They hate it even more when in government.
Populists of Berlusconi's ilk are not only expert communicators but are extremely capable in demonising political adversaries especially those who switch sides, through a machina del fango, which is deployed with efficacy through strategic control of the media.
Populists even hate parliaments and thrive on an 'anti politics' culture, for ultimately they hate anyone mediating between them and the 'people.'
In this way they create an artificial category of angry cynical 'people' who are increasingly prey to conspiracy theories on europe, socialism, bankers, financial markets, jewish domination, imperialism, sometimes all at the same time.
This is definitely not the kind of reflexivity needed for the historic compromises required to address the emergencies facing modern economies.
What is needed is the kind of reflexivity which inspired post world war II christian democratic, liberal, social democratic and euro communist politicians to build a european social model which is now in crisis but which gave us peace and prosperity for half a century.
It is no surprise that Italy's saviour is a man of the ilk of Giorgio Napolitano-the man who represented the reformist wing of the Italian Communist Party.
Moreover democracy is also threatened by technocratic solutions which seeks no mediation and expect blind obedience from the political world.
Unfortunately facing the brink, countries like Italy and Greece have no choice but to resort to technocratic solutions tampered by some democratic mediation. Both countries face a choice between normalisation or impoverishment.
In this sense i understood the former Greek socialist premier idea of calling for a referendum between these two options, but unfortunetly the call came a bit too late in the day. I personally believed that the Greeks would not have leapt in the dark.
The greatest risk is that the advent of technocratic governments in both countries will be countered by a rise of populism which exploits anger against the surgery which has to be performed as quickly as possible.
The Lega Nord in Italy is not different from those forces which brought about war in former Yugoslavia. While the end of Berlusconi is reason for relief, the populist temptation is alive and well.
Therefore returning to the polls in the shortest time possible is vital to prevent populists from thriving even if one has to recognise that going to the polls now would have been suicidal. Surely technocrats are not value free. Most conform to the dominant ideology. But at least people like Mario Monti are competent and respect people's intellect-a qualitative leap from vulgar Berlusconism.
What is now clear is that any scenario of social change which goes beyond the rules of technocratic neo liberalism, can only come from the creation of new European democratic institutions to govern the euro zone.
But this meanse more Europe rather than less europe and fundamentally a shifting of economic powers from the nation state to the federal state. It is a recipe opposed by eurosceptics and populists.
It is in the scenario of a United States of Europe that progressive alliances can be really effective in re-inventing the european social model. Moreover any durable change has to gain wide consensus across the political spectrum.
The greater flexibility of the centre right (in accepting the need to tax financial transactions) and the centre left (in questioning privilige of certain categories of workers or pensioners) makes mediation possible.
Probably populists will opt out of this mediation but progressive forces like green parties and reform minded trade unions could take a leading role.
Extra parliamentary movements and NGOs have a role in widening discource and questioning technocratic orthodoxy. But ultimately it is far from a question of 99% vs 1%. This simplistic formula ignores the plural identities found even in the movements protesting for social change let alone in the wider society.
In reality the 'people' is an abstact concept which masks social and political fractures which can only be mediated through good old liberal democratic institutions. Authoritarian populism which aspires to far eastern communist or capitalist models is the enemy of our open free societies.

Congestion is the problem

2011-11-07T06:53:00.000-08:00

This morning it took me less than 20 minutes (waiting time on stage included) to arrive from Msida to San Gwann by bus 22.
Probably if taken an hour later at the peak of traffic congestion the length of the bus trip will double.
In my opinion the most astonishing declaration on the public transport route system was Arriva’s admission that they were not aware of the level of traffic congestion levels in Malta.
This startling revelation exposes the pitfall in the planning for the new routes; no wonder these appeared to work well on paper but failed to meet expectations in practice.
In fact one major lesson to be learned is that anything planned must be first tested on the ground and that change is better appreciated if done incrementally over a period of time than through shock and awe.
Probably the disastrous launching of the service, partly due to the long winded routes (ideal in traffic free conditions) and partly due to the no-show of a third of Arriva’s drivers on the first day of service, created a climate of national pandemonium, which saw some people giving up on buses and reverting to car use, in a way that congestion levels may well have increased.
But even before Arriva came congestion was already a big problem especially in certain areas of Malta.
The reality is that even if offered the best bus service people cling to their car as their refuge of private space. What is sure is that from a public policy perspective daily car use in large urban centres is immensely problematic.
It also creates a demand for more roads and car parks. And as my good friend Julian Manduca used to say, the more car parks you build the more cars you have on the road; which means even more congestion.
The choice is between more public spaces and liveable towns or a complete gridlock and the construction of more roads in the remaining pristine areas of Malta.
Added to this is that in Malta most roads are either residential or semi residential where pedestrians have as much right to use them as drivers.
Decreasing speed levels in normal roads as recently proposed by green party councillor Ralph Cassar makes a lot of sense.
The reality is that cars are a product of suburbia and the American high way. Unfortunately due to the shabbiness of public transport during the past 5 decades, people have grown with the idea that there is no alternative to the private car.
Changing that overnight is not easy and requires hard choices.
One effective solution would be targhe alterne system through which during peak hours only cars whose number plates start with a particular letter should be allowed on the road.
Such a step would decrease traffic substantially, make public transport more viable and decrease pollution levels substantially.
It will also encourage people to pool cars and for workplaces to organise their own pools of transport.
We can also explore new public transport solutions. While Malta lacks a critical mass to render an underground system affordable, we do not make enough use of maritime connections.

Gaddafi and the spectre of Piazza Loreto

2011-10-21T11:31:00.010-07:00

The gruesome images of the last minutes of Gaddafi's life are disturbing.
Surely it would have been nice to see Gaddafi treated like a prisoner of war and handed over to the hague to face justice and ultimately exiled to some pacific island to spend the last days of his life.
I have absolutely no reservations on the attack on his convoy by NATO. It is time to call a spade a spade. It was an imperitive not to let him escape and continue stirring trouble with the money he robbed from his country. It was a just war fought to topple a tyrant. I have no qualms on the fact that the UN security council resolution was interpreted in this way. Otherwise Gaddafi would still be in power.
The latest reports suggest that Gaddafi did manage to escape the bombardment and that he was killed after being captured alive. He ended his life stripped out of his humanity. Ultimately he was not an alien or a monster but a human being capable of monstrous acts.
Those who killed him made a deliberate choice when they executed him. It was the choice made in every bloody revolution since the English Civil War down to the execution of Ceaucescu. And lets not forget the executions committed by some of the heroes of the left like Che Guevera. The tyrant must die, so goes the dynamic of all revolutions of the modern era. It was the same choice on which post nazi fascist Europe is also build. I personally cringe at the faded images of piazza loreto where Mussolini was hanged by the partigiani (the same heroes who sang bella ciao).
Yes I must say that a principle of humanity has been violated again in the name of freedom. But probably the death of the tyrant is the only possible closure for a revolution provoked by unspeakable acts of brutality.
But still I have to say that from day one I felt that it had to end this way. Libya was destined to be the Romania of the Arab spring and Gaddafi seemed destined to follow the fate of Mussolini...And lets not forget that despite the hiccups Italy and Romania are now liberal democracies where people have a degree of freedom they completely lacked when they were governed by tyrants.
I do not feel any pity for a dictator who inflicted so much suffering. I can't help it. No I have no time for the human rights of Gaddafi, Bin Laden and Bashir Assad.
Coincidentally i ve been re-reading (for the third time) the Autumn of the Patriarch -the surreal story of a bizarre dictator who outlived generations of his subjects, who watched twice the passing of the comet, who always lived under the illusion that he was loved by the people as his security forces executed the parrots who repeated what the people had been murmuring in their private life. The patriarch in the story even managed to cheat death by coming back from the realm of the dead to assassinate those celebrating the death of his double.
The death of the tyrant is the only certainity for people who lived in constant fear. As long as he lived they would have feared his return. These were people whose childhood memories are filled with gruesome images of people hanged on public television.
The only regret I harbour is that Gaddafi did not see the celebrations after his death in Tripoli. He would have lost any illusion that the people loved him. The only other regret is that dead people do not speak and he will not be able to reveal anything about his accomplices in a trial. Neither will he reveal anything about the western leaders who befriended him. But we did not need to put Gaddafi on trial to learn of these friendships. Moreover I doubt whether he would have ever said anything credible except the same mad rhetoric we have already heard. Whatever he would have said in a court of law would have been dismissed as the delerious rants of a delusional maniac. He would have simply been awarded the honour of a platform which he did not deserve.
The gruesome images of humiliation had at least one useful purpose; that of instilling terror in despots who up till a year ago thought of themselves as immortal.
I may well express my politically correct wish that next time round Bashir Assad is captured and brought to trial. But lets not forget that the same Russians who are now defending Gaddafi's human rights and questioning the legality of his execution are giving Assad a licence to kill his own people...perhaps i am not so sincere in auguring Assad a fair trial...what is sure is that i would like to see the face of assad while watching those stomach revolting images from Sirte.

London calling?

2011-08-10T00:54:00.011-07:00

The riots in London and other UK cities have given rise to at least two contradictory narratives.
According to one narrative this is purely a law and order problem, where a bunch of thugs are terrorizing their own communities. The fact that their only motivation was to loot upmarket consumer goods is presented as proof that the young rioters are simply trying to steal what they cannot buy.
According to another narrative the riots are a symptom of a social injustice and poverty aggravated by Tory cuts and follows the traditional account of riots as an expression of class warfare in deeply unequal societies triggered by police brutality.
I find both accounts simplistic which ignore another aspect; some rioters could be simply taking what they perceive as their fair share of the consumer bounty.
Some could be doing it for the thrill of feeling in control and they do this without any ideological discipline or solidarity with others like them. In this sense the revolt is post racial and post socialist as it does not seek a redistribution of goods but simply provides an occasion for mayhem and private appropriation of goods.
The rioters simply used the indignation against a police blunder to grab an opportunity to loot.
Relative poverty is surely one of the factors leading people to loot but the link with tuition fees is tenuous considering that university was always out of reach for most of these people. But still snobbing the rioters for looting handbags instead of food stores ignores the fact that yearning for these goods is an integral part of the fabric of capitalist societies. And lets admit it; the bounty of goods (despite its ecological problems) is one of the most appealing aspects of life in capitalist societies.
And surely one of the most appealing aspects of late capitalism is the widespread availability of tools of communications. Media commentators damning twitter and blackberry for fanning the flames of revolt exposes an inherent classism. Surely inciting violence through any means is bad but underlying some of the commentaries is a sense of revulsion at the fact that balckberries are being used by wretched youth. Is it this such a scandal that these people are participating (in their own misguided ways) in what has been loaded as a revolution in communication?
Ultimately the thugs will not gain any sympathy even within their communities. They may well strengthen calls for draconian law and order thus reversing the few liberal gains in the past year. But probably the rioters do not care about this. For a few die hards more repression will give more opportunities to riot. Most will simply return to their dreary normal lives after the carnival ends. What we are seeing is a celebration of gangsterism in place of community solidarity.
The silver lining of all this could be a realisation that a degree of social cohesion and inclusion is necessary not just for the well being of those living at the fringes but also for the majority which for the past decade felt insulated from what happened in the ghettos.
When people wake up to this realisation they might be more willing to understand the value of public services and community services which cost money but are necessary to offer a prospect to people to have legitimate aspirations. Surely the rioters themselves do not seem to care a fig about all this and some will still aspire to live a snoopy dog life irrespective of all the money invested in their education.
Still more social inequality through cuts (some of which necessary) unaccompanied by social investment in mobility funded by taxation will make things worse.
A deeper reflection on the riots deals with the way both rioters and the looted seem to have lost a sense of power over their own lives.
Ultimately in an increasingly globalised word where even nation states have very limited power, the arbitrary lawless exercise of power gains a new appeal. Obviously this does not make the riots anymore legitimate. In many ways the riots were simply an attack on conviviality which made life hell for fellow citizens. Most of the victims are poor hard working immigrant communities who had to keep watch of their few possessions threatened by this orgy of violence.
Since there is no turning the clock back, the only long term way forward is a new definition of global and more educated citizenship which is more willing to comprehend the complexities of the world but also more empowered to feel a part of a change it can understand and influence by thinking globally and acting locally ... surely a lot of gibberish for the handbag grabbing mob but a wake up call for political engagement.

Anger is a curse

2011-08-06T07:21:00.010-07:00

In the early 21st century western societies anger is increasingly being harnessed by right wing commentators and parties, a way to exploit base emotions, do away with critical thinking which needs a degree of silence and reflection and to delegitimize institutions (the so-called establishment) to create the conditions for an authoritarian drift.
This is symptomatic of movements like the tea party in the US, significant parts of the European right and in some cases even the left especially in politically illiterate countries.
The alternative to manipulative raw populist anger is a rebellious,creative and future driven realism which celebrates the post war european social model while reinvigorating it with an emphasis on sustainability (both ecological and fiscal), internationalism (through an affirmation of the federalist project in Europe) and radical democracy based on reflexivity, democratic mobilisation and engagement rather than slogans and gut feelings; a rebellion based on an interplay of intellect and positive caring emotions rather than raw aggression.

Cyrus the conformist

2011-07-16T06:28:00.011-07:00

I was not shocked by Cyrus Engerer's decision to resign from the PN. The confessional drift makes it hard for liberal minded people to remain on board. What shocked me was the ease with which Cyrus Engerer jumped ship to join the PL. There was not even a process of intellectual engagement, discussion of economic, political and social policies and an attempt to enter labour as part of a wider movement rather than as a trophy... The message he sent is that apart from differences on divorce and gay rights both parties are basically the same. It makes no difference that one day you were addressing the national council of the PN and a few days later being paraded like a trophy on One radio.
And by ditching one party for the other, he conformed to the maxim of tribal Maltese politics; jew mal-blu jew mal-ahmar. Perhaps he would have been more credible had he pushed his agenda by forming a current in the PN. Neither i expected him to join the greens if just a few days ago he was addressing the PN general council.
As someone with green and left-liberal inclinations I should be closer to the PL than Cyrus Engerer has ever been.
But my understanding of politics is different. When i hear labour talk about the economy I cringe at the lack of substance and myopia. When I hear labour talk about immigration I cringe at the emotions being stirred. When I look at some of labour's new candidates I cringe at their ties to the same old networks. When I talk to labourites on electoral reform they do not even look remotely interested. I do not see labour as my natural home.
That said i would like to see an honest dialogue between progressives, modernizers and liberals of all shades including who militate in Labour.
But any such honest dialogue must start on the premise that there is a category of people which is liberal, somewhat left wing but not ready to get assimilated in a tradition in which they never felt a part of or intend to be a part of. After all this is the european way of doing politics; coalitions are based on respect for diversity. This segment of the population might not have a critical mass today and is conveniently ignored. But tomorrow will be a different story as Malta is bound to catch up with the rest of Europe.

Spilling Greek Blood

2011-06-24T03:42:00.002-07:00

Malta joined the EU in 2004, right at the end of a cycle of optimism triggered by the end of the cold war which finally put to an end Europe’s 1500 years of bloody wars and 50 years of nuclear tension.
Since than we have seen the rise of right wing populist parties formerly held at bay by a social democratic consensus which was fatally crippled by the fragmentation and of European societies which left individuals more exposed to the risks created by globalisation.
This left the room open for populists who promised to cut expenditure and decrease tax revenue without bringing social havoc.
Unable to keep these promises when elected to power these leaders started to manufacture consent by internally targeting immigrant as well as was the case in Sarkozy’s France against a native gypsy populations.
In so doing they have opened the flood gates for the more primitive hordes whose mythology harks back to the Frankish or Lombard war lords of the middle ages.
One wonders what Alcide De Gasperi or Altiero Spinelli would have said about the hordes assembled in Pontida last week to dictate conditions to a government they hold at ransom.
Since the European Commission is a reflection of national governments, its reaction to the current crisis in Greece has been at best ambivalent and at worse suicidal.
Surely economic good sense dictated a bail-out coupled with a plan to restore the Greek financial mess partly caused by unsustainable fiscal policies of successive Greek governments but also by banks who profited from the situation. Political good sense also dictated that Greece must remain in the Euro zone.
But imposing austerity as a way of life on an entire country without even expecting the private banking sector to pay a part of the cost, was the price national governments had to pay to increasingly bullish electorates and irresponsible bankers.
Greek blood had to be spilled.
The consequences of this are obvious; Greek confidence in Europe has been fatally wounded.
In Greece reactionary forces of the left and the right will probably exploit a widespread sense of national humiliation and victimhood which would imperil long term structural reforms.
The ultimate losers in all this could well be sober Greeks who accept the need to reform but question the a kind of shock therapy which could leave the patient in bad shape.
As Ulrick Beck prophetically warned on the onset of the financial crisis:
“Those who harm the union harm themselves. If the members renounce their European responsibility and solidarity in a frenzy of national reflexes, everyone loses. Each nation on its own is condemned to global insignificance”.
Ironically the greatest threat to Europe is now coming from within.

Push back diplomacy

2011-06-20T11:14:00.002-07:00

The latest news that Italy and the Libyan transitional government have signed a "push back" agreement is bad news as it once again shows a European country encouraging a former colony to renege on international human rights commitments.
It surely sends the wrong message to those who want to replace one of the most brutal dictators in history. For instead of pressing them to be different by signing the geneva convention, Berlusconi is once again asking them to assume the role of Italy's gatekeeper. And what better than farm out the task to those who are not bound by human rights obligations?
But considering the situation on the ground the agreement is meaningless. For the rebels have little control over the coastline around Tripoli from where migrants are presently leaving.
The spectacle of shame is directed towards internal consumption.
As clearly demonstrated in last sunday's gathering in Pontida the racist lega nord simply wants italy to stop its UN commitment in Libya. This would simply mean Gaddafi back in power and in a position to commit his long promised genocide (cause lets face it in the absence of nato bombs gaddafi would be solidly in power).
Berlusconi has to offer the xenophobes something as he can't simply tell NATO to fuck off without losing face with the civilized world...therefore he gets a commitment from the rebels who are scared shitless of italy leaving the alliance and thus deny nato of its military bases...which would mean a Gaddafi victory....
A long term solution to the immigration problem would be a new libya bound by international commitments which fights illegal smugglers instead of assisting them as it has done in the past. This would facilitate the processing of applications in Libya itself thus avoiding the dangerous crossings in the Mediterranean. But that can never mean endorsing a push back policy. Nobody should be denied the right to seek asylum. Pushing back boats full of migrants means denying the rights of potential asylum seekers.

what is liberalism?

2011-05-30T03:49:00.006-07:00

The word liberal has become common parlance lately being associated with the divorce issue.
Surely the word liberal is a very vague word and as the divorce campaign showed that economic liberals are often at odds with social liberals.
For the sake of clarity am only referring to social liberals in this post.
Surely the weekend's referendum was a liberal victory but not everyone who supported divorce turns out to be a liberal.
Neither is secularism necessarily a liberal concept. Mintoff was probably the most secular Prim Minister in Maltese history but he was hardly the most liberal.
Social liberalism denotes a frame of mind based on a respect for freedom and individual rights which defies not just confessional politics but also political tribalism as well as xenophobia and nationalism.
Surely for social liberals, divorce is just one of many social freedoms which must include full equality between gay and straight couples i.e. gay marriages.
In the European context it also denotes an inclination to rise above national boundaries and to favour the social inclusion of migrants.
It also denotes a tendency to favour political pluralism based on truly representative electoral systems...The liberal agenda is much longer than divorce....In its wider sense liberalism is frame of mind alien to both major parties in Malta. In fact the very two party system militates against political liberalism which seeks to limit majority rule.

Lessons from Milan

2011-05-17T00:32:00.003-07:00

A candidate proposed by Italy's red-green party (Sinistra, Ecologia e Liberta) not only won the primaries of the left but proceeded to win a staggering 48% in the city which symbolized the hegemony of Italy's new right-a strong durable alliance of the anti immigrant Lega Nord and the populist entity of Forza Italia.

The soft spoken Pisapia-a lawyer with a reputation for standing for the rights of the accused (even those of his own political adversaries) and who never compromised his vision of integration for immigrants, has won in the heartland of berlusconism. He is a garantista for everyone not just for the rich and powerful.

He won by promoting a vision of good governance and building an alliance with a wide appeal to progressive Catholics, NGOs and intellectuals. His alliance stretched from classical liberals like Bonnino to the communist left. He also won by using a discourse of inclusion rather than one of confrontation. He did not talk a lot on Berlusconi but about culture and reconstructing and humanizing the city space. Interestingly he spoke a lot about the use of urban space, something which is ignored by the old left. In essence he was a moderate fighting on a progressive platform.

Some would say that he won because Berlusconi failed to deliver. But that in itself shows that the politics based on national egoisms and simplistic slogans are bound to fail.

This brings to mind a conversation I had with some time ago in which a Labourite defended his party's hard line stance on immigration by referring to the left losing a part of the working class vote in the Italian north. Pisapia exposed the superficiality of this analysis. The left can win by being left, albeit with a strong green and humanist tinge.

Who killed Osama?

2011-05-02T07:48:00.005-07:00

Mohamed Bouazizi's self immolation had killed bin laden politically before the US airstrike
For Bin Laden's death sentence was signed by the thousands of youths who overthrew Mubarak, Bin Ali and liberated half of Libya from gaddafi. The fact that al qaeda played no role in these revolutions affirmed Bin Laden's irrelevance and undermined the racist stereotype that the only alternative to Arab dictators is fundamentalism.
Osama Bin Laden was not just an enemy of the US. He was also an enemy of democracy. He wanted the restoration of the caliphate i.e. absolute power by a theocracy. He was a reactionary who fought for the regression of Arab societies.
Some have compared the US bombing of Bin Laden to Dr. Frankenstein destroying his creation alluding to US support for Afghan insurgents against Soviet occupation. What is sure is that the US policy of propping up corrupt and dictatorial regimes in north africa and the middle east helped bin laden find new recruits. So did the farming out of torture which gave a free hand to the regimes to use brutality against their people with the excuse of the war on terror. No wonder Gaddafi and Assad have tried to use this excuse in the past weeks.
So did the invasion of iraq on the wrong pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction and the failure to support the popular revolution in the aftermath of the first gulf war.
And so did the failure to find a resolution which brings an end to the occupation of Palestine.
But unfortunately among the worse enemies of this prospect are Hamas who decided to isolate themselves from world opinion by proclaiming Bin Laden a 'holy warrior.' I wonder what future the unity government has after these declarations which play in to the hands of those Israelis who oppose peace.

Mimicking the far right

2011-04-17T06:52:00.004-07:00

“If mainstream politicians abdicate responsibility for addressing migration, which people on the ground talk about, it would give space for extremists to fill the void,” Muscat is reported to have said on Saturday.
I agree that politicians should not abdicate their responsibility. They are duty bound to offer a sense of leadership inspired by humanistic values.
To arrest the growth of the far right among working class people one has to address concrete issues like low wages, the race to the bottom in the labour market and the patronage networks which link politics and big business, and not imitate the far right by invoking the national interest in order to score cheap political points.
The constant pandering of the Labour Party to the national interest on an issue which revolves around 1000 human beings escaping from hell, is giving legitimacy to far right positions.
In the end of the day racists and xenophobes will simply prefer the original to the copy. And Labour will be pressed to become even more similar to the original...
Perhaps it is easier to exploit the worst instincts of Maltese society than to address concrete bread and butter issues which would put labour in a collision course with certain business interests.
The argument that to arrest the far right one has to appropriate their agenda was first proposed by Sarkozy in France. Despite a temporary set back the far right is even more stronger today reinvigorated by the legitimacy given to its argument by Sarkozy.

more hot air from labour

2011-04-15T04:23:00.009-07:00

Labour's latest motion calling on government to assist companies in Libya is another puff of hot air. The motion itself says that any such assistance should not cost the tax payers anything.
I hope that this also excludes any loss in government revenue which is needed more than ever to sustain our public services.
So what exactly this proposal means remains a mystery.
But coming so close to Muscat's latest statements on immigration, the motion is another step consolidating the party's new right wing identity based on the "national interest" ideology.
Why should we assist businessmen who were aware of investing in a dictatorship? I am not condemning them for doing so but business is by its very nature risky and investing in Gaddafi's Libya was even more of a risky venture. I am sure that as things went well these businesses raked their profits. Tough luck that there was a revolution.
And why should the state intervene in this case and not in the case of people who lost their money in say the collapse of the Lehman brothers or in some natural disaster? And why should money go to companies in Libya and not companies facing difficulties here?
But what irks me most is that Labour which has yet to condemn the Gaddafi regime has found time to present this motion.
Why not turn your guns on the confessional Nats, some pro labour guy might say...but all this talk the national interest has triggered something deep in my stomach ...

The grand failure of South to South diplomacy

2011-04-14T04:43:00.009-07:00

I hate to say it but the current tragedy in libya has exposed the weakness of south to south diplomacy. That is sad indeed for the "south" and BRIC nations in particular provide an important counter weight to the hegemony of the west which at times is driven by national self interest (not just of the elite but also of ordinary voters).
Am not surprised by the support given to Gaddafi by the African Union (for their latest ceasefire offer would have effectively resulted in capitulation to the regime) which is mostly composed of dictators with a horrible human rights record. Am not surprised by Ortega and Chavez, two authoritarian populists who have betrayed the popular struggles in their own country by resorting to thugs to repress opposition.
The greatest disappointment came from countries like Brazil and South Africa who while effectively not opposing the no fly zone (Brazil abstained while South Africa votes in favour) have washed their hands of the Libyan people's struggle for humanity and freedom.
South Africa has already made a mess in Zimbabwe by intervening diplomatically to keep a mad villian like Mugabe in power. Mugabe stands as a monument to South African impotence and lip service to the emancipation of fellow Africans.
While I expect Brazil and South Africa to guard against western double standards-having been victim of hypocrisy of cold war diplomacy, their experience should also make them more sensitive to human rights issues.
Instead of offering their support to the heroic people of Misrata who have been besieged for a month, they seem more interested in carving their own sphere of influence, teaming up with china, to promote a diplomacy where human rights are not even an issue.
The reaction of these countries contained a good dose of cynicism as well as old fashioned allergic reactions to the "west".
While this Europe is in a very bad shape right now because of the triumph of national egoisms (with the Libyan intervention being the sole redeeming factor after past support for the same regime), the emerging third world economies are proving to be not that different when it comes to self interest and worse when it comes to putting human rights on the agenda. On its part the other main player the US has walked on a tightrope between honking for freedom and supporting "friends." Despite his great limitations especially when it comes to putting pressure on oppressive gulf states like Bahrain, Obama has at least moved away from traditional US policy by ditching Mubarak in Egypt...a grand feat by US standards.
What is most disappointing is Europe's failure to seize the moment in proposing a vision of cooperation which for the first time breaks the barriers between north and south, something which would break traditional schemes which had seen western democracies propping dictatorial client states...
This would be the best answer to the cynicism of southern diplomacy and the resurgence of chinese style autocracy.

Muscat and the Italian circus

2011-04-12T02:00:00.011-07:00

Malta will be the ultimate loser in a European scenario where each country invokes its national interest with regards the immigration.
For that is what you get when everyone invokes the nationalist interest; an anarchy in which the strongest nations prevail on the weaker ones. Our long term interest is best served by the pain staking process of creating a system of rules not by Italy's rude diplomacy.
The alternatives to pain staking diplomacy is isolation. And pain staking diplomacy requires statesmen not demogouges who constantly cry wolf and stamp their feet.
What I find incredulous is Joseph Muscat declaration that he supports the stance taken by the Italian government which expects Europe to show solidarity with Italy while refraining from showing any solidarity with Malta.
His stance speaks volumes on the foreign policy vacuum which exists in the Labour Party. On immigration and foreign policy the Labour Party is simply not a credible alternative to the present government.
The major lesson from Europe's rebuke of the Italian circus is that one cannot conduct foreign policy while trying to appeal to the redneck vote. This is exactly what Maroni was trying to do.
The lack of results speak volumes on the wisdom of such tactics.
Muscat should be wary of fueling expectations which he will not be able to fulfill in government without turning Malta in to a pariah state which fails to fulfill international obligations. The problem is that some in the party's grass roots are taking him to his word. They will expect him to behave like Maroni. But he knows that if he does so he will be treated like a moron.
Interestingly Labour corrects its stance by referring to human dignity of migrants but not to their fundamental rights.
Labour's ambiguity is dangerous. For by stopping short of committing itself to respect our obligation to rescue all migrants in danger of losing their life and to give them the right to seek asylum, it hints at a solution which clearly does not respect human dignity let alone rights.
While the stance on migration fails the progressive acid test, the diplomatic scenario evoked by the appeal to "Mintoffian" diplomacy fails the "moderation" test. Those thinking that diplomacy is all about stamping their feet either want to score cheap political points or have no idea about the way diplomacy is conducted in Europe.

Gaza and the Arab revolutions

2011-04-09T07:22:00.013-07:00

Israel's bombardments in Gaza are to be firmly condemned. The actions of the Israeli right wing are symptomatic of a society which refuses its middle eastern destiny which would see it melt in the rich Middle Eastern soil anchoring the Jewish tradition in its 'new' Jewish-Arab context and thus end the occupation.
For the only solution for both Palestinians and Israelis is an end to the apartheid state and the creation of a multi ethnic democratic and secular state not the creation of a poor Arab state build in the image of other Arab/Muslim autocracies.
Even if a two state solution is adopted, the two states (or even more the Palestinian state) will not be able to survive without each other. Perhaps this vision is utopian but the alternative is even less realistic. A peace process leading to a failed state would be further recipe for war and instability.
The success of the Arab revolutions is a precondition for this to happen. As long as Arab countries remain ruled by murderous despots Israel will have a pretext to keep living in a bubble. For even Israel's actions pale in front of the barbarity of some Arab regimes.
Ironically repressive Arab governments like that of Assad, who have often used anti zionism as a pretext to alienate the masses, are now providing a spectacle of themselves which gives Israel cover for its actions against Palestinians.
Not to mention Hamas and even more radical groups who resist by throwing rockets on Israeli civilians... Am not surprised that the latest onslaught of rockets and bombardments came in the wake of a rebellion against Hamas by young people in Gaza...It seems that Hamas and the Israeli right wing exist to justify each others actions.
For the sake of both Israel and Palestinians, may the Arab revolutions prevail...
That does not mean that democracy will not come with its pitfalls.
Ultimately the victory of the Arab tyrants (or Islamic fundamentalism and Iranian imperialism) will only bolster the Israeli right wing.

Gaddafi must go but who will make him go?

2011-04-05T23:40:00.002-07:00

The West is facing a paradox. It wants Gaddafi to go without using the force required to make this possible. In a way the fear of civilian losses which could undermine the credibility of the whole venture is more than understandable. So is the need to operate within the narrow confines of a UN resolution which gives the whole operation the stamp of international legality. Still the more time passes, the more it seems that prudence will prolong the civil war and the suffering on the ground. Surely western intervention has this time round avoided a massacre by stopping Gaddafi from taking Benghazi. Those who oppose intervention should know that if they had their way, Gaddafi would have simply won. But are we happy with simply keeping Gaddafi out of Benghazi (while still endangering civilian lives in Misrata)? And since negotiations with a war criminal are impossible and there is no other option but removing him and his family from power, what alternatives exist to either arming the rebels to enable them to win or to engage in a full scale war with one single aim; eliminating Gaddafi in the shortest time possible.

Welcome to 812 new inhabitants

2011-04-02T12:08:00.012-07:00

True progressives would first express solidarity with migrants from war zones like Libya, then insist that these traumatized people are not detained, and finally call for greater European solidarity without losing a sense of proportion.
812 people are a lot but far from a cataclysm or a biblical exodus.
We only weaken our case in Europe by crying wolf all the time.
And fundamentally most of these people who have no country to go back to, qualify for protection by right. They are also likely to stay and live here for a long time.
The right for asylum is not conditional. And as a civilized state we have to grant these rights. Keeping people who clearly qualify for protection in detention simply prolongs their suffering.
A government which constantly refers to Christian values should show more compassion. Unfortunately for this government christian values are mostly invoked to oppose divorce and persecute novelists.
And the Labour Party's stance on immigration (which is devoid of any discourse of rights and solidarity) seems bent on exploiting xenophobic sentiments on this sensitive issue, which makes it anything but progressive.

europe and the revolution

2011-03-28T13:06:00.010-07:00

The intervention in Libya avoided a massacre. Irrespective of the doubts one may have on the actors, the act was justified and life saving. Those ignoring this reality are hypocrites who put their anti western allergies before universal values.
That said one must not forget the real lesson of this crisis. The west must stop investing in stability by supporting dictators sometimes by farming out its dirty work to combat illegal immigration and terrorism.
Secondly for democracy to succeed and take root in the Arab world the European Union has to seize this historic opportunity by opening up a political and economic process in which the new democracies are treated as equal partners. Surely participation in this partnership must be conditional on respect of human, women and minority rights.
But it should also offer concrete economic benefits and prospects in a re-united Mediterranean as well as a rethinking of migration policies designed to keep people out rather than circulating and sharing ideas. We should not forget that while Europe is getting demographically older, youth is blossoming on the southern shores.
The only long term solution to the migration of desperation is economic prosperity and openness coupled with social and environmental standards which in Europe we take forgranted.
Unlike Sarkozy I believe that the first step in this partnership is EU membership for Turkey. This will change the way we define ourselves as Europeans. Secondly we should start thinking of transcending the narrow confines of European identity on cultural/ethnic lines and start thinking in terms of cosmopolitan identities united by shared democratic and pluralistic values.
Facebook, twitter, satellite TV are redefining identities challenging the notion that democratic aspirations are a prerogative of the west.
The long term prospect could be different layers of shared sovereignity which gradually brings down the invisible wall which splits the northern shores from the southern shores of the Mediterranean.
Rather than sterile pacifism which is unable to stand up for great republican universal values which we inherited from the French revolution, this is the way forward for progressive politics.
I much fear that in the absence of this vision a counter revolution will prevail in the Arab world and the only option left to the young educated people of north africa will be that of emigrating to europe while new repressive movements and dictators will emerge to brutalize the people without a prospect.
Just as Israel and Hamas are in some ways interdependent, European xenophobes feed on the fear generated by islamic fundamentalism. The rise of Arab democracies makes a mockery of the narrative of the right wing in both Israel and Europe and undermines apartheid in Israel/Palestine as well as frontiers of fortress Europe.
Rather than the stuff of right-wing scaremongering Eurabia may be a worthwhile destination.

This is not Iraq

2011-03-18T07:50:00.011-07:00

Unlike the Iraq war the imposition of a no fly zone on Libya carries the stamp of international legality. And this time round the pretext for intervention is not phony.
The intervention on Libya is based on very real threats of an imminent massacre made by Gaddafi himself yesterday when he promised that he would show no mercy on rebels in Benghazi as well as the brutal repression which led to the uprising.
The approval of yesterday's resolution by Security Council sets an important precedent that the international community will not governments to use brutal military force against their citizens. This is an important and most welcome limitation of national sovereignty which is not absolute when there are human rights violations of a certain scale.
Obviously this will raise questions on whether other situations require the same treatment as Libya. What makes the Libyan situation particular and different from say Bahrain and Yemen was the deployment of military force to quell a rebellion and the subsequent risk of a military attack on rebel held territory. But that is no excuse for the lame western response to the situation in two Arabian countries. And the decision by Saudi Arabia to send troops in Bahrain and today's massacre in Yemem warrants a more decisive response especially by the US which has leverage on both regimes.
The Libyan government's declaration of a ceasefire confirms the effectiveness of the resolution in putting Gaddafi on notice.
But one still has to be wary of the regime's survival instincts . One has to make sure that the spirit of the resolution, that of eliminating the threat to civilians is adhered to. One cannot accept a ceasefire aimed at disarming the rebels so that Gaddafi butchers them the next day. The resolution does not exist in a legal vacuum and should not pose as an obstacle to the popular revolution in Libya.

Towards Mediterranean unity

2011-03-06T06:24:00.013-08:00

Our response to the epochal moment of rebellion against the despots of North Africa should not be conditioned by the petty thinking of the past. The anti imperialists of yesterday have no right to interpret our world with their fossilized ideology which not only paints the world in black and white but is guilty of the same racism of the political right wing which considers arabs as being tribal, primitive and incapable of a democracy.

Some would say that we should lets the Arabs sort their mess alone ignoring the west's historical responsibilities. And here am not referring to military intervention but to a new political process of euro-med unity based on liberal democracy and an end to neo-colonialism i.e. the racist notion of dealing with third world elites to keep the borders safe from migrants and commerce going.

Instead we should embark on a very long journey of unifying the two shores of the Mediterranean with the ultimate goal being a new political block-comprehending both Europe and all democratic Mediterranean states, a block where there is freedom of movement for both capital and peoples and were political and civil rights, social and environmental protection are also harmonized.

Yes ultimately neo liberalism (the belief that capitalism should be subjected to the least amount of democratic scrutiny) and liberal democracy are far from one and the same thing.

As regards Libya the absence of civil society and a rational bureaucracy (a legacy of the criminal regime-something which makes Gaddafi worse than Ben Ali and Mubarak) will complicate matters but my hunch is that the major force for change is a profound desire to live without fear and to share individual experiences in the exciting prospects offered by globalisation and the new technologies.

It is the same desire which triggers revolt in all arab states and i hope in other dictatorial countries worldwide including those countries professing anti imperialism but who fear pluralism and openness like Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Zimbabwe etc etc.

Dear Mr. anti imperialist wherever your are: It is not a crime to desire a normal life.

The bigger picture 2

2011-03-01T12:46:00.005-08:00

It is positive that the Prime Minister has finally declared that Gaddafi's time is up and that Malta will not look the other way if genocide takes place in Libya. The way Malta as a nation is emerging as a protagonist in the evacuation of people from Libya fills me with a sense of pride. That said we should not forget those Africans escaping Libya stranded in Tunisia.
One cannot forget that malta stood four square behind the infamous Italy-Libya agreement on the forced return of migrants. Or that Gonzi made an ill timed visit to Libya. And one could say that the government was the last to condemn Gaddafi (with the official justification being not to endanger the Maltese in Libya).
In this sense it was perfectly legitimate for Moviment Graffitti to question the PLPN's past relations with Libya.
But ultimately it is reassuring that Malta is a trusted member of the international community and its voice is consonant with that of the free world.
Ultimately our place in the world is the definitive big picture which can't be missed. Obviously I would aim even higher by aspiring for a more committed nation in the field of human rights.

The National interest and the Common Good

2011-02-25T07:33:00.005-08:00

The way the two major political parties use the words National interest (note the capital N in labour's press statements) and the common good is reminiscent of far right politics.
Labour's obsession with the National interest in matters related to immigration and foreign policy is outdated and out of tune with a world in which human rights are becoming a corner stone of a progressive foreign policy. This is especially repulsive when used within the context of gross human rights violations in Libya.
The PN's obsession with the common good on issues like divorce is equally repulsive. For while I fully subscribe to the idea of a common good with regards to environmental issues and social justice, this idea becomes dangerous when applied to matters of personal choices and morality.

If Gaddafi survives another day...

2011-02-23T12:45:00.012-08:00

If Gaddafi does not go anytime soon, there could be a case for a humanitarian and military backed intervention. To avoid arriving at that stage the United Nations is duty bound to issue a clear warning to Gaddafi by referring him and anyone obeying his orders to a war crimes tribunal, impose sanctions on the ruling elite as well as asking all countries to freeze the regime's assets.

But if all this fails to depose the tyrant we have to prepare for the worst. Failure to protect the liberated zones from a counter attack by the Gaddafi militias could result in a catastrophe similar to that in Iraq in 1991 when a moribund and defeated regime suddenly found its strength to strangle the revolt by committing genocide. The institution of a no fly zone as requested by Libyan dissidents would be a step in the right direction. But lets be clear a no fly zone means shooting down any plane which violates it. Obviously I am not advocating bombarding Tripoli but ensuring that no military planes are allowed to bomb civilians. Surely this is risky as it could play in to the regime's hands but that is no excuse for allowing a bloodbath.

12 years ago faced with the genocide in Kosovo pacifists like the German Greens found themselves accepting the principle of humanitarian intervention. Fresh in their minds was the impotence of the west in the face of Srebrenica and Ruanda. We should never again find ourselves in these situations where thousands were massacred by war criminals as the world turned a blind eye. Neither should we turn a blind eye because Russia or China object.

PS: Tonight in parliament the government and the opposition condemned the violence and human rights violations in Libya. May I remind them that the violence is not happening in a vacuum. It has a mastermind. The PLPN is united in not mentioning the dictator's name.

Labour is making mockery of any progressive ideal by not condemning the regime. Condemning violence and human rights violations after six long days of complete silence, without condemning the perpetrator shows the low priority of human rights for the PL. Progressivi my foot! Even William Hague is a hundred times more progressive.

Other countries also have commercial interests in Libya. They are also doing their best to get their nationals out of Gaddafi's hell hole...But they did speak out and condemn the regime. Maybe they will increase the dose after evacuating their citizens but they have already condemned the regime.

The criticism these countries are facing is whether condemnation is enough. One of the reasons why the situation escalated is because Gaddafi thought he could buy everybody's silence. Probably he is still killing people because the reaction has not been forceful enough to instill fear in the regime and its lackeys. Prolonging the life of the regime even by a week can have tragic consequences.

The spineless foreign policy of the PLPN does not bode well for the future. They have offended our dignity as a free democratic nation. Their very recent past (which includes visits in the dictator's den) will return to haunt them. After all both parties had backed the pact between Libya and Italy through which migrants were sent back to Gaddafi's hell hole. When quizzed on this issue in September Labour leader Muscat replied that he had not seen any 'mainstream reports' about poor conditions of migrants in Libya.

Like dinosaurs from a by-gone age they cannot adapt to a world where change comes suddenly and where everything is literally possible...even the end of this bi-polar disorder.

2011-02-23T10:48:00.027-08:00

The big picture

2011-02-20T05:44:00.007-08:00

Recently someone close to Labour invited me to look at the big picture...insisting that the alpha and omega of all problems is two decades of PN governments and that the most relevant issue is whether there should be a change of government or not. I smiled imagining what two decades of labour would look like...

I simply replied that my picture is probably bigger than his.

The silence coming from mile land and Castille on the situation in libya shows clearly what the "big picture" of Maltese politics is. They won't speak irrespective of how many people are killed.

It is the same "big picture" on all the issues relevant to me... migration, human rights, divorce, hunting, tuna farming, electoral reform, party financing, the need for liberalizations in protected sectors, unsustainable water practices, the minimum wage... This is the big picture for me period.

Hawwadni ha nifmek

2011-02-12T06:28:00.007-08:00

The PM today said that although he will vote NO he still hopes for a referendum fully knowing that if a majority of MPs make the same choice, no referendum will take place.

Since a referendum can only be held if parliament votes yes, the PM is either taking us for a ride or inviting some of his MPs to vote yes to allow the referendum to take place.

If the PM (unlike my good self who believes that this is a matter for parliament to decide on) is so enthusiastic about the referendum why not simply pass an ad hoc law calling a consultative referendum on this issue rather than relegating divorce to a double insurance policy against divorce?

Obviously this scenario would be a veritable minefield as the result will not be binding and will still require ratification by parliament. In the absence of a law, it would be difficult to agree on a question acceptable to both parts. Practically it will be the same situation as with the referendum on EU membership. But while EU involved a transfer of sovereignty thus making a referendum desirable, divorce is a simple normal law effecting only those who want to re-marry.

And if Carmelo Abela and Marie Louise Coleiro are against divorce they should simply vote NO rather than hide behind the referendum smokescreen. I respect their choice but I am irked with MPs shelving responsibility on the people by arguing that a referendum should be held before parliament takes a final decision. This raises the question; how would those opposed to divorce vote if the people vote yes?

This is only too similar to Lawrence Gonzi’s previous argument that the issue is too big for parliamentarians to decide upon. Gonzi has suddenly concluded that the issue is too big for parliamentarians to decide upon only if he is outvoted in parliament. The anti divorce Labour MPs are now dreading Gonzi’s change of heart. For the only way to push a referendum would be by voting yes to divorce. Very mind boggling scenario.

One way out of the quandary would be if those MPs who want a referendum propose an alternative motion calling for a referendum on divorce. But I doubt whether this would be in the interest of the divorce cause. I remain a firm believer that this is a matter for parliament to decide. If it fails to pass this time, nothing will stop the next parliament from reconsidering.

Insularity at the Mile End

2011-02-01T01:34:00.001-08:00

Gone are the days when Malta was proposed as a Switzerland of the Mediterranean. But has this given way to the vision of Malta in the role of "the slut of the Mediterranean"?

In the face of an epochal moment which sees one of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes clinging to power in the face of one of one of the most dramatic demonstrations of people's power since 1989, our opposition leader laments the fact that the government has not unleashed a massive tourism publicity campaign with the intent to draw tourists to Malta, in the light of the on-going instability in North Africa.

This exposes the complete lack of political stature of our opposition in the face of global events. For while there is nothing wrong in diverting tourists to Malta by advertising our wares, there is something farcical in a future Prime Minister ignoring the bigger picture of democracy coming to North Africa and talking about reaping short term benefits.

This unfortunate remark shows that insularity still reigns at the Mile End. Gone are the days when Malta was proposed as a Switzerland of the Mediterranean -an image which in itself evoked shady business unregulated by EU rules. Instead we are faced with a proposition of Malta becoming a sort of slut of the Mediterranean which gives little consideration to human rights and is only interested in pecuniary gain.

For the past decades Labour has addressed the nation as if it was talking to a nation of egoistical shop keepers whose word view is confined to what happens in the few square meters around them. This attitude seems to work in between elections but fails miserably in every general election when people start thinking in terms of who should govern them. It is this attitude which makes labour a far cry from the viable alternative government we deserve.

A spectre is haunting the Arab world

2011-01-15T04:14:00.008-08:00

A spectre is haunting the Arab world, the spectre of a social liberal revolution by people who no longer accept a choice between irrational fundamentalists and corrupt regimes propped up by the West. And the West must learn a lesson, that Arabs are not inferiors who are best kept at bay by corrupt and compliant regimes. This racist stereotype which pervades both left and right is even worse than Bush's notion of regime change (which was immediately compromised by US friendship with Mubarak and co). In fact the west needs to make it clear once and for all that economic gains and cooperation run hand in hand with respect for human rights. Its time to say in public what is said in private. Wikileaks revelations about the scathing private views of the US ambassador in Tunis were widely read across the region – and, some argue, even helped prepare the ground for the current unrest. Perhaps wikileaks was more successful at regime change than Bush...May Ghaddafi and Mubarak join Ben Ali in exile in Saudi Arabia soon and in hell later.

A global crisis, a national problem

2011-01-11T23:43:00.000-08:00

While the economic crisis is global, the political crisis is a national problem. Blaming the government for the rise in the price of fuel is dishonest. But blaming it for lack of leadership at a very sensitive time is legitimate.

Switching on the news is sufficient to expose the follies of myopia and parochialism. The crisis is global. From communist Havana to capitalist London, governments have nothing to offer but cuts and tears. Elected government find themselves betraying pre electoral promises while violence in erupting in dictatorships like Tunisia. Prices are bound to increase here as elsewhere. There is no escape from the world economy.

The Labour Party is walking on a tight rope by organizing a protest against the hike in prices without proposing a return of zombie solutions which would leave the country in a worse state than it is now. For the only alternative to price increases is an increased government expenditure on subsidies which translates to either higher taxes or spiraling deficits. While exploiting popular anger for electoral ends, Muscat has intelligently steered away from calling for the re-introduction of subsidies or price controls and has focused on the lack of transparency on the part of the regulator (the opaque MRA in this case).

Whether a future Labour government will have the courage to relinquish its control on regulatory authorities by turning them in to autonomous quangos remains to be seen. And even if this happens Malta will not be immune from the ravages of globalisation. Fuel and food prices will rise irrespective of whether Gonzi or Muscat are in the cockpit. What matters is what sort of leadership they offer.

On this count Gonzi's government has shot itself in the foot by raising the salaries of Ministers and MPs at the very moment when dark clouds were returning to the horizon following a very short lull of sunshine. It has undermined its own moral legitimacy to lead the country through a global crisis of unforeseen proportions.

That said I personally concur with what Labour whip Joe Mizzi said in 2008; that it does not make sense for a Minister to earn less than a chairman of a corporation falling under his or her portfolio. The problem with the MP pay rise was the method and the timing. not the principle. I still can’t grasp how the Prime Minister failed to understand the popular mood by insisting on the increase in MP salaries at the worse possible time when the government's space of maneuver is limited by a crisis.

For it is becoming increasingly unlikely for the government to decrease income tax for the relatively well off unless it wants to endanger the country’s finances and thus risk a Greek tragedy. As economist Karmenu Farrugia recently warned “the need for fiscal consolidation demands that both political parties desist from even mentioning the possibility of lowering the standard rate of income tax (35%) for the foreseeable future, but especially before the next parliamentary elections expected in 2013,”

What is expected in the short term is to divert some resources to those who are worse off. This could come either through new sources of revenue like property taxes or by cutting on welfare payments to those who are relatively well off and increase payments for those who are least well off. And while the government boasts of controlling unemployment, it can no longer hide the fact that it finds itself dishing tenders to employers who barely pay the minimum wage, thus increasing the social pain.

On the other hand the government cannot afford to derail itself from the long term goal of shifting expenditure from subsidizing consumption of resources to investment in education, child care and the environment. For inequality becomes a grave injustice when it is passed from one generation to the next. And the only way to avoid that is through long term investment in social mobility. One such investment would be extending school hours. And it would be a shame if the sectoral interests of some unions are allowed to prevail over the interests of female workers in general.

We cannot afford to lose an entire generation because of the economic crisis by abandoning investment in the future to meet present needs. One can still be progressive at a time of crisis. But at the same time there is nothing progressive in denying the deficit, the sustainability of our pension system and global realities.

Italy's Mugabe wins again

2010-12-14T12:21:00.010-08:00

Berlusconi’s victory is bad news especially for those who wanted Italy to become a normal country through the advent of a modern liberal and moderate right represented by Gianfranco Fini which no longer poses a danger to basic democratic norms.
It is bad news simply because Berlusconi is morally and politically corrupt as evidenced by the successful attempt to buy off opposition MPs like Scipoliti, a medical doctor who left the Italy of Values Party (the most vociferous anti Berlusconi party) because his colleuges did not take acupuncture seriously.
It is also bad news because this victory undermines Italy’s ties with western democracies shaken by Berlusconi’s ties with Putin and Ghaddafi.
Fundamentally Berlusconi’s victory is another obstacle for Italy in its bid to become a normal democratic country.
Today’s victory clearly reinforces a populist, extremist and xenophobic right wing which is the most backward member of the European People's Party.
Surely a 3 seat majority is no big political victory but it is surely a psychological boost which reinforces Berlusconi's aura of invicibility.
One thing is sure: today’s result excludes an alternative parliamentary majority which could change the rules of the game to ensure a fair contest in the next election.
The result increases the temptation of the clerical centrists led by Casini to supplant the secular liberals of Fini who will now have to re-invent themselves in opposition. Perhaps some of them will discover more common ground with the modern left when it comes to setting the rules regulating democracy and citizenship.
It is also a defeat for the left which till the very end hinged its bet on an alternative government appointed by the present parliament, a prospect which could well have turned Berlusconi from a capricious Nero to a martyr of a palace intrigue.
Obviously this is a catch 22 situation, for without changing the rules of the game there is a big chance that Berlusconi will crown himself President of the Republic.
Much depends on the ability of Bersani and Vendola to embrace modernity while still making fundamental and radical choices in politics. For while Berlusconi defies modernity in his conception of power, the left does not offer a coherent alternative economic policy.
The left still seems to excel in poetry rather than solutions addressing access to the labour market and precarious jobs.
Bersani's track record as an architect of liberalisations (in protected sectors like pharmacies and taxis) in Prodi's government and Vendola's ability to attract investment in solar energy in Puglia provide a glimpse of what a modern left could be like.
Instead of living in the world of fantapolitics the left will now have to win heart and minds for its own project of governance, standing on its own feet to win support of different social groups while reaching out to centrist and liberal forces to change the rules of the game with the ultimate aim of ridding Italy of its Mugabe.

Wikileaks and the end of anti americanism

2010-12-05T02:30:00.011-08:00

It is no surprise that the rabid american right wing is calling for the literal decapitation of Wikileaks but most of the leaks simply confirm that the real threat to the world is posed by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes like China, the hypocritical Saudis, Iran, Russia, Libya as well as autocrats like Berlusconi in Europe (who comes across as Putin's client) and various central Asian regimes ... Definitely US diplomacy in the past 50 years has played along with various dictatorship in Europe, Asia and South America to contain communism. In Korea, Indonesia and central america the US was definitely involved in crimes against humanity. And in Italy US interests could have flirted with deviant parts of the state to create a climate of tension.
Under Bush the mistakes committed in the struggle against communism were to some extent replicated by farming out torture in repressive states.
But the growth of the global media has changed the terrain drastically. Even the despicable acts of the Bush era (like the use of torture and the illegal invasion of Iraq) pale in comparison with those of former Presidents between the end of the second world war and the 1980s.
This coupled by major political changes with right wing military dictatorships being replaced by democracies in most of Latin America and south east Asia.
Left wing groups obsessed by Nato and the USA should better refocus their energies on the real despots and autocrats and hold the west to account on its dealings with the various mad dogs. For who backs the Burmese regime and Sudan in Darfur? And who plays blackmail with immigrants crossing the Mediterranean sea?
Surely wikileaks has also exposed the mess in Afghanistan and the corrupt regime installed there. But surely allowing the Taliban to win back power cannot be part of the agenda of anyone cherishing progressive values.
Ironically old leftists who still defer to China, Libya and even North Korea are the real reactionaries. The world has changed and in a multipolar world the US is one of many actors, some of which more brutal and definitely madder.
As regards the US itself the real danger is an internal one...the rabid right wing represented by the tea party whose triumph would make America more like the autocratic regimes which are rightly held in to account by its diplomacy. If most unfortunately the price of this is Clintonian normality rather than the audacity of hope...so be it.

The battle against Populism

2010-11-25T12:04:00.003-08:00

Populism is the dumbing down of democracy. It weakens civic action to make way for leaders whose caricatures appear so real.... To get to power populists exploit ignorance and insecurities. They are willing to exploit base instincts like xenophobia as well as crass economic ignorance and old fashioned autarky. Those of the right promise tax cuts which erode the entire social model. Those of the 'left' ransack the state coffers mostly to create networks of patronage and dependencies. In power populists have to further dumb down the political debate and create more insecurities and fears. The scary part is that democracy as we know has proved no antidote for these vermin. And even worse they often use elections to undermine checks and balances. In fact the past decade has seen authoritarian populists flourish all over the world, from Putin in Russia to the tea party in the USA, from Berlusconi in Italy to Chavez in Venezuela... In the face of all this, the only antidote is a democratic mobilisation based on civic action and wide alliances involving all shades of democratic politics. And lets not imagine that populism is not present in our country, elements of it are present in both dominant political parties, even if we do not yet have rude leaders like Berlusconi. Rather than the leaders themselves, in Malta it is the duopoly itself which is oppressive and illiberal.

A fool's paradise on the eve of a Greek tragedy?

2010-11-23T04:06:00.001-08:00

Nostalgia for the good old times of Eddie Fenech Adami when taxes were reduced, benefits increased and the deficit ignored won't take us anywhere. Reality cannot be ignored.

I might not agree with all the solutions proposed by the Central Bank Governor Michael Bonello, but he was spot on warning against “manifestations of the ‘Malta is different’ syndrome” and “suggestions that belt-tightening and structural reforms are for others, but not for us.”

Maltese politics is infected with the insularity virus which blinkers our vision to the extent that many are willing to ignore whatever is happening around us on planet earth. If the party is over all over the world, it is clear that we can't afford to live in a fool's paradise.

The conditions are simply different from the early 1990s when the Eddie Fenech Adami government was pumping money in the country's neglected infrastructure and tertiary education within a relatively stable international scenario. For some time fiscal revenues increased despite a decrease in tax rates due to a period of sustained growth. But by the mid 1990s the government could only plug the deficit hole with the introduction of Value Added Tax. Ironically Alfred Sant who discovered the "hole" in 1996 ended up digging it further by removing this plug.

But the belief that we still live in an insulated world of our own is so pervasive that politicians can get away with murder. One such case is opposition leader Joseph Muscat calling for tax cuts right amidst an unresolved global economic crisis.

Even more serious would be the Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi forgetting the fiscal discipline of today, and slashing taxes for electoral convenience on the eve of the election without a corresponding plan on how to shift the burden. If he does so he would be simply cashing in on the sacrifices made by the country in the past few years.

What is absent in the confrontation between the two big parties represented in parliament is a grand debate on how to restructure public finances and the fiscal system. Responsibility, social justice and sustainability should be the three major pillars of any reform. But we can't afford to think that retaining the status quo and refraining from reforms is an option. The writing is already on the wall. The absence of a debate on how to reform exposes the limits of our stagnant duopoly.

For while on one hand simply calling for cutting public spending across the board could be fatal in a country which needs to invest more rather than less on public services like education, expecting the national debt to evaporate with the magic wand of good intentions could spell our disaster.

Unfortunately unlike most other European countries Malta has still to complete its modernisation.

Let us not forget that we still have the lowest level of female participation in the economy in Europe. This means less income in families’ pockets, less taxes and contributions to the state and less creativity. Public spending directed in to providing affordable child care services is anything but a bad use of money. So is all investment which helps social mobility in the long term goal of freeing people from dependency. In the long term this investment would help to decrease public spending. In the short term it won’t.

The question now is to identify our priorities and which things we agree to keep "free" (because they form an integral part of our social model and our civilization) and than to find ways to finance them either through taxes and contributions or through cuts in other areas. For ultimately there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Probably people with a left wing conscience (like me) will be more prone to seek fiscal remedies to shield social spending while those with a more laissez faire attitude would be willing to sacrifice the social aspect to reduce the fiscal burden. What is clear is that there can be no gain without pain as suggested by the proponents of marshmallow politics. The big debate between left and right is whether to tax big profits, property hoarding and speculation or decrease spending on vital public services, not on whether to have reforms or not.

Irrespective of ideologies, nobody in his right senses would dream of bringing back state subsidies for gas and fuel. What was questionable was not the cost recovery principle but the timing of the new tariffs right amidst a global recession. But now there is no turning back the clock. Neither can we afford to give stipends to the sons and daughters of the well off or to finance those who choose sending their children to private schools. Some cuts are justified by sheer common sense.

Ignoring reality, be it the need of a second pillar to finance the pension system or clamping down on the theft of ground water resources by giving this resource (which also accounts for 45% of our tap water) a real price, comes at our peril.

So does ignoring the vast social deficit, the growing regional and class divide, deteriorating public services and the absence of lubricants to ease social mobility.

The lesson is clear. If we are not careful now (and if we lose our cool on the eve of the next election by slashing taxes to win or by promising the moon from the opposition), a Greek tragedy awaits us.

The Living Wage goal

2010-10-03T05:47:00.005-07:00

My starting point in social policy is that everyone should live above the threshold of poverty (understood in material terms) irrespective of any other factor.
This is not a natural right (for in the state of nature people simply die of hunger if they are unable to feed themselves) but an acquired right in the same way as freedom of expression and freedom of association, which should be absolute (a political imperative) but are not in any way innate or universal but are enacted as a result of political action and struggle.
I also understand that we are living in a capitalist economy which is based on labour being given value as a commodity and that this is the only economy which has so far worked in securing affluence for a significant part of the population (often at the cost of natural resources).
But it is also a fact that people earn their living from selling their labour with the expectation of leading a decent existence.
In this sense the state can intervene to set a minimum value for labour to ensure that incomes do not fall below a certain level which has to be determined by society from time to time. In so doing the state also avoids a race to the bottom.
The concept of a “living wage” supposedly goes beyond this as its ultimate goal is to ensure that people not only avoid the risk of falling in to poverty but also lead a decent life. Obviously this depends a lot on the actual monetary value of the proposed living wage.
If what a “living wage” means is a sheer adjustment of the minimum wage to reflect current realities- over and above COLA but not that much more, it would be socially regressive if introduces as a voluntary option for capitalists.
In this case the end result would be that of having workers depending on employers’ benevolence simply to have a guarantee of a minimum wage based on a realistic calculation.
So if the starting point is the current minimum wage does not ensure an existence over and above the risk of poverty, than this problem can only be addressed by raising the minimum wage.
On the other hand if the living wage is understood as an instrument to ensure a decent and fuller life for all and recognition for employers who offer this, it can have positive social consequences especially if applied in government tenders.
Obviously some may ask why not simply raise the minimum wage to the level of a “living wage”? I much fear that the answer would be that capitalism will simply contract and stop creating new jobs. Obviously one may argue that we need to start attracting the kind of capitalism which offers living wages.
This is surely a long term solution as is the entry of working mothers in the labour market-something which would on its own increase the income (and insularity and patriarchal autarky) in households. I suspect that a wise government would make this its number one priority.
Ultimately despite seeing merits in a living wage proposal if this is NOT understood as a voluntary minimum wage increase, I have my reservations on shifting what are essentially social and political goals from government to the private sector.
What should be debated is whether one should reach a social and political goal (a decent existence for all) by offering incentives to living wage employers i.e. fiscal mechanisms in a market economy instead of instruments of social redistribution which transfer wealth.
Capitalists (in whatever form) are more efficient in creating work and wealth, while democratically elected governments are better trusted in guaranteeing social and political rights.
Therefore I would rather have the state allocating that extra portion of income to secure a decent existence for everyone than to have the state meddle with incomes policy, apart from establishing a realistic minimum wage.
One way of achieving this is through a national basic income for every citizen subsidized through taxes on consumption, resource use, financial transactions and higher incomes which would replace the entire welfare system. By setting the national basic income at a level which avoids poverty, people would still have an incentive to work and create wealth and to save for their pensions to keep living the same standard of living at old age. On the other hand they would afford to reduce their working time or even withdraw for some time either for training or family responsibilities.
The major question for this is whether there can be enough tax revenue (without harming the economy) to fund such a system.
The second question is whether this would make the green shift from taxes on income to taxes on resources more a long term fiscal than an environmental measure.
The third question relates to whether such a system would make it more difficult for immigrants to be accepted as citizens, thus leaving a potential reserve of poverty.
Therefore for the time being (without losing sight of the long term political goal of ensuring a good life for all) I would recommend the following options:
1. Revise the minimum wage every five years on the basis of studies establishing the minimum income required to secure basic needs in a modern society.
2. Consider a national basic income for people rendered unemployed but actively seeking employment through training.
3. Concentrate on investing on child care centers and encouraging female employment and on education to improve the investment potential of the country.
4. Introduce the concept of a living wage- understood as a decent and comfortable existance-in the award of public contracts.
5. Take meausures to ensure that the labour market is accessible to women, migrants and young people even at the cost of doing away with anachronisms.

On Ed's victory

2010-09-25T15:16:00.004-07:00

I highly recommend Compass analysis of Ed Miliband's victory . (they did support Ed despite Cruddas backing of David but their analysis has a lot of Cruddas way of thinking in it) It can be found on http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=11170

The following is an extract which is particularly significant:

"Next comes the AV referendum. Labour simply cannot be against this small improvement to our discredited voting system. This opens up the issue of our relationship with the Liberal Democrats. This is the other big political challenge facing Labour; how to move from being tribalists to pluralists. The days of single party government may be over for good. The choice in the future could well be coalition or the wilderness. There is a huge number of Liberal Democrat members and supporters aghast at what their Party leadership have saddled them with. We need to work carefully to bring them to us".

Why i prefer David to Ed

2010-09-24T05:06:00.004-07:00

What worries me more about Ed is his illusion that Labour will win on its own and his tribal attacks on the lib dems with whom one day he would have to govern.
David is more pluralistic. His Blairism is obviously a liability. But i am not surprised that non tribalist left wingers like Cruddas are supporting David not Ed.
The problem for Labour is not recapturing the centrist vote...but dealing with the growing independence of the urban middle class vote.
This social class includes a new middle class which is large educated, cosmopolitan, environmentalist, liberal in social values and concerned with social equality but allergic to to workerist slogans and the irrational defense of failed industries and other anachronisms.
The label centrist is too vague to define the new politics emerging in the european mainland.
Perhaps the lib dems who were closest to these instances will be weakened by the coalition cuts (and don't be too sure of that) but if that happens probably the greens if they move the german way could move on occupy that niche. My hunch is that it is going to be coalition politics in the UK as in the rest of Europe.

The greens and the urban middle class

2010-09-23T14:07:00.005-07:00

With the German Greens riding high at 24% in some polls (at level with the SPD)the German financial daily Handelsblatt writes:

"The wave of approval for the Greens cannot be explained solely by pointing to the desolate state of the competition. In 1983, when the Greens first gained seats in the national parliament, they were outsiders, both politically and habitually. Now, they are in the center of society because their issues have gone mainstream. Greens embody the lives of the urban middle class: liberal, environmentally aware, cosmopolitan, tolerant and interested in social equality."

The local greens might well ask; does an urban middle class which embodies the values mentioned above, exist in Malta? My hunch is that this class is numerically weaker in Malta and even if it exists it is culturally less progressive. But it is bound to grow as incomes rise and more people get a tertiary education. But part of the Green success in Germany is a movement towards the center without losing the alternative edge. It is this which makes them conventional and sexy at the same time for people who have grown allergic to red flags and workerisms, are in the business of enjoying life but sincerely care about both social inclusion, the environment and civil rights.

So much about so little?

2010-09-22T00:21:00.004-07:00

As I made clear in earlier blogs I am quite uneasy with the lib-con experiment in the UK even if i think that there was hardly any other option...

But I cannot but grin at Nick Clegg's comments on new labour's obsession with memoirs. Perhaps its too dismissive of new labour as an ideological and partially successful hegemonic construct BUT it is so uplifting:

"Has anyone else lost track of the books Labour people keep publishing? Never in the field of political memoirs, has so much been written by so few about so little. They went from nationalisation to serialisation. From The Third Way to a third off at the book shop..."

"The Labour leadership candidates are trying to rewrite history. But we remember. Civil liberties destroyed on an industrial scale. A widening gap between rich and poor. Failure to act on the environment. Locking up more children than anywhere else in western Europe. Kowtowing to the banks. A foreign policy forged in George Bush’s White House. The invasion of Iraq.

And then, on top of all that they brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. Writing cheques, even in the final days of their government that they knew would bounce. This country could not have borne five more years of Labour."

Sometimes I also get the hunch that in various European societies the crisis of social democracy (in the UK and even countries like Sweden) and the rise of a far right has created space for variable alliances where social progressives can play kingmakers especially in countries which have a modern liberal centre-right....(not so easy to recognise and define)

In some instances one can notice a tendency in some social democratic parties to try recover their grass roots by going back to old labour (always half heartedly) or at worse by sounding tougher on migration (akwardly). The end result disorientates practically everyone.

That is something worth a deep analysis...

For the heavy stuff...

2010-09-07T05:42:00.018-07:00

As some may have noticed for the past weeks I have been posting my blogs on Maltatoday's new portal which obviously has a wider readership.
I was thinking of shutting down this blog. Instead I have decided to keep it alive so that from time to time I post blogs of a more personal and ideological nature which are of little interest for the general public. At the risk of rambling... here is some food for thought.

1. Globally social democracy is well past its expiry date (Locally we can't even speak of a normal social democracy but a mixture of populism and different nuances of social democracy and pure tribalism). Ironically in Europe most interesting debates are happening within the center right where liberal conservatives (like Cameron and Fini) are increasingly detaching themselves from "new right" populism while the only successful alternative discourse to the dominant model is that of the greens not just on issues like climate change but on fundamental issues related to citizenship, green jobs, immigration and sexuality.
Obviously the lib con "big society" agenda although one of the most innovative (reminiscent of green concept of grass root democracy and christian democratic subsidiarity) still conflicts with visions of modernity based on radical democracy and ecological sustainability.
One fundamental difference revolves around fiscal policies i.e. whether to simply ditch state responsibilities to private interests or whether to decentralise power while ensuring that communities have the resources to take care of themselves. The money always has to come from somewhere. Slashing taxes simply makes the big society poorer. It also ignores the defense of the commons (ex resources like water which belong to the collectivity).

2. Substituting social democracy with some vague progressive label at best a no starter and at worse a deception. There are different ways of being progressive in today's world and there is no natural hegemonic block which can serve as a container for all these shades of progressivism. Neither is the cause of progress better served by the popular front narrative of the 1930s (no use changing the unity between socialists, republicans and communists with a unity between socialists, greens, the left and social liberals). It may well also be served by coalitions between democrats and modernisers hailing from different traditions. What counts is the chemistry of shared values (ex human rights which are not always valued by those on the left who glorify Chavez and Castro) and the reality of numbers and the threat posed by populism, which is mostly right wing but sometimes is economically left-wing or at least statist. Obviously am not excluding a realignment of the centre left win Europe if it is based on a qualitative leap beyond the limits of social democracy towards more ecological and social liberal horizons. Is this best served by inclusive Democratic parties or by variable alliances? Much depends on local circumstances.

3. Precarious jobs is the only rallying cry left for the far left. But once more they seem to miss the whole point by attempting to resurrect the fixed job for life model instead of focusing on the creation of a social model which accommodates these changes while making poverty history. Part time work offers groups which were previously excluded from the labour market a greater chance to integrate themselves, if this process is accompanied by enlightened and inclusive social and educational policies. A reform of welfare along the lines of a citizenship income is needed to balance the unleashing of productive forces brought about by the breakdown of the old productive model. Obviously there is also an unacceptable non productive and purely speculative side of late modern capitalism.

4. A constitutional patriotism which celebrates a cosmopolitan identity is the only alternative to the exclusive discourse of the far right. This means that our societies must remain open to different cultures and ethnicities but at the same time they should remain bound by secular values enshrined in the constitution. So while fighting islamophobia we should be the first to uphold the right to satirize and even ridicule all religions including islam. While for example Muslims have the right to build mosques, they have to accept the right of others to question their most basic tenets in art and literature. We should remember that in countries like Malta even Catholics are not willing to accept this, something which throws doubts on our own status as a western democracy.

Comrade Fini? Not quite but...

2010-08-03T06:59:00.001-07:00

Who would have expected Gianfranco Fini to emerge as the modernizer of the Italian centre-right by standing against the redneck brand of populism of the Lega Nord and Silvio Berlusconi's monarchical conception of government?

Just 15 years ago Fini described Mussolini as Italy’s greatest statesman. Now he declares that fascism is an absolute evil. Quite a transformation. Once he projected his party as a bastion of Catholic traditions. He might still seek inspiration from St Francis of Assisi and speak about cribs full of illegal immigrants, but he definitely supports more liberal laws on gay unions, assisted procreation and living wills. Unlike Berlusconi, who branded Eluana Englaro’s father a murderer, Fini supported his decision to put an end to her medically assisted life.

And most significantly he broke ranks with with the right’s inward looking nationalism advocating a vigorous patriotism based on citizenship and respect for the constitution. Unlike the redneck right he fully supports the right of immigrants to vote in local elections-a theme which caused so much scandal in Malta on the eve of the MEP election.

In my opinion Fini is no turncoat or opportunist. Had he stayed silent he was well in line for the succession. In the short term he is bound to lose votes. Neither has he converted to left-wing ideals. I would not vote for him or his movement if I lived in Italy.

In reality Fini stands out as left-wing because of the retrograde nature of Italian politics, where the right is associated with Berlusconi’s anti-intellectual and vulgar soundbites and Bossi’s rabid xenophobia.

Fini simply belongs to a new breed of centre right politicians who have embraced modernity and a model of citizenship based on democratic values, rather than blood or race. His move to the liberal and secular centre mirrors that of David Cameron who has succeeded in neutralizing the Thatcherite wing by entering a coalition with the liberals.

The same applies to Angela Merkel who not only governs with the pro-business liberals, whose foreign minister is gay, but is seeking new pastures in Saar and Hamburg with the even more progressive greens.

Fini’s cosmopolitan and sophisticated brand of politics has all the hallmarks of modernity, something which makes it alien to the Maltese context, where both major parties are culturally retrograde and pander in different ways to a redneck or arch-conservative base.

Due to ideological affinity, Fini may well offer a blueprint for a modern Nationalist Party. For the Nationalist party faces a choice; either to take its pro-EU stance to its logical conclusion by becoming socially liberal or to go two steps backwards in consolidating itself as a reactionary conservative party which reacts to rather than invent the future.

I hate rednecks

2010-07-22T06:23:00.008-07:00

If there is anything I hate most in the world it is rednecks...those who cling to guns, god and religion while harbouring anti immigrant sentiments and a draconian approach to law and order...I hate those who pass jingoistic comments thinking that their country has some divine right to defy international legality and human rights. I hate Maltese red-necks who think that Malta has some divine right to be different from the rest of Europe.

If we are alone on such arguments as divorce, hunting and tuna fattening, it simply because we are wrong. Period.

In the same category of rednecks i have to put politicians like Gonzi are more Catholic than the Pope on topics like divorce but are accomplices of Ghaddafi and Berlusconi in turning back migrants to the Libyan inferno...

Not to mention the Labour Party which based its entire MEP election campaign pandering to anti immigrants sentiments.

These rednecks and hypocrites are not to be confused with the few good Christians who might disagree with divorce or abortion but do not try to impose their will on others and who respect all human beings migrants included. It is a pity that there are so few of these Christians around.

What is the Nationalist Party?

2010-07-22T06:20:00.001-07:00

A Nationalist local councilor defies conservative homophobes by kissing his partner during the pride march. And in a re-edition of the 1960s political-religious struggle, a placard proclaiming that God is against divorce is directed against the Nationalist MP who tabled a pro divorce law. Is religio et patria in deep crisis?

Historically the strength of the Nationalist Party has been its ability to contain within it a very wide spectrum of ideas and to absorb and co-opt potential adversaries in a system of patronage where ideology and entrenched business/media/institutional interests interlope. Ever since the party accepted the reality of mass politics and shifted to the centre (in case of social welfare to the centre left), it has become a formidable electoral machine which won a majority of votes in all elections since 1981 with the exception of 1996.

And this was all thanks to the re-invention of the party in the mid 1970s when Eddie Fenech Adami as leader of the opposition transformed it from an elitist and conservative party to a mass popular party.

Despite and perhaps because of the Christian Democratic ideology it endorsed, the party became less dependent on the church by building its own local structures. In this way the party became a popular party in its own right. Borg Olivier might have been more secular in his world view but he was actually powerless without church backing. The more confessional Fenech Adami changed this. By presenting itself first as a mass movement against the Mintoffian excesses and than as a movement for Europe, the party managed to accommodate both traditionalists and cosmopolitan liberals in one big church.

Discussion on Divorce, civil rights and greater pluralism were postponed to an age of liberties following membership. Ironically following Malta's entry in the EU,a conservative reaction followed within the ranks of the Maltese establishment. Possibly the PN itself was caught by surprise even if elements within the party seemed happy to accommodate this reactionary movement. The party's flirting with Gift of Life fundamentalists is a case in point.

But in the meantime something all the more surprising was happening in Maltese society. It was the ability of social progressives to kick back not in the usual sporadic manner but in more systematic and organised way. The issue of censorship is a case in point. It might well be a case where the conservative elite has overstretched its arms.

Just as the PN had to respond to the greening of civil society before the 2008 election, despite being traditionally close to the pro development lobby, the PN might come the realisation that the time is up for confessional politics. The necessity of political survival might even prevail over one of the last marks of PN identity; conservative social values. For just as much as I resent this conservative mentality, it would be difficult to recognise the PN without it.

Alternatively the party might choose to keep the charade alive by relegating important issues like divorce to the Hyde Park status. But this will come at a cost.

For the purpose of this blog I limited my analysis to the clash between secular and confessional politics, but one can't ignore the crisis of the PN's social model-based on buying the peace and upholding aspects of the welfare state while undermining the re-distributionist model which makes this model sustainable in the long-term. Even on this front, something has to give.

In many ways contrary to what happened in the 1970s when the party reacted to Labour's hegemony, the party finds itself responding to social changes ushered by its own policies in the past two decades. Rather than a recipe for salvation procrastination is increasingly looking as the way to perdition. The real battle for the party's soul may well be fought after the next election especially if the party ends up in opposition.

JPO drops divorce bombshell on Gonzi and Muscat

2010-07-06T11:11:00.002-07:00

The Nationalist MP's bombshell on the political landscape has put both Joseph Muscat and Lawrence Gonzi in a quandary
Pullicino Orlando’s motion brings a sense of urgency to an issue which both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat wanted discussed after the 2013 election.
For by pushing forward a law to regulate cohabitation instead of divorce, Gonzi is giving the impression that he is trying to appease liberals without breaking ranks with the Catholic church. He might be procrastinating, fully knowing that this issue could potentially split the party’s liberal wing from the dominant confessional establishment of which he forms part.
So according to Gonzi’s timeframe the next four years should have been spent on discussing cohabitation, thus postponing any discussion on divorce until after the next general election. If the PN is voted out of office, it will be up to the next party leader to grapple with this issue. My reading is that Gonzi does not want to go down in history as the Prime Minister who introduced divorce. Gonzi’s attempt to regulate cohabitation simply addresses some of the consequences of the lack of divorce.
But it fails in addressing the Maltese anomaly in which separated people are forced to cohabit simply because they do not have the right to re-marry. The PN’s establishment may well respond by putting procedural spokes in the wheels but ultimately they cannot postpone the issue forever, especially now that it is being championed by one of their own.
On the other hand Muscat has repeatedly declared his intention of presenting his own private member's bill on divorce but only if he wins the next election and becomes prime minister. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has not only swept the carpet from under Muscat’s feet by preceding him but has also presented a big dilemma for Muscat. For Muscat’s pro divorce credentials will be dented if he fails to support Pullicino Orlando’s motion.
On the other hand if he does second JPO's divorce motion, he might find himself facing Labour’s own anti-divorce brigade in a parliamentary debate which exposes the fault-lines in both parties before the next elections. Muscat might prefer to face internal dissidents after winning the electorate mandate. Still lacking a specific electoral mandate for divorce, Muscat's task might well be as difficult as JPO's in the current scenario.
But while this could backfire on the strategies of the two big parties, a vote on divorce in the present legislature would be very instructive for us citizens. Irrespective of the result of the motion (if it is ever voted upon), voters have a right to know which MPs support divorce or not and how far the parties are willing to go to support or oppose this civil right. If it goes through we may all say hurrah, if not we would at least have a chance to know who is in favour and who is against and vote accordingly in the next election. The worse prospect would be if the motion is killed through procedural rules as happened to a previous motion presented by Labour MP Joe Brincat in the mid1990s.

a triumph for German diversity

2010-07-03T08:54:00.004-07:00

I grew up associating the German football team with the likes of Franz Beckenbauer Jurgen Klinsmann, Lothar Matthaus...Unlike the Brits and the Dutch, they were ethnically homogenous.
But times have changed. Now we have players with names like Özil, Boateng, Khedira, Podolski and Cacau.
For more than 80 years, the rules about who could represent Germany were clear and strict. Players had to be German born, of parents born in Germany.
That law was scrapped in 1999 laying the foundation for the current squad.
Half the current squad were either born outside Germany, are the sons of immigrants, or have one non-German parents.
Surely football has on occasions been abused by right wing hooligans. Surely these types must be disoriented by the success of a multicultural team representing the nation....Perhaps football is more successful than politics in evoking a new sense of inclusive and playful patriotism.
For what does belonging to a nation mean today? What has blood to do with it? Football shows us that it has a lot to do with shared success and a common venture.

Perpetuating an anomaly

2010-06-27T06:28:00.002-07:00

Giving gay couples and separated cohabitees the same rights as cohabiting brothers and sisters will not bring about equality but will perpetuate the Maltese anomaly.

When addressing the need to regulate cohabitation the Archbishop once again referred to “brothers or sisters living together” (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100627/interview/lead-us-not-into-temptation).
The Archbishop also argued that the state should merely recognize individual rights of cohabiting couples and not the relationship itself.
Hopefully Lawrence Gonzi will not succumb to such reasoning when legislating on this issue.
He should keep in mind that the main beneficiaries of a cohabitation regime would be gay and lesbian couples who do not have a right to get marry like hetero sexual couples.
This category have no choice between marriage and cohabitation as the former is not accepted.
The definitive step towards full equality would the institution of gay marriage.
One step short of this would be civil partnerships on the British model which give gay couples all the legal, social and fiscal rights enjoyed by married couples.
The other category which have no choice between marriage and cohabitation are separated people.
The institution of a second class cohabitation regime which recognizes the individual rights and duties also falls short of full equality. Such a mechanism will simply perpetuate the Maltese anomaly where instead of divorcing people end up cohabitating with a new partner without enjoying the same right as married couples.
I suspect this is Gonzi’s way of procrastinating on an issue which fundamentally divides the liberal and the confessional wings of his party.
Full equality will only be brought about when these people have a right to re-marry.
Finally there are those people who cohabitate by choice. Most probably this category of people is the least interested in having the state interfere in their personal life through a cohabitation regime.
For these people registering their relationship to the state should be an option which entitles them to basic rights governing such things as protection from eviction and visitation rights in hospital. These also include the brother or sisters who live together.

Nothing progressive about denial but...

2010-06-24T03:20:00.007-07:00

I concur with Lib dem leader Con-Dem deputy Prime Minister that "there is nothing progressive about denial. There is nothing progressive about condemning ourselves and our children to decades of debt, higher interest rates, fewer jobs.”
Acknowledging that the bubble might burst in your face does not make you conservative.
The problem is what you are going to do about the problem?
So while denial is regressive, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And to get a progressive pudding one needs a healthy mixture of fiscal and stimulus measures. A little iceing on an already baked cake does not make it progressive.
For the solution has to be partly Keynesian and partly fiscal.
It does not need to be fiscally conservative.
So what would make a government fiscally progressive?
On the fiscal side: Taxing speculation and big mansions, combating tax avoidance, cutting military expenditure.
On the stimulus side: focused investment on social mobility programmes, assistance to innovative job creating businesses and promotion of green jobs.
The British Lib dems managed to squeeze in a few but significant progressive measures in Osborne’s latest budget like increasing capital gains and imposing a bank levy to offset a re-distributive cut in income tax for lower income earners.
They have something to show which definitely has their signature.
But they have also accepted and assumed responsibility for a regressive increase in VAT which effects low income earners most.
Dangerously they also seem to endorse the conservative idea that welfare should be restricted to the very poor.
They have also joined in the public sector bashing typical of the Tory right wing.
Ultimately the lib dems have to come in terms with their history, part of which is rooted in social democracy and British radicalism.
The ghost of Roy Jenkins will return to haunt Clegg if he betrays this tradition.
For come the next election he may well have little progressive to show.
Hopefully he will at least deliver on the political front through an Alternative Vote System and an elected house of lords...Ultimately this would be Nick Clegg's long lasting legacy.

Electoral Reform

2010-06-22T01:25:00.005-07:00

Wholesome electoral reform based on strict proportionality coupled with a national threshold is crucial in strengthening Maltese democracy.
AD is right in taking up this issue because ultimately such a reform will empower the electorate to vote according to conviction rather than limiting itself to choosing the lesser of two evils.
It could also give the electorate the choice of voting for small parties willing to form coalitions to put any of the big parties in check.
After nearly half a century of single party government (which did a lot of good but also entrenched their networks of patronage in all aspects of Maltese life) this could be welcome.
Where I disagree with AD is their proposal of a 2.5% threshold. This sounds too low even by European standards.
It is true that countries like the Netherlands and Israel have similar thresholds but these examples could be counterproductive to AD's argument that coalitions can actually work and bring stability. Using the German model (based on a 5% threshold) which gave this country stability and effective governments for the past decades would make more sense.
Perhaps AD is proposing a low threshold fully knowing that the other parties might favour an even higher threshold than 5%.
Another crucial aspect of electoral reform which is overlooked is what happens to votes for parties who do not enter parliament.
My proposal would be to do away completely with the notion of handing power to the party with the highest number of first count votes.
Instead we should give value to the second preferences expressed by voters who give their first choice to parties who failed to reach the national threshold and their second preference to a party which made it to parliament.
In my opinion these votes should be transfered entirely (to parties which surpass the agreed threshold) A similar mechanism called the Alternative vote system currently being proposed in the UK.
In this way third party voters who award a second preference to a main party will have a say in determining the choice of government if their party fails to get a seat.
In this way all votes will count by the end of the process.
Obviously this would require constitutional changes which require a two-thirds majority, something which i consider highly unlikely given the self interest of the two parties in parliament. Perhaps a referendum could be the only way for progress on this issue.
Ultimately even to get there (as the British experience shows), a third party would have to make it to parliament (and government) through the present system.

Dishing Public Land

2010-06-21T02:21:00.003-07:00

In 1997 together with a number other activists, I went on hunger strike to protest against the way public land was dished at a ridiculous price to make way for Portomaso.
We did not have a tree hugging motivation. Our motivation was our misgivings on how public land was being disposed.
The hunger strike was stopped after the intervention of the ombudsman.
Apart from concluding that the government “failed to use its negotiating powers to maximise the benefits to be derived from the deal,” the ombudsman declared that "in this case changes to the original conditions regulating the grant of land were so substantial, that in the public interest and in the interest of good administration, the government had a moral obligation to refer the proposed concessions for the scrutiny of Parliament".
Following this, the government changed the law to ensure that public land to third parties should be discussed and ratified by parliament.
Previously to this public land on the coast was dished out at dirt cheap prices to a number hotels to promote economic development.
Yet this change did not stop the practice of dishing public land at nominal ground rent fees.
One case in point was the Midi project-a conglomerate of Maltese capitalists which includes Polidano Group, BOV, Zarren Vassallo and Mizzi group among others.
According to the emphyteutical deed, MIDI have to pay an annual ground rent of €1,118,100 (Lm480,000) until 31 March 2025.
The rent will rise to €1,956,673 (Lm840,000) from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2050, and again to €2,236,198 (Lm960,000) from 1 April 2050 onwards.
Apart from the annual ground rent, the developers also have to pay a premium of €91,707,431 (Lm39,570,000) of which €32,145,353 had to be paid in kind (infrastructural and drainage costs).
So far the developers paid €12,974,610 (Lm5,570,000) payable in installments (up to the year 2006) without interest.
A further €46,587,468 (Lm20,000,000) will be paid in instalments between 2010 up to 2023 without interest.
Restoration works on the external fortifications of Fort Manoel were also set-off against a €1,164,686 (Lm500,000) casino concession fee for MIDI’s new casino in Manoel Island.
The Smart City development followed the same pattern.
The Ricasoli land – a vast industrial wasteland the size of 40 football grounds – was offered to Tecom Investments for a ground rent of Lm65,000 (€150,000) a year, increasing by 5% every five years.
Surely one could justify this on the ground that the project is set to create 5600 jobs.
But the project also included 119,000 square metres of floor-space (the size of 20 football grounds) for real estate and commercial development.
So why wasn't a differential rate set for the real estate and the IT components of the project?
One noteable exception was Fort Cambridge project which was sold for a quite
decent LM 23.3 million.
This deal did not come without controversy. For the payment of this sum overshadowed the whole planning process and the initial decision to waive the EIA-a decision only withdrawn after the intervention of the EU commission.
For how could MEPA not approve a project on land already sold to developers?
This led to a tragic comedy of errors which culminated in MEPA's decision to allow 20 floors in the height of a 16 floor block.
Finally we have the White Rocks project for which a foreign conglomerate will build 300 apartments on public land for free in exchange of building sports facilities.
As in the case of Smart City, the impression being given is that the national interest is being served as the community will be getting something in return: 5600 Jobs and IT development in the case of Smart City and sports facilities coupled with 800 jobs in the case of White Rocks.
Unlike many other cases involving Maltese developers in the past the state will not be paying peanuts simply to make way for speculation or hotels.
Yet it is a legitimate answer to ask; What sum of money will be invested in the sports facilities? Has the land been valued and does the investment in sports facilities match its price?
While at face value the investment in sports facilities is more than welcome, we have a right to know whether the developers are paying a fair price for a slice of Malta.

Jingoistic parties defend tuna magnates

2010-06-18T10:57:00.009-07:00

Both PN and LP have rushed to issue statements to defend the tuna magnates who according to respected conservation groups like the WWF are endangering blue fin tuna stocks.
By sticking to the defence of the tuna magnates the PN has shows the superficiality of its pre-electoral green conversion while the LP's statement signed by Joseph Sammut (the same one who called for the infamous apartheid bus) exposes the limits of the progressive agenda.
Thanks to our jingoistic parties Malta is fast becoming a pariah nation, an island best known for being the last outpost of Catholic integralism, red neck hunters and for being the largest tuna shit hole in the world.
I am no great fan of Sea Shephard but I agree with non violent direct actions as a last resort when states fail to enforce legality. For tuna fattening would have been illegal if the EU's proposal was not vetoed by Japan (also a rogue state when it comes to whaling) and a couple of other states.
The tuna fattening business represents a kind of outdated predatory capitalism which fails to heed the will of global civil society. Ultimately it is doomed. Everybody knows that except the PN and the PL.

Beyond the porn debate

2010-06-16T03:40:00.011-07:00

Various young progressives have taken veteran labour MP Adrian Vassallo to task for his stand on porn. It is so cool and easy to defend the progressive agenda from Vassallo's Jurassic views. Even a mainstream level headed conservative would feel a sense of embarrassment by Vassallo's persistence on fighting windmills.
But he is easy prey for the young turks who fully know that the leadership is on their side on this issue.
What is lacking in the Labour Party are young people with the stamina to question more fundamental issues like the party's views on the economy, fiscal policy and a civil rights agenda which includes issues which are mainstream in Europe but anathema even to the present progressive leadership. Labour may have its LBTG section but is anyone discussing gay marriages?
And with all this talk on progressive agenda, only one young Labour party member i know of had the moral courage to question the Labour Party's immigration policy.
And as regards the environment Labour might have a very competent spokesperson but a wider discussion is expected on the fundamental choices labour has to make on waste, energy and land use issues...not to mention hunting and tuna penning. Any progressive dare raises his voice against the vested interests in this sector?
While am averse to anything with the smell of old labour, i still would like to see a discussion in Labour on wealth redistribution through pragmatic and non authoritarian approaches. Anyone dare proposes a tax on vacant properties?
Is anybody in Labour discussing progressive fiscal policies like Tony Blair's windfall tax on privatized companies or the Lib-Con commitment to subsidize tax reductions for lower income people through a rise in capital gains tax on second homes?
And what about electoral reform? Are the young progressives happy with a system which creates the need for people like Adrian Vassallo to ensure that both parties can attract votes across the entire political spectrum? Is this not the root of our zero sum politics?
In many ways Maltese youth politics has degenerated from the Mintoff vs Eddie years.
Perhaps the harsher political climate did contribute to this. Back than both parties had a vibrant left wing orbiting around them with a solid political agenda. Many of these later joined the establishment but at least they had a short spell of idealism.
Even more worrying is the drift to the hard right by many young PN activists in SDM which once stood on the left of the party.
It seems that with some few exceptions who tend to join groups like Graffitti and later drift in to AD, many tend to jump directly on the official bandwagon towards a political career.

supporting the underdogs

2010-06-15T13:27:00.004-07:00

I do not have a favourite team but I find myself siding with the underdog with a passion irrespective of whether it is the USA defiantly seeking the equalizer in their match against England or North Korea holding their ground against mighty Brazil.
To be honest having sided with Italy throughout my childhood, I did not feel the same passion for Paraguay, but neither did I side with Italy. I was quite happy with a draw...
Apart from the fun of seeing David give Goliath a hard time, tonight I hoped that the game would bring some joy in a drab and regimented nation where millions still suffer the pangs of hunger while their southern neighbours live in a prosperous albeit unequal nation. But what's the use of an equality of poverty when you can have a larger and more apetitizing plate in an unequal society?
Apart from the absurdity of living in a country run by a "dear leader" who still send people to the gulag.
Obviously the downside is that any success in the world cup will be used by the North Korean regime to portray the superiority of the Juche idea. Does the Korean coach base his tactics on dialectical materialism? I wonder...
Any way despite losing to Brazil, the North Koreans can at least feel a sense of pride of losing with dignity. They will probably get the feeling with a delay...cause the censors do not allow live transmission of the game...Still not a great tragedy considering that the real time in Pyongyang when the match started was 3 am.

mostly bad news from Holland

2010-06-10T13:51:00.000-07:00

The collapse of Dutch Christian democracy at the expense of Wilders' Islamophobe party and the winning neo liberal party is bad news.
It exposes the crisis of Christian Democracy which in several European countries is being outflanked by economic neo liberals and/or right wing populists.
It is bad news because together with social democracy christian democracy (with all its confessional baggage) had an important role in creating a stable democratic post war Europe.
But society has changed and plural identities have given rise to either to cosmopolitan new middle class loyalties or to exclusive cultural loyalties sometimes based on sub urban myths and fears.
The good news is that both the Greens and the social-liberal D66 made significant advances while Labour held its ground. But together the centre-left parties only have 50 seats out of 150. Even if they team up with the Christian Democrats they do not have a majority.
The whole left has 65 seats (if the extreme left is also included for the fun of it because the latter exclude themselves from any government).
So it was not a clear cut victory for the right-wing parties.
Technically a right wing coalition of Wilders, the neo liberals, the christian democrats and a small fundamentalist christian party would have a wafer thin majority but unlikely especially due to Wilders' trouble with the law and the international outcry this will create.
Another possibility would be a government of national unity between the neo liberals, Labour and the Christian democrats but this could be interpreted as more of the same by the electorate and would play in the hands of the right wing populists.
Alternatively the neo-liberals could end up teaming with labour, the greens and D66 in a reformist traffic light coalition which would soften the neo-liberal element as happened in the UK with the Lib Con coalition.
Unlike the socialist party on the far left (which has suffered a blow in these elections) the greens (who evolved from the far left to pragmatic value based politics) have shown their willingness to join a the most progressive coalition possible allowed by parliamentary arithmetic.
Perhaps yet another interesting coalition defying traditional ideological stereotypes could be in the making...At least i hope so considering the alternative.

worse than porn

2010-06-09T02:37:00.000-07:00

The UNHCR's office in Libya has been closed. This means that any migrants repatriated by Italy from the high seas to this squalid dictatorship will have absolutely no human rights safeguards. Added to the fact that Libya has not signed the Geneva convention, the closure of the UNHCR office in Libya makes the Italian government's position (which was backed by both government and opposition in Malta) untenable. It also makes Malta's decent but utopian proposal of having the UNHCR processing applications in Libya impossible to implement. It was already hard to imagine Libya risking an exodus of its own dissidents to the proposed immigration check point.
This latest development also exposes the hypocrisy of European governments who have rushed to reap profits in Libya without seeking basic respect for human rights.
The lack of a reaction from Malta also speaks volumes.
Maybe in Malta it is far easier for people like Adrian Vassallo to crusade against porn than to stand up to be counted to defend human rights. Even in the case of some progressives it seems easier for them to rise up to dismiss Vassallo's jurassic comments than to object to their party's stance on immigration. Porn is sexier than the rights of niggers i assume. And very few christian democrats heed the Vatican's valid stance on this issue.

Is israel a rogue state?

2010-06-01T12:55:00.000-07:00

The attack on a flotilla carrying aid to Gaza is another sign of the degeneration of an Israeli nationalism corrupted by an occupation which dehumanizes colonised and colonisers alike.
I have to admit that I have great admiration for the Jewish people for surviving as an ethnic community despite all the attempts to eradicate them.
And while I doubt whether Israel can prosper as an exclusively Jewish entity divorced from its Arab Middle Eastern surroundings, historically the setting up of a homeland for the Jews did give this persecuted ethnic group a sense of purpose which comes through nation building.
Israel is here to stay. My hope is that it will be able to re-invent itself as a Jewish-Arab liberal democratic hub existing side by side along emerging secular Arab democracies in Lebanon and Palestine freed from Iranian hegemony, a prospect which can become very real if the Golan is returned to Syria in a historic agreement which could break its convenience marriage with Iran.
But nothing can be further away from this utopian vision than the present.
Israeli patriotism which has been deformed by the brute occupation of another people.
The sense of historical victimhood seems to have endowed Israel with the right to behave as if it was above international law. Israel has assumed the right to use military force against anyone standing on its path. Anyone standing on its way is labeled a terrorist and a fair target.
This attitude makes Israel a rogue state whose only way to survive is by creating mayhem which foments the clash of fundamentalisms which destabilizes the Middle East.
The Israeli rightwing seems to share a common interest with Iran; destabilisation and mayhem.
Obviously Iran's genocidal threats and the hypocrisy of most of the Arab world only serves to legitimize Israel's illegitimate acts of piracy.
The corruption of Israel's soul was more than confirmed by recent revelations on its dealings with apartheid South Africa. The very idea of the children of the shoah offering the atom bomb to a country run by neo Nazi sympathizers makes me puke.
Only America (and perhaps the international Jewish lobby) can save Israel from becoming its worst enemy by pulling the plug.
Those who love Israel have to stand up to be counted.
The military attack on a peace flotilla is a clear warning that time is running out to save Israel from its alter ego.

communion and cohabitation

2010-05-27T07:25:00.001-07:00

The general revulsion felt by those turned off by the church's reiteration of the ban on cohabiting couples receiving holy communion is typical of societies used to a catholic church which sticks to doctrine while turning a blind eye on harmless non heretical deviations.
It is fascinating how Catholicism manages to be both a religion with strict doctrines and an expression of popular culture as well as an agency giving people access to community rituals like weddings, births and other rites of passage.
This translates in surreal situations of atheists, agnostics or non conformist christians sitting for the Cana course. I did it myself.
Perhaps this is the recipe for the enduring survival of the church….By not closing an eye, the church risks losing its highly diverse flock…
But i suspect that not even the church has made up its mind on whether it wants to be just another closed sect or an open cultural hub.
For the church’s vociferous opposition to the court ruling on the exposition of crosses in public buildings hinges on the idea that the cross is a cultural rather than religious symbol.

PS: I am not surprised by the common ground between some secularists and religious purists who are for different reasons equally shocked by the reaction of those who want to cohabit but still receive communion.
Catholicism is based on compromise with popular culture…lutherans and calavinists were the talibans of the early modern age (they killed far more witches than the Catholic inquisitors) whose take it or leave it approach and emphasis on a direct relationship with God paved the way for secularism… one of the ironies of history i guess...

Unlocking democracy

2010-05-24T03:26:00.000-07:00

Following Michael Briguglio's contribution on the stagnated duopoly and the paralysis of one party governments, we now have an interesting contribution from former Labour MP Lino Spiteri who makes clear his distaste for coalitions but still makes the case for real electoral reform rather than the usual patchwork.
See article on: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100524/opinion/to-ensure-proportional-representation

While I disagree with Lino Spiteri that coalitions are undesirable (for coalition governments are in themselves an insurance against the abuses associated with one party rule), I find his case for reform a welcome breath of fresh air.
I also agree with him that Labour's decision to boycott the committee discussing democratic reform after the Justyne Caruana mis-voting allegation by Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg is a mistake.
Muscat should heed Spiteri's call and return to the committee and prove his democratic credentials by fielding concrete proposals on electoral reform and party financing.
Gonzi also has a golden opportunity to reclaim his party's democratic credentials and test Muscat's reformism and liberalism, by going the whole way and presenting a PR bill with a 5% threshold in parliament, something which the party agreed with in the past but could not implement because of a lack of consensus (despite the fact that changes in the electoral law can be approved through a simple majority).
In that way he would go down in history not just as the man who embarked on constructing a new parliament but also as the man who widened representation in the highest institution of the country.
And if the two parties are not yet ready to go all the way towards full proportional representation, one alternative worth exploring would be to retain STV while dividing Malta in five equally sized super districts electing 13 deputies each-which translates in to a 8% threshold (but with the added advantage of third parties benefiting from voting transfers and more favourable conditions in certain districts)
But my hunch is that Spiteri's words of wisdom will fall in deaf ears and the only way towards reform is a hung parliament, a very difficult but not entirely impossible objective under the present system if the demographics in one particular district are favourable.

Hurrah for the Greek revolution

2010-05-22T05:43:00.000-07:00

The reaction of some leftists to what is happening to Greece leaves me flagger busted. I can smell the usual symthoms of the where's the next revolution syndrome which infects the one dimensional left. In reality what I can see is lots of angry Greek people betrayed not just by lack of european genorosity but also by an irrational pension systems (through which some can retire at 50), the lack of fiscal discipline, widespread black economy and tax evasion and a system of patronage which has simply resulted in far too many people working in the state sector.
For successive governments, power has been used to dispense patronage and reward voters with jobs – a practice that increasingly triggered labour unrest and dragged down the economy.
So forget the revolution, behind the rhetoric of the hard left there is also a defence of the indefensible. And those defending the indefensible can never win the battle for common sense. Period.

Tribute to a great Maltese man

2010-05-19T23:03:00.001-07:00

Five years have passed since Julian Manduca departed. He was so many things in his short life; a probing no holds barred journalist, an entrepreneur who sold Chinese balls and anarchist five pointed stars, a pioneer of green politics and AD founder, a great vegetarian cook, a radical activist with the grass root touch, a liberal humanist whose secular funeral summed it all, an organizer of alternative events and parties, a living testimony to cosmopolitan secular values... I remember meeting him 20 years ago, when he introduced me to beat poetry, the philosophy of dancing particles and bob Dylan's nasal voice. I wonder sometimes what he would make up of malta five years after he left. Surely he anticipated many things; the golf course u-turn, the havoc caused to our towns and villages after building heights were relaxed, the responsibility of the price club's directors to the their creditors and a slow but steady liberalization of social mores...Probably he would be disappointed at the slow pace of Europeanisation and the persistence of the political duopoly he abhorred...

If in government alone....

2010-05-18T00:59:00.001-07:00

In a ground breaking article AD chairperson Michael Briguglio has outlined his party's strategy in confronting the two other parties head on by issuing a warning on what will happen if any of the major parties is allowed to "govern alone" after 2013. (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100514/opinion/symbol-of-a-stagnated-duopoly)

On the PN governing alone he had this to say:

"The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights".

On the LP governing alone he had this to say:

"Labour's catch-all antics will backfire if Labour wins the next election and is in government alone. What will Labour do with regard to its simultaneous promises to hunters, trappers and environmentalists? How will Labour proceed with its newly-found environmentalist populism when the same party faces big business developers that it never criticises?"

So i assume that Briguglio is arguing that the best option for voters is to clip the wings of any winning party through a coalition. Like Nick Clegg he is not excluding any option, thus strengthening his party's bargaining power by not throwing all his eggs in one basket. He still manages to do so in a principled way.

This represents a change or evolution from his previous argument that AD's strength derives from its role as a potential spoiler.

The problem with his current reasoning is that the present electoral system gives little chance to the electorate to determine whether governments are allowed to govern alone or not.

And as the British experience shows electoral reform can only come as a result of a hang parliament and not vice versa.

So if nobody ever manages to enter parliament through the present system the chance of reform is zilch.

But getting there by whining on the electoral system is surely not the best strategy as this is not the most sexy issue in planet malta.

AD might explore another option. That of investing in a favourable district targeting its talent and resources to excite voters with the task of changing history and ensuring that a likely labour (and a more unlikely PN) government will have their wings clipped by AD-which in the Maltese context has the advantage of being perceived both a moderating and a radicalizing force.

It is moderating when it comes to the excesses of tribalism and confrontational politics and radicalising in opening up politics to new respectable cutting edge ideas.

Being able to talk two languages is a strength rather than a weakness in this context.
That does not mean absconding on being a national force. It is simply deciding to focus on an audience which is more receptive and more likely to vote for you. That does not necessarily mean contesting just one district. It means focusing on one district in an open and in your face approach as the British Greens did in Brighton Pavillion.

Electoral reform should be part of the package offered to these "privileged" voters alongside a commitment for civil rights and fiscal/social fairness in a message which can appeal to the entire social liberal/ center-left spectrum. Making these voters feel good about themselves that they are doing something great for their country should do the trick. The fact that they were chosen for a mission will enhance this sensation.

That should not come at the exclusion of green identity which is flexible enough to absorb that political space without losing the radical edge which appeals to grass root activists.

Obviously it might be safer for AD to simply concentrate on consolidating its core vote instead of dishing its hopes on the big moment which has eluded AD since 1989 especially in view of its chronic lack of resources and money.

But that risks setting in motion the law of inertia and wasting the opportunity presented by the present conjuncture where people want change but are not rushing in to Labour's hands.

Taxing property

2010-05-17T06:11:00.000-07:00

I have always advocated property taxes on both social and environmental grounds.
Never in my life have I expected to feel vindicated by a Tory leader. But we seem to be really living in really strange times. His argument that second homes deserved to be hit by increased capital gains taxes because such properties are not ''splendid'' for the economy makes lots of sense not just in the UK but also in Malta.
If such a measure makes sense in the UK, it even makes more sense in tiny Malta where land is even more scarce and precious. In Malta second properties are neither splendid for the economy nor for the environment.
The fact that this measure is aimed at financing the lib dem cut in income tax for lower income goes a few inches towards wealth redistribution. The fact that arch conservatives are calling it "legalized theft" is hardly surprising.
I guess these sensible policies are a virtue of nobody winning an election and not being in a position to govern alone, a theme which i soon intend to discover in my next blog.

On liberalism

2010-05-16T12:38:00.000-07:00

Probably this will be the last post on the UK election for now...and I must conclude with two reflections; one on the limits of British liberalism and the other on the arrogance of new labour.

I am not a liberal. Perhaps am too liberal to be a socialist and too socialist to be a liberal. Ultimately while owing a lot to both traditions I find that both of them are lacking when it comes to addressing wider ecological issues.
While i find the kind of economic neo-liberalism dominating liberal circles and parties on the continent abhorrent, I always had a soft spot for post war British liberalism which always contained a dose of free thinking radicalism and non conformist individualism.
Truly in some ways it was a legacy of a lost world of Whig privilege which was being eroded by the advancement of democratic working class politics which was the true progressive force in the post world war II days.
But in another more positive sense it offered a sense of continuity with a radical democratic British tradition harking back to Thomas Pain and William Godwin before the history of the left was somewhat derailed by industrialisation.
Given this tradition that at times attracted luminaries like Bertrand Russell (who later drifted to Labour and ultimately the new left) and Keynes, it it is no wonder that with the advent of new labour many liberals woke up to a new reality, that of suddenly finding themselves on the left of labour.
Yet what distinguishes me from most liberals even the most socially minded is their suspicion of the state as an agent of democratic change. Surely some liberals have come a long way to accept the idea of an enabling state, something which I prefer to the draconian state many socialists secretly yearn for. It is also fascinating how easy it is for socialists to accept any sort of collectivist approach even when it comes to suppressing individual liberties in the name of the war on terror or addressing immigration blues.
Still I also tend to see the state as an instrument of civic republicanism and the fiscal system and welfare state as a kind of contract which keeps society together. It remains my firm conviction that seeking exemption from this fiscal contract ultimately weakens citizenship and democracy.
In this sense I tend to disagree with the idea of slashing taxes even for the very poorest if this is not done within a general overhaul of the fiscal system which guarantees its progressive core even if taxes are redirected from incomes towards consumption and property.
In the lib-con coalition the lib dems managed to ensure that only low income people will benefit from tax cuts. There will be no cuts in inheritance tax. But the liberals had to give up any notion of redistributing wealth by taxing the mansions of the super rich and imposing a bank levy...Obviously coalitions are based on concessions. But the lib dem concessions to the Tories could well be an indication of the place accorded to wealth redistribution in their order of priorities. So far it does not seem to rank high.

New labour-new edition
David Milliband claims that the "coalition of contradictions" (that one which stopped a number of progressive things like the Heathrow runway, the finger printing of school children and the detention of child migrants) gives Labour both a responsibility and an opportunity to "forge a progressive alliance within the Labour party of all shades of progressive opinion".
And here lies the fundamental reason why the rainbow alliance was a pipe dream.
Milliband believes that all shades of progressive opinion must reside within Labour despite the astonishing reality that many progressives felt that their natural home was as further away from Labour as possible.
It is not just because labour drifted to the right. It is because society and its class composition has changed. The emergence of a new class of people equipped with cultural capital adhering to progressive values while living cosmopolitan life styles still eludes labour. It is not a question of annexing these people as an appendage but ultimately one of a realignment of forces.
And even if the lib dems get bruised in their elopement with Cameron (something which is quite possible but not inevitable), my hunch is that it will the greens and not labour who will benefit.
Ultimately Labour needs the humility to seek and court allies rather than seeking their annexation. But at this rate I will not be surprised if Labour starts campaigning against electoral reform. At least that was the impression i got from the neanderthal labour MPs who rebelled against the prospect of a lib lab alliance after Brown resigned.

The new politics

2010-05-14T00:19:00.000-07:00

Rather than fixed schemes of left vs right, the new politics will see variable alliances to enact specific democratic reforms inspired by values, thus making progressive change more likely to happen in the here and now, rather than in some glorious future even if sometimes it will come along with some far less desirable consequences.

winners and losers: Is it a Con-Dem, a Lib-Con or a Condom?

2010-05-12T02:06:00.000-07:00

So who are the winners a week after Britain’s first inconclusive election?

Probably the greatest winner is David Cameron and modernizers in his party who will be able to push the party towards the political centre as this would be easier in a coalition government with the lib dems who will neutralise the hard Tory right. The deal with Clegg may well be Cameron's clause 4 moment. But there is a significant difference. There was no internal face-off in the Conservative Party of the scale endured by Labour in the mid 1980s which paved the way for the Blairite years. And more significantly many of the newly elected Tory MPs are even more ideological than their predecessors. Therefore I would expect the Tory right to gain confidence when the first cracks emerge. It will surely be resurgent campaigning against any sort of electoral reform.

Nick Clegg: He has proved himself as a skilful negotiator by working his way to become deputy Prim Minister in a government which does not face a legitimacy problem as would have been the case of a weak Lib-Lab alliance relying on SNP votes. In the context of a democracy imbued by the first past the post system, the Con-dem coalition appears the natural result of an election in which the conservatives won more votes. The message of voters was that they wanted change but were not willing to trust the Tories to govern alone. For some optimists Clegg's role in the coalition is that of providing an insurance policy against the Tory excesses (perhaps more of a condom than a con-dem solution...) But he has to prove that he has not sold his soul to get a post in what for many remains an unnatural alliance. It may well be his poisoned chalice but also an opportunity to leave his mark on post modern politics which defies the 20th century political narrative of left vs right. Rather than fixed schemes the new politics emerging in the UK and other EU member states like Germany and Ireland will see variable alliances to enact specific reforms inspired by values, thus making them more likely in "here and now".

David Milliband: Perhaps in tandem with left winger Cruddas has the chance to revitalise the Labour Party by seeking a synthesis between new labour's modernisation and social democratic values. But that is a very optimistic scenario. Any return to old labour would be suicidal but Blairism is clearly well past its expiry date. I suspect it will be an uphill struggle for Labour. Those hoping that Cameron is a Thatcher in disguise who will finally reveal his true face to a shocked nation seem to live in neverland.

Caroline Lucas-The solitary Green MP may well project her party as the voice of progressive left outside Labour following what she has already described as a "betrayal". If the Lib dems flop in government and become associated with Tory nutters and brutal cuts, she may well take a chunk of their votes. But it will not be so clear cut. Take for example the decision of the Lib Cons to scrap the third runway at Heathrow. It does represent an improvement over Labour policies. But if the lib dems move too much to the right someone like the greens will move to fill the gap because politics abhors a vacuum. It is not yet clear whether Labour will be in a position to do so. With the lib dems wasting their "once in a generation" chance of introducing PR the Greens may well emerge as the champions of real electoral reform. But when and if they grow, the British Greens will face the same dilemmas Clegg faced in this election and other green parties face in countries like Germany and nearby Ireland.

Who are the losers (apart from Labour of course)?

Electoral reform- Even if it passes a referendum on Alternative Vote would not introduce Proportional Representation in the UK. AV would simply ensure that votes for third parties are not wasted and are transferred to the larger parties. Ironically a referendum on AV was not the liberal's idea but Labour's. My hunch is that the referendum will simply postpone this issue by another decade. Clearly Clegg has lost a once in a generation chance to change the electoral system even if he did win important concessions like an elected House of Lords. But to win this "unsexy" referendum on AV he will need support from the wider left which may be less willing to engage with him after he chose to join the Tories. But Labour may well use the referendum as an occasion to lure back the lib dems. Still the last few days have also exposed the neanderthal and tribalist tendency of Labour, which ultimately dealt the final blow to the hope of a rainbow coalition.

The wider left- A “rainbow alliance” faced a big legitimacy problem but could have revitalised a pluralistic left with a new agenda of change. Surely Clegg has failed in his bid to supplant the Labour party as the UK's main progressive party. His role is more that of saving his country from Tory excesses and ironically in helping Cameron change his party. Progressive policies on immigration, fiscal redistribution and defense which made the lib dems different from other parties will be put on the back-burner. Surely the lib dems will be under great pressure to prove their progressive credentials while fulfilling the vows of a marriage of convenience. Vince Cable's performance in disciplining the banks will be something to note. But what if this turns in to a marriage of conviction, with the Lib dems becoming more like their pro business German counterparts (the FDP) and much less the party once envisaged by Roy Jenkins? We will wait and see. Still I give Clegg the benefit of the doubt. After all as I have written before Labour was not so progressive to merit unconditional support. Wasn't new Labour supported by Rupert Murdock for a whole decade? Not to mention the lies on Iraq, child detention centers and clampdowns on the right to protest. And what bargaining power would the lib dems have had if their choices were limited to labour? And did it make sense for labour to hold on to power through a 'rainbow coalition' at a time when it has to engage in a lot of soul searching and elect a new leader. And would this not have been a dance in the dark for Clegg?

The Tory Right- I expect Cameron to move in the direction of a realignment with the European Popular Party and to distance himself from homophobes and climate change deniers. Still one should not underestimate the resilience of the little Englanders. Alternatively Cameron may well ditch the lib dems at the first convenient opportunity, corner them on a difficult issue, mobilise the Murdock press and rally behind him the Tory right for an outright victory.

Public services- Clegg and the Tories have agreed on slashing taxes while starting cuts from this year despite Brown's wise advice that this would simply aggravate the economic situation. Thanks to Clegg the Tories won't persist in their inheritance tax reduction plans and tax cuts will benefit working class people. But it is clear that under the Tories the rich won't make up for the shortfall. This will not be a government which redistributes wealth. There will be no Lib dem mansion tax which would have given a progressive dimension to the coalition's fiscal policy. At most we may see a clampdown on the bank manager bonuses and a rise in capital gains tax. In such a scenario cuts in public services will become necessary. This will be a major test for the lib dem condom against cuts in front line services.

The Clegg dilemma

2010-05-09T23:44:00.000-07:00

It is grotesque that a defeated new labour is invoking the idea of a progressive alliance after clamping down on civil liberties, conducting an illegal war and giving bankers a free ride for the past decade. I am not saying there were no merits in new labour especially in building a confident cosmopolitan modern nation.
What irks me is the present attempt by the likes of Mendelson to exhume ideology after burying it under piles of Orwellian newspeak.
When they resort to ideological blackmail they just sound desperate to hold on to power.
As I see things from here the real issue for the lib dems should be which coalition/arrangement is more conducive to securing and winning a referendum on
electoral reform.
In any case it will be a marriage of convenience.
Securing such a referendum is not the same thing as winning it. This is the major clegg dilemma. While Labour would be more willing to concede on this front, it is not clear whether the British will vote for a referendum sponsored by a defeated party.
The problem with the Tories is that they are the least likely to concede on this front.
Still will a "coalition of losers" and parties seeking independence from the UK like the SNP in Scotland have the moral integrity to win such a referendum?
But is it not better to have a referendum than no referendum at all?
The answer is not easy but if Clegg gives up on the referendum he will be the one to miss the once in a generation chance to change the electoral system.
Electoral reform apart one big problem for Clegg is that Tories have been flirting with too many nutters.
The only consolation is that the Tories will not be able to govern alone. This will weaken the loony fringe of the party as Cameron's only security of tenure will depend on his ability to reach out to the lib dems. Still it might well be the case that the nutters will do everything in their power to go to the polls as soon as possible.
The prospect of being used and dumped is a very real prospect for the lib dems to the extent that they want a guarantee that Cameron won't be calling a snap early election which could practically wipe them off the political map.
But that alone is not enough a reason to limit their options to labour.
Fundamentally the strength of new "centre-left" forces of liberal (like Lib dems and D66 in Netherlands) or of green inspiration is their autonomy from mainstream social democracy and their ability to forge variable coalitions without selling out.
Even parties with a more radical leftist roots like Dei Grunen in Germany are experimenting coalitions with the CDU albeit at local level and not national level.
I am sure many honest social democrats sincerely relish on the prospect of a broad rainbow coalition arresting the right wing drift in the whole of Europe. But this is a long term project which must grow organically and will only come as a result of a shift in the balance of forces.
I do suspect that clegg's centrist instincts increase his propensity to sell out on something so fundamental as electoral reform.
Clegg must not forget that he is in debt with millions of people who voted for him to get electoral reform.
If would be unforgivable on his part to forget this.
But it bugs me that some seem to suggest that he owes labour a living.

The sad parliament

2010-05-07T17:44:00.000-07:00

There could be a number of reasons why cleggmania has not translated in to parliamentary gains for lib dems.
First of all I disagree with the thesis that that cleggmania were simply a media inflated phenomenon. In reality they were completely excluded from most of the media except for the guardian and independent until the first debate gave them a boost in the polls.
Neither do I subscribe to the view that the were the main losers of the election. While Labour lost 5% from 2005, the lib dems gained 1% despite a Tory swing. It was the lib dems who effectively blocked the prospect of an outright Tory victory. My hunch is that although cleggmania waned towards the end, it ultimately paid off in denying the Tories an absolute majority.
But despite this, they emerge from the election bruised by the very high expectations raised by Nick Clegg who towards the end of the campaign lost his sense of proportion and started aspiring for Number 10 when everybody knew he had absolutely no chance.
So why did they get 23% and not the 30% promised in the polls and why have they not supplanted Labour as the main progressive party (which was ultimately clegg's declared goal)?
One reason could be that a large portion of undecided voters in the polls (who numbered some 2 million in the latest polls) shifted to either to the Tories or to Labour rather than towards the lib dems. The polls only reflected the views of decided voters and did not account for this category.
Another reason could be that at the end of the day fear of a Tory victory prevailed among left wing lib dem voters who ultimately opted to use their vote to block the Tories.
Another reason could be that Clegg's performance in the first debate attracted voters who ultimately realised that they have more in common with the Tories than with the lib dems. I think the right wing press did a good job in exposing what was "good" in the lib dems...Murdock media empire was particularly effective in discrediting Clegg's liberal (and correct) policy on immigration. And let us not forget that Brown also teamed up with the right in this pincer attack.
Another reason could have been that voters were turned off by Clegg's ambiguity on which party he favoured as a coalition party. Obviously he was in a catch 22 position on this one. But progressive voters could have been alienated by any hint of a conservative/liberal government.
Finally Gordon Brown started coming across as a more humane underdog towards the end of the campaign.

The result
The result comes as a disappointment for those who augured for a 'happy' hang parliament where a progressive third party would act as the driver of change. Instead the result has produced a 'sad' hung parliament where the conservatives are just a step away from a majority and the lib dems are licking their wounds.

The worst scenario for the lib dems would be to accept an offer from Cameron without even getting any reform in the electoral system. Anything short of a referendum of electoral reform would be a big disappointment.
The lib dems may have the keys to power but they are too bruised by the high expectation which make their good result (23% despite a Tory swing) a poor one.
They will not be able to dictate terms after emerging from the election as the main losers.
Probably they will get the best offer from labour (partly out of desperation partly because labour is closer to the British brand of liberalism) but still feel obliged to accept a deal with the Tories. If that happens the activist base of the party will feel very uncomfortable and restless especially if there is no PR at the end of tunnel.
Cameron himself who has made his party more sensible and decent on issues like immigration and gay rights. He deserves credit for this. But he will be under pressure from nutters abd right wingers. They will not accept concessions on PR because that would turn the conservatives in to a centrist force similar to European popular parties. The gaffes of the loony right will also constantly rock this unnatural coalition.
The Lib dems stand to get more from Labour and such a coalition would be perfectly legitimate if Cameron fails to form a government on his own and to make a reasonable offer to the lib dems.
Apart from the perception that this will be a coalition of losers, the major problem is that the numbers will only add up with the participation of regional parties and possibly the green MP.
The price to pay would be the eternal rebuke of Rupert Murdock and his media empire.
Although Labour is preferable on the economic front, in some instances new labour was even more draconian in clamping down on civil liberties. So do not expect the lib dems to have any reason to love labour more than do the tories.

The good news
At the end of the day the only good news for progressive politics is the election of Caroline Lucas as Green MEP. Her election shows that by targeting all resources and talent on one battle even the most difficult electoral system can be overcome. And if the lib dems accept to drink from Cameron's poisoned chalice (without getting PR in return), the greens may well grow exponentially in the next couple of years. Still if the greens want to grow they need to be able to communicate with typical lib dem voters and have to ditch any perception of being extreme or loony. I think that with Lucas at the helm they have already moved a long way in that direction.

One week to go

2010-04-30T02:32:00.000-07:00

In yesterday's debate Gordon Brown reminded me of Sisyphus pushing the rock up the mountain; with the rock rolling down again everytime he attempts to reach the peak. For he seems to be defying a script of an already foretold story; that of the demise of New Labour-a highly successful but now discredited experiment which is well past its expiry date.
Perhaps it also tells the tale of social democracy in general which no longer provides a narrative for regeneration, reform and change.
Still he did a good job in getting voters to see the lurking danger behind Cameron's good looks.
With all his talk on the big society the more I listened and looked at Cameron...the more i saw the Maggie in him. Yes he is less authoritarian, more modern and more cosmopolitan than any of his predecessors. But i smell a rat when he talks about "rewarding the people who do the right thing."
As regards Clegg his main problem is that he has not sufficiently articulated a progressive alternative to Labour. He did go a long way in presenting the lib dems as the party of the progressive new middle class by endorsing the best of the British democratic tradition but his centrist instincts hold him back in coming with an alternative to both old and new labour.
He does well in ditching the statist approach of labour but sometimes his alternative veers between the neo liberal and the Keynesian. There was little which went beyond these two frames of mind. But the little that there was makes him a better alternative to Labour old and new.
I perfectly understand him in keeping all coalition options open for other wise he would have no bargaining power. In this he is in the same position as the German Greens who can't rule out a coalition with the CDU some time in the future.
But i simply can't see a Lib-Conservative alliance without Clegg losing his soul and perhaps the unity of his own party.
But perhaps he would be forgiven if he sells his soul for electoral reform. But will the Tories ever accept PR?
Hopefully the UK would have a hung parliament which would reform the electoral law paving the way for a new realignment on the left in which labour remains central but which recieves a new lease of life from centre left liberals and green realos.
Hopefully Brighton Pavillion will also show the way by electing the first Green MP. That and a Lib Dem breakthrough could make next Thursday a memorable night.

Mrs Duffy the bigot

2010-04-28T12:39:00.001-07:00

First we had Joe the plumber, now we have Mrs Duffy the bigot; two not so gifted persons full of prejudice elevated to the media spotlight as some sort of oracles of truth.
It is this version of popular democracy and not Brown's sad comment which is shitty. And i say that with a sense of regret having believed for a time in the psuedo democratisation of the media (and one may well add that it is always people like Murdock who run the circus).
Surely by calling a spade a spade when he thought he was off air , Brown committed a pr blunder.
Surely he showed one negative character trait, that of saying things in private which he does not say in public. For wasn't Brown appealing to bigotted voters when he questioned Clegg's immigration policies in last week's debate?
But I tend to sympathize with Gordon Brown after the latest incident.
Just imagine the frustration of being forced in to this "walk about" charade, artificially smiling to the kind of people who rush for their 5 minutes of fame by expressing misinformed prejudice about east Europeans flocking in to the UK.
If I were in his position I would have said the same thing in private after politely expressing my disagreement (as Brown did when he told her that just as Eastern European work in Britain so do many Brits who flock to France and Spain...)
And it is remarkable how right wing tabloids smirk at political correctness when this is invoked against bigotry but demand absolute political correctness in the face of bigotry.

Britain's best chance

2010-04-23T00:33:00.000-07:00

It was Nick Clegg's big test.
I was sceptical that he would have held the ground in a debate which focused on Europe and immigration.
But who said the Brits are a nation of eurosceptic little englanders?
Nick Clegg clearly isn't and he still most polls indicate that he won the second debate despite a recovery by the other two leaders.
He held his ground on opposing Trident and came across as the patriot who upholds the best in the British tradition i.e. respect for the rule of law and human rights.
By being called anti American by Brown, Clegg was given the chance to expose the Blair foreign policy legacy of subordination to the US. By doing so he simply made Clegg credible with a huge chunk of Labour voters who opposed Bush's wars.
I personally found Gordon Brown's performance more honest and biting than Cameron.
In fact he came out with the best sound bite against the Tory leader; "It is the Big Society at home and the Little England abroad."
Clegg also did well to expose Cameron's links to "nutters" who deny climate change.
But Brown was patronising when comparing the two other contestants to kids engaged in a bath squabble.
Brown was at his best exposing Cameron as a risk to economic recovery by promising spending cuts at the wrong moment.
But he came across as drab and uninspiring. Cameron was inspiring for his little England costituency.
I found Clegg most shaky in social policy where Labour seems to have an edge.
But Clegg came out as more principled in attacking the banks and big lobbies irrespective of whether they are banks, big energy companies and trade unions.
In fact the greatest advantage of the liberals is that they can attack labour from the left on various issues without raising fears of a return to old labour's trade union militancy and big government.
The liberals as the greens in other countries and most unlike their german counterparts (who represent big business), are more a party of values than a party based on class. Their rise confirms the decline of class based political parties.
One positive thing about the debate which contrasts with the local situation is that all 3 contenders stood for secular values and gay rights even if cameron constant reference to rewarding people who do the right thing smacks of old Tory moralism. But who said that gays cannot do the right thing in the purely capitalist sense of the word?
Cameron deserves praise in ditching racist and homophobic overtones even if his alliance with nutters in Europe remains a thorn on his side.
My conclusion is that within the limited contest between the right, new labour and centre left liberals Clegg came out as the most inspiring for forward looking progressives.
Had the debate been extended to the greens, Clegg might well have sounded quite similar to the other two on a host of issues...but even when this is taken in to account he represents Britian's best chance to ditch its unfair electoral system.

A confessional President

2010-04-16T06:11:00.000-07:00

President George Abela "encouraged the people to greet the Pope from wherever he passed and to go to Mass on the Granaries on Sunday".
Is Abela the President of all the Maltese irrespective of their religious beliefs or is he merely the President of Roman Catholics?
It is a pity that the office of the presidency is failing to make a distinction between church and state.
Surely the President on behalf of Catholics and non Catholics alike is duty bound to welcome the Pope as a head of state and a leader of a major religion. That falls within his remit as head of state.
But his appeal for the people to go to mass is ultra confessional and tarnishes the President's role as a unifying figure as a representative of all of Maltese citizens irrespective of their creed.

3 way debates

2010-04-16T03:05:00.000-07:00

Nick Clegg's superb performance in yesterday's debate shows how media democracy should work.
Clegg's fiscal responsibility and his principled stance on taxation contrast with the wishy washy positions of superficial Cameron and the tiredness and ideological bankrupcy and tiredness of Brown.
Parallels with Malta are inevitable even if the third party here is green not liberal (understood as left-liberal in UK context). How would Briguglio fare in a three way debate with tired Gonzi and wishy washy Muscat?
Will the major parties in Malta accept such a challenge?
Well one may well say that the lib dems are a parliamentary force commanding 20% of the vote while AD gets 1.3%...but could it be that it is the lack of exposure to the media which results in this situation? I would say that part of the reason is this, but there are other reasons such as the relative weakness of a new middle class in Malta whose cultural capital is a requirement for the growth of left-liberal and green parties who appeal to intellect and values rather than social class or base arguments.
And who of the two big parties would stand to gain from a three way debate in Malta?
In the UK it is not so clear although Labour could benefit if voters drift to the lib dems instead of the "progressive conservatives." Still Labour could still lose by the challenge from the left posed by Clegg on civil liberties, taxation and European issues. Similarly in Malta a three way debate would make AD a more viable option for the new middle class which traditionally supports the PN but at the same time it could serve to absorb part of the shift from PN to LP or even to attract new voters.
So both face a danger and it was an honour for Tories and Labour to accept the three way challenge.
Pity that Caroline Lucas was not included in the debate for that would have opened the battle for the vote of the new middle class wide open with the greens taking an even fresher position on some issues than the lib dems... One argument would be that the inclusion of the greens would make the exclusion of their nemisis (i.e. the far right) untenable. And why should serious people be forced to debate crack pots from the BNP? I have to say that this argument has some validity.

.

Viva l-monument taz-z....

2010-04-12T06:22:00.000-07:00

An ugly monument on a Luqa roundabout has suddenly become a symbol of enlightenment and a bulwark of secularism, thanks to Luqa (Labour) Mayor John Schembri.
If we had any doubt that some people live in the dark ages, here it is:

The Luqa local council has demanded the removal of the 'monument of shame' opposite the Lidl supermarket, before the Pope's visit.
In a statement issued today, Mayor John Schembri said that the council welcomed the fact that Pope Benedict would be going to Luqa.
However, he added, "in the opinion of the council, the Pope's first visit among us risks being a source of embarrassment to the people of Luqa and the Maltese in general, due to the obscene 'monument' which is still dominating the 'LIDL' roundabout on one's entry into the village."
"On this issue, the Council has already consulted and has the total backing of the ecclesiastical authorities of the village, who have in fact already written to complain about the absurd welcome immediately awaiting the Pope's arrival at Luqa and have asked for a quick redress of the situation. There can be no doubt that, among the people of Luqa, there is a widespread cross-party consensus that the object placed at the entrance of Luqa is not the most fitting way in which to greet the Pope, especially by what is considered to be the most Catholic country in the world.

Perhaps the best solution during the Pope's visit would be to cover this shameful monument with a condom...

Secularists beware

2010-04-12T01:28:00.000-07:00

The current legitimisation crisis facing the Catholic Church is not necessarily good news for secular liberals.
For it may well open the flood-gates for more fundamentalist groups questioning the decadence of the church while proposing a religion based on rigid symbols and cultural identities.
One may well blame the church especially the present pope (and to some extent his predecessor) for arresting some of the reforms ushered in Vatican Council II which in many ways had reconciled the church with modernity.
Obviously the church’s poor handling of child abuse cases coupled with its obsession on controlling other people sexuality has undermined trust in this powerful institution.
In countries like Ireland and possibly Malta this could herald a liberalisation of social mores as people increasingly question the judgement of a discredited institution.
But the vacuum left by a church in retreat could be filled by people who lack the catholic church’s theological depth and internationalist vocation.
The church in retreat could also be tempted to reconcile itself with the rejectionist camp known for its odd mixture anti-Semitism, homophobia and reactionary politics.
The greatest tragedy for Catholics and secularists alike is that Vatican Council II seems a distant memory.

Blackout

2010-04-04T02:24:00.000-07:00

I returned to Malta from a short trip to Sicily on Friday. As soon we entered home the lights went off and we had to unpack in darkness. The episode brought back childhood memories of the 80s when the provision of electricity was as unreliable as it is today. But what really irked me was Minister Fenech demanding an explanation from Enemalta. As if Enemalta was some privatized entity not a public corporation. It dawned on me that this deligimisation of Enemalta could be part of a strategy leading to its privatization. In reality it is not Enemalta which owes us an explanation but Lawrence Gonzi. For in his first term as Prime Minister he postponed strategic decisions on electricity. We missed five whole years not just on the decision to build a new power station, to close the fuming monster of Marsa and connecting Malta to the European grid but most importantly we failed to come up with an energy policy. We still lack such a policy. So we are simply taking leaps in the dark. We also missed five whole years by embarking on the deep water wind farms pipe dream instead of immediately embarking on land and near shore wind farms. We have also allowed penthouses to block access to sun-light for those wishing to install solar water heaters or photovoltiacs. We have also become even more reliant on energy fuelled desalinization and failed to regulate cheap ground water extraction which comes for free for 800 domestic users and companies like Coca Cola. And to make matters worse energy demand will keep increasing with mega projects like smart city which will consume as much energy as Gozo. We also fail to acknowledge the truth; that we are getting our water at dirt cheap prices and that at present prices wind energy although essential will either require government subsidies or will result in an increase in tariffs. I would dare say that we are paying for the omissions of Gonzi’s first term in government. In many ways the present Gonzi administration seems to be constantly entangled in the problems created by the former Gonzi administration. No wonder that in the recent mini reshuffle Gonzi removed the Minister formerly responsible for Enemalta; Austin Gatt. We do not even have the consolation of asking for his resignation. And instead of appointing an Energy Minister with the responsibility of coordinating efforts to avert an energy crisis, we have an over burdened Finance Ministry and an ineffective Resources Ministry and Authority (governed by the same Minister who approved penthouses on all three storey appartment blocks).

Puglia shows the way

2010-04-03T06:26:00.000-07:00

The recent Italian regional elections have debunked the idea that the left can only win through alliances with moderates like the centre right UDC. In reality the only significant victory in these elections was in Puglia where the charismatic Vendola won hands down despite the attempt to ditch him in the name of an alliance with the UDC. Vendola won because he was clear on issues like the privatization of the aquifer while adopting a vision of modernization akin to a green new deal which attracts middle class support.
In contrast to D'Alema who thinks that politics is simple mathematical formula (at one time he even contemplated alliances with Bossi) Vendola proposes an alternative to the new right.
"Al territorialismo della Lega, che reagisce al trauma della globalizzazione con un messaggio di chiusura, contrapposizione ed egoistica difesa degli interessi minuti locali dobbiamo saper opporre un territorialismo altrettanto radicato ma opposto: cosmopolita, aperto, solidale, capace di usare le specificità locali come leva per una valorizzazione complessiva delle differenze".
Ironically till a few months ago he was considered unelectable by the likes of Massimo D'Alema-a schemer of the old Marxist school-who never understood modernity.
People like him are like a virus which contaminates the soul. The other virus is the fixation with identities of those who unsuccessfully tried to abort the Sinistra Ecologia e Liberta project.
In contrast in Piedmont, where an alliance of moderates and progressives was presented, the left lost hands down to a repulsive but clear right wing.
It lost heavily in the Val di Susa where many voted for Beppe Grillo-a maverick comedian who adopted very clear green positions on issues like waste incineration and against the TAV road which will change one of Italy's most beautiful valleys in to a construction site for the next decade. The road was supported by the right-wing Cota and the centrist Bresso.
While these elections have confirmed the sterility of the far left who cling to the hammer and sickle (as if anyone would vote for a permanent disruption of bourgeois life), these elections have proved that candidates like Vendola who start from radical positions but are able to govern modernity with the style and intellect which is more appealing to middle of the road voters than the populist right.
The only shortcoming of Vendola is that he is too tied to traditional schemes of left vs right to have the same leverage at national level as the Greens have in France. For ultimately the name of the game is changing society not electing the left to power at all costs.

My President no more

2010-03-27T00:31:00.000-07:00

I rarely watch the PBS news. But it serves as a good reality check for people like me who live in a restricted circle which reflects the views of 1-3% of the population.
One of the news reports was about President George Abela holding some sort of Good Friday exhibition in the Sant Anton Palace. So we have the use of public space to promote one particular religion...
But that was not enough. In his speech the President (who is also my President paid from my taxes) called on the Maltese to cherish their Catholic faith. So in Malta we have a President who is saying "I am the President of 90-95% of the population and the rest of you do not count."
Abela whom I admire for many other things, should stop behaving like a glorified parish priest. I expected that the first president hailing from the labour party would be just a bit more secular than his predecessors. In reality he is surely less inclusive and secular than Guido De Marco.
Instead of appealing to Catholic values he might well call for respect of universal values and human rights.

Father Murphy

2010-03-25T06:04:00.000-07:00

I have never been an advocate of harsh punishments and i am allergic to moral panics of any kind especially when these are used to create a far west climate of vengeance.
This also applies to pedophiles. Therefore am against witch hunts and registers which can well serve as hit lists.
I also question the dominant discourse which lumps together serial abusers who systematically use their position of power to exploit children, disturbed people who struggle with their 'disgusting' attraction for children or young teens and any adult who has sex with a sexually active 16 or 17 year old.
That said am also a fervent believer in equality when it comes to justice. And am irked by the way the church has created a state within a state by not denouncing its errant priests to the same justice applied to other pedophiles.
Some of these priest like Father Murphy- who abused 200 deaf children belongs to the category of serial abusers-in position of power. In this case it not just the action which is disgusting but also the person.
I am not saying that he should have been hurt, hanged or even sent to prison if he was already sick as claimed by the Vatican. Am just saying that he should have faced a court of law.
What also strikes me is the abuse of power and the crass hypocricy of a caste which for the past 2000 years has sought to repress the sexuality of others.

new human species discovered

2010-03-24T14:02:00.000-07:00

Scientists have found the remains of a little finger discovered in a cave in the mountains of southern Siberia belonging to a previously unknown human species.
The finding suggests an undocumented human species lived alongside Neanderthals and early modern humans in parts of Asia as recently as 30,000 years ago.
If confirmed, it would be the first time a new species of human beings has been identified since the discovery of Homo floresiensis, the diminutive "hobbits" that lived on the Indonesian island of Flores until 13,000 years ago.
So at one time there were at least four different species of humans inhabiting the earth; a mind boggling prospect for those who believe that humans were exclusively created by God in his image and imbued with a divine soul.
But this blow to the myth of human exclusivity raises interesting prospects for a change in the way we relate to the rest of the animal kingdom especially with our nearest relatives the great apes. One step in this direction was recently taken in Spain where human rights were granted to the great apes who also belong to our extended family Hominidae.

Pariah Malta

2010-03-10T11:51:00.000-08:00

The European Commission today took a final decision to endorse a proposal for a ban on the international trade of tuna, with Malta being the only member state to vote against. The Maltese government (supported by the "progressive" opposition) was the only EU government to stick its neck for the tuna industry....Perhaps it has something to do with the way political parties are financed in Malta. The kind of reputation Malta is gaining in Europe is that of a medieval theocracy which permits spring hunting and wants no controls on the tuna barons. And thanks to our new EU commissioner we have added GMOs to the list.

my yes vote betrayed

2010-03-04T06:31:00.000-08:00

One of the most tangible and positive results of EU membership was the end of hunting in Spring last year. New species of birds started breeding in Malta. The countryside became accessible for families who could enjoy the fresh air without fear of bullies armed with a shot gun. But the government has decided to re-apply a derogation to allow hunting in Spring. They want to do everything possible for the hunters but very little for the common mortals who want to enjoy the countryside in peace. Obviously there were no words of protests were raised by the progressive PL. This is a lesson that in the absence of real political change, nothing will change in Malta.

Bencini

2010-02-28T12:24:00.000-08:00

John Bencini is emerging as the most credible trade union leader in Malta. He deserves great recognition for his role in creating a common front between different trade unions and for rising above partisan divides, something which the UHM is unable to do. It was mainly thanks to Bencini that today's demonstration attracted a wider support than the usual labour crowd.

closer to business?

2010-02-28T07:18:00.000-08:00

I never had much sympathy for Sant's Labour, mainly for two reasons; his aversity towards EU membership which bordered on autarky and his very akward way of coming in terms with the whole notion of modernity.
Still Sant found it difficult to get cosy with big business interests. He retained a sound dose of mistrust towards those whose bottom line is to make money. Such mistrust is healthy in politics and in life in general.
I am not saying his policies never co-incided with big businessmen and that he never compromised in view of his party's strategic interests but he ratained a sense of aloofness in dealing with big business.
And one rare trait in Sant's character which went against his general aversion for middle class environmentalism was a strong commitment to safegaurd agricultural land.
One of Sant's first decisions was to stop the development of an airport in Gozo-something which a coterie of Gozitan businessmen consider a panacea for all of Gozitan problems.
Now Muscat's party is saying that it will consider this option at the very moment when the present government is coming to terms with the fact that an eco-island and an airstrip are matually exclusive. Three cheers for Mario De Marco for realising what the greens have been saying for two decades even if he does not seem to have the guts to say a definitive NO.
As much as am turned off by the present's government's shortcomings and gonzi's style of leadership, labour is pregnant with so many contradictions that when (and if) the waters break I wonder what kind of schizo creature will be coming out.

Energy Contradications

2010-02-21T23:14:00.001-08:00

Back in 1998 when Labour was in power it was the CMTU which took to the street while the GWU was absent. Now the same unions who rightly took to the streets 12 years ago are saying that protests are simply disruptive. Irrespective of the actors involved anyone questioning the validity of protests has a very limited conception of democracy.
But the unions who will be protesting next Sunday will also be expected to come up with some alternative proposal.
I think so far the Greens (who will be participating in the protest ) have come up with the most concrete proposal; a scientific study to determine the real needs of families and individuals which should be charged at a stable fixed rate while the rest is charged at the full market price.
But that would not mean a drastic reduction of utility bills. At most it would give a welcome degree of stability for middle and lower income households which is important in a country where many cannot make ends meet. It could mean even higher prices for those who consume a lot.
But even the Greens need to be more clear on the bottomline argument. Should the government subsidise utility bills or should it simply make high end consumers pay more to balance any discount for low end consumers? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between.
Obviously real needs cannot be determined exclusively by scientific studies although these can help a lot in setting objective criteria. Ultimately the question; what constitutes real needs and what constitutes artificial needs is not easy to answer in the absence of other subjective ideological criteria.
As a green myself I believe that the government should not subsidise wasteful practices. I would rather see tax money go to finance education, health, public transport and other public goods than someone else's (or my own) electricity bill.
Money is in limited supply and any increase in subsidies for energy means less money for other important things. Of course this does not exclude increasing the size of the revenue cake through taxation.
In this sense I do not agree with Labour's proposal to cap the tariff rate for a year for all categories irrespective of flactuations in the oil market. The tariff rate for anyone consuming over and above what is considered socially acceptable should simply never be capped.
In my opinion what is wrong with the present tariff system is not the principle of cutting subsidies to encourage energy conservation. What is wrong is the lack of studies on the social and economic impact and the overall lack of direction in the government's policies reflected in the fact that all major energy decisions are being taken in the absence of an energy and water policy.
Another important point some left wing environmentalists like Graffitti (am refering to a statement issued today) seem to miss is that renewable energy is not necessarily cheaper to produce than oil and gas.
In some cases it is even more expensive. All studies so far seem to suggest that wind power produced at Sikka l-Bajda will be more expensive than oil. It is wind energy produced on land which can be cheaper than oil but Malta has a limited area... As regards solar the pay back time is even longer. BUT that does not mean that we should not opt for renewable energy. It only means that we have to be ready to pay for it and that populism won't solve anything.
Obviously subsidising renewable energy makes much more sense than subsidising energy produced by oil.
And for the sake of argument; should we opt for inferior technology whenever this produces a cheaper price?
Finally the price of water in Malta is cheap I also strongly believe that above a certain level determined by scientific studies, the price of water should be determined by the market. I cannot fathom why people are shocked by an increase in the cost of public water when they are so ready to buy bottled water which is a thousand times more expensive.
Obviously the price of water and energy should not be solely dictated by market forces. That is why i strongly believe that these public goods should remain part of the commons and thus managed by public authorities. But to protect the commons we need to harness market forces to address waste and over consumption and encourage individual responsibility.

KSU and SDM for censorship

2010-02-20T05:42:00.000-08:00

University Students’ Council and the Studenti Demokristjani Maltin have refused to take part in next Wednesday's protest against censorship. Since both these organisation serve as an incubator where future PN politicians are nurtured and bred this is another confirmation of the inherent conservatism of the regime. Ironically SDM was not always the partisan (and conservative) organisation it is today. It was normal when i was at university for SDM activists to fraternise with their left wing friends in Graffiti. Probably another sign of degeneration....

the strange ways of the Maltese establishment

2010-02-20T02:10:00.000-08:00

Disguised as independent free thinkers with liberal inclinations (while adopting the tactics adopted by US rightwing Republicans against Clinton) they have a role in spinning and propping up an extremely confessional and compromised regime, intervening before every election to make sure that the middle classes remain in line and do not vote green or any colour except blue and all too ready to distract public attention from the pitfalls of the regime by going ballistic on a tangent, ignoring the basic rules of human decency and respect towards the personal life of fellow human beings. While sometimes personal life does impinge on public life (just as consultancies by big business and government can also compromise independence) there is a way of exposing conflicts without cruelty and the morbid exploitation of basic instincts.

The totalitarian consensus

2010-02-13T06:48:00.000-08:00

I have a hunch that the cultural chasm between the liberal elements of the Maltese new middle class and the rest of society is widening. And ironically what is widening this rift is an attempt by the church, reactionary organisations, the university rector, the far right and conservative politicians in both the PN and LP to roll back on civil rights since Malta joined the EU. This attempt has disturbed a delicate balance which made conservative rule 'bearable' for the past decade. Yet this might well be an opportunity to unblock the national consensus on various issues. Ironically Gift of Life and Juanito Camilleri (and lately Edwin Vassallo and Justyn Caruana) are doing more than anyone else to break the totalitarian consensus on issues like abortion and censorship.

Bizarre

2010-02-09T13:35:00.000-08:00

It seems that Maltese politicians are going bonkers. I have never heard anything more bizarre (and authoritarian) than issuing care orders on other people's bodies. It seems that some people still think that women are baby factories. This whole thing about granting a legal status to the fetus (coupled with the campaign against single mothers who refuse to name the father) is nothing but an attempt to control female sexuality. And there is more to it than protecting the fetus from a mother who uses drugs (whatever happened to Education, welfare and support???) The ultimate goal is to enable the state to stop women from performing abortions abroad by giving a legal status to non persons while denying the fundamental right of persons to be sovereign over their own bodies.

carnival madness

2010-02-08T01:00:00.000-08:00

If there was any need of confirmation that the Maltese police have the wrong priorities it was the decision to vet rock band lyrics in the Nadur carnival.
It seems that the police live in a world of their own oblivious to the fact that carnival is anthropologically meant for subjecting official institutions to mockery. And to rub the salt in the wounds they want to censor of all things; rock music lyrics-the music genre which celebrates irreverance.
Someone has to answer for this madness. And the government cannot just take the back seat. It either backs or disowns (and stops) such a flagrant abuse of police powers.

Back to the future

2010-02-07T06:47:00.001-08:00

Before the 1996 election Alfred Sant said he was personally in favour of divorce but
divorce was not included in the MLP's electoral manifesto.
Alfred Sant was elected in 1996 with a razor thin one seat majority.
In 1997 he appointed a commission on the family which recommended the introduction of divorce.
Labour MPs Joe Abela and Sandro Schembri Adami declare that they would vote against. Lino Spiteri declares that he is in favour of divorce but would not vote for it because it was not part of electoral programme.
Divorce was not introduced and embittered by this experience Sant removes divorce from the agenda for the next decade.
It seems like history is repeating itself with Muscat trying to lure progressives to support his phantasmagoric movement which also includes Adrian Vassallo and Marlene Pullicino.

Distraction card

2010-01-30T11:03:00.001-08:00

At the peak of an economic and political crisis the PN has conjured the abortion card by attacking the LP deputy leader for a view expressed back in 2003. Like a letter day Galileo Galilei the PL deputy leader has "recanted" his views. Epur si mouve, i imagine him saying...Clearly we have not reached the political maturity of making a distinction between personal views and party platforms. Perhaps Abela would have been wiser ignoring the Talibans. But what irks me most is the PN's connivance with the GOL talibans. Unfortunately a brigade of fundamentalists has been given carte blanche to conduct a political witch hunt. But people can read through the PN's agenda. Abortion is simply a distraction card when everything else fails. It is a sign of panic.

Gosh they won the lottery

2010-01-29T07:18:00.000-08:00

Bus owners will be get between 100,000 and 125,000 Euro each for their Jurassic vehicles and monopolistic licenses. I wonder whether depreciation was taken in to account.
Rather than a reasonable compensation this sounds more like an attempt to buy the peace by cajoling bus owners by handing them a lottery ticket.
It is ironic that the same government which has committed itself to cut public transport subsidies is handing exorbitant sums of money to bus owners.
All this at a time when the country is feeling the pinch.
Had the 55 million Euro been invested in the buying of Euro 5 instead of the proposed Euro 3 bus fleet, we would all have won.
As things go we all lose.

Valid not just for Italy....

2010-01-23T11:00:00.000-08:00

Ma sugli errori degli ex compagni del Pci, Nichi Vendola ha anche un'altra spiegazione: "Hanno un rapporto nevrotico con la modernità e non hanno mai davvero chiuso i conti col passato. Ma di tutta la grande narrazione politica comunista, quelli come D'Alema e Bersani hanno conservato un solo tratto, il fascino supremo del comando. L'illusione di poter imporre alla base qualsiasi scelta, per quanto impopolare, in nome del fine superiore del partito. Soltanto che questo fine superiore non esiste più. E alla lunga, senza un'utopia, una trascendenza, la gente prima o poi si stufa di obbedire".

Obama's paralysis

2010-01-20T12:52:00.001-08:00

The paralysis facing Obama is a veritable lesson on the limits of personal charisma, bi-partisan appeals, post racial rhetoric and single party coalitions. Elected on a vaguely progressive platform which was more iconographic than real, Obama is now a prisoner of right wingers in his own party (the so called blue dogs).
Yesterday's election of a republican instead of Ted Kennedy is a devastating blow. The choice for Obama is either to push for change by rallying the multitudes who supported his insurgency against Clinton and Bush or to pave the way for a republican restoration.
Some are moving in the first direction
(http://pol.moveon.org/timetofight/)
Possibly this could be a wake up call for the iconographic Obama to come out. I doubt he will.

Hogwash

2010-01-19T23:26:00.000-08:00

All this abstract talk of a coalition of moderates and progressives is hogwash especially when expressed in a manifesto of contradictions; the usual litany of less taxes, better public services and good governance laced with a vague hint of secularism with no commitments and a commitment to the values of the Maltese (whatever these are). Labour is trying to offer something to everyone without balancing its own fiscal and moral acrobatics. In the process it is lacking authenticity. Surely nothing wrong in building bridges and building alliances. But the only alliances that count are those leading to concrete changes. Despite all this talk of being progressive, it is still doubtful whether Labour is committed to introduce divorce.

Censorship

2010-01-15T00:48:00.000-08:00

In the discussion about censorship and hate crimes one must make a net distinction between literature and propaganda.
No moral code can be imposed on a piece of literature. How can one depict a racist character without letting him or her vent brutal or even degrading views on other people? The same would apply to a pedophile, a sexist macho, a serial killer and even normal persons who sometimes harbour forbidden thoughts.
After all literature is all about digging in the soul of fictional characters residing in the author's imagination rooted in a particular culture. There is no obligation to be moralistic in this process. After all evil sometimes prevails in real life let alone in fantasy. So one should not expect an epiphany at the end of the story to restore the moral order.
On the other hand inciting hatred against particular social groups in political propoganda is another matter all together.
We must clearly define what incitement and hatred mean for otherwise we will end up legitimising censorship and where necessary we should call a spade a spade.
I am scared shit of politically correct laws against insulting religions, just as am scared shit of islamophobia. Striking a balance is difficult but should not come at the cost of censoring those who take religions to task through satire and ridicule.
I find anti immigration views abhorrent but one cannot censor them as long as they do not suggest that some ethnic groups are inferior and deserve different treatment. That said, one may well argue that these views however legal also create a climate for acts of violence. Rabid racists often pose as mainstream xenophobes simply to get access to the media and to political power. Still in such cases, confronting these views head on is the best way forward.

reflections on a tragedy

2010-01-14T03:46:00.000-08:00

I know it might sound like the ramblings of an adolescent. But I can't refrain from asking; how could one believe in a loving lord who permits tragedies like the one which has struck the wretched of the earth in Haiti? Why strike the poorest people on earth? Well am not the only one making this silly question. Evangelical and right wing preacher Pat Robertson believes that the Haitians have themselves to blame for signing a pact with the devil. Incredible but true. We are told that God works in mysterious ways. I prefer to believe in an amoral chaos and a moral humanity. For humans are the only agents capable of choosing between good and evil. Solidarity is the greatest manifestation of goodness. If that is the essence of Christianity than I may well describe myself as a godless Christian. Perhaps that is the meaning of the incarnation; the death of a metaphysical and cruel god and the triumph of human kindness.