18th May 2008
The Malta Independent
The Malta Independent
“Opposition leader Alfred Sant
yesterday (12 May 2008) warned that democracy in Malta was facing a new threat,
claiming that a clique which was not at the forefront of the political scene had
the power to take decisions in their own interest.
“He warned that these people would try to take over the Labour Party and colonise it. But he believed in the internal strength of the MLP and that it would bear witness to its commitment to real democracy and would never play servant to just a few interests.”
I am still trying to decode this message. I hate it when politicians speak in riddles. Can’t they please speak in plain and simple language? Any threat to democracy is a matter of public interest, so the Leader of the Opposition has an obligation to warn about it in the clearest possible language and to name and shame without fear or favour.
But, try as I may, even forcing myself into the most generous and objective mode possible, I can’t avoid the conclusion that in reality the decoded message is:
The government is a puppet to commercial interests.
These same commercial interests could be working a plan to infiltrate Labour as it goes about electing a new leadership.
However, provided that Labour preserves its internal status quo, as it ably did at the extraordinary general conference of 9 May 2008, then one can rest assured that under the leadership favoured by those who defend the status quo, Labour will not be colonised by such hidden interests that already control the PN.
The accusation that government is a puppet to commercial interests is disrespectful of the general electorate who, in a democratic manner, has elected the same government three times in a row. This is not to say that certain safeguards are not needed to avoid risks of undue influence from business lobbies. Chief amongst these is a transparent mechanism for party funding. I have, in the past, expressed the view that this should exclude business donations altogether. Political parties are crucial for the execution of democracy and they should be funded by the state, with adequate controls to ensure that political parties remain responsible to the general electorate and not to narrow interest groups.
Claims that these commercial interests are about to infiltrate Labour is a very serious matter. But in reality, have they not already done so? The pitiful state of party financing, and the lack of political will to force the government to put party financing at the forefront of the political agenda, means that the party regularly goes cap in hand demanding “donations” from commercial organisations. It is not simply a case of “il ftit minghand il hafna” as I did in the 1992-96 period for the funding of the CNL project.
However, the most debatable is the third argument, that the status quo gives Labour the inner strength to avoid becoming a colony of “just a few interests”. Labour’s raison d’être is to be in government in order to implement its doctrine of social democracy. Eternal opposition, even if free from colonisation by narrow interests, will never permit Labour to reach its objectives. Organisations that consistently miss their objective inevitably finish on the history dump.
Furthermore, by staying eternally in opposition, Labour exposes itself much more to the risk of being dominated by narrow interest groups. Running a political party is not exactly cheap, and no-strings-attached small and widespread donations are stimulated by the achievement of success. Success brings in more no-strings-attached donations, as the Obama experience shows in the US. Serial losers will not attract the necessary volume of such donations and this makes reliance on the strings-attached variety more likely.
Strings-attached donations to serial losers are high-risk, high-return investments for the donors, who would expect a great return on their investment if the unlikely were to happen.
Defending the status quo is therefore more conducive to colonisation than the prospect of change. How one can argue conversely is not quite comprehensible, unless it is a desperate attempt to preserve one’s legacy from being branded by failure, stagnation, bankruptcy, rift and division.
This smells of patriarchal interference to impose a chosen successor: a clear attempt to protect Sant’s legacy and to protect those within Labour who are well served by it. Under Sant, Labour is already colonised by the PN. It has access to internal documentation and discussions even at the highest level. It influences the election of our leaders and executives through reverse psychology. It even decides who is to be alienated from Labour by flattering him and pitching him against the Leader. Tell me!
This is not a clash between Abela and Muscat, Falzon etc. They are all are valid contenders, if they are truly allowed to plough their field without interference. It is not a clash between those who want the delegates and those who want the members to elect the leader. It is not a clash between those who were alienated and those who swallowed their pride and stayed on.
It is a clash between those who have a legacy and private interests to preserve, even at the expense of the party continuing with its serial losses and sinking further into financial quandary, and those who are fed up of losing, fed up of seeing Labour following policies that betray its social doctrine, fed up of being considered as children of a lesser god and fed up of seeing the PN encroaching on Labour’s traditional territory as it becomes less fashionable with every new generation to be Labour.
Those resisting change have a position to defend: their earnings depend on the job they have with the Party (or its subsidiaries) or through the Party (eg full-time mayors). They want to change nothing and excel at delivering cheap oratory that warms the heart but blocks the mind. They do not even adopt the minimum of governance standards by declaring their personal interest in the preservation of the status quo.
On the contrary, those who are successful in their own private life, those who give without expecting anything in return, those who are loyal to the organisation and its principles rather than individuals, those who openly criticise because they can no longer take seeing the party suffering one humiliation after another – those are in favour of change. They want positive change, where there is space for everyone, even for those who are resisting it.
They want change that delivers success and makes Labour fashionable again with new and floating voters and with those nationalists who also believe it is time for a serious alternation of power. They want change that makes us proud again to be Labour.
“He warned that these people would try to take over the Labour Party and colonise it. But he believed in the internal strength of the MLP and that it would bear witness to its commitment to real democracy and would never play servant to just a few interests.”
I am still trying to decode this message. I hate it when politicians speak in riddles. Can’t they please speak in plain and simple language? Any threat to democracy is a matter of public interest, so the Leader of the Opposition has an obligation to warn about it in the clearest possible language and to name and shame without fear or favour.
But, try as I may, even forcing myself into the most generous and objective mode possible, I can’t avoid the conclusion that in reality the decoded message is:
The government is a puppet to commercial interests.
These same commercial interests could be working a plan to infiltrate Labour as it goes about electing a new leadership.
However, provided that Labour preserves its internal status quo, as it ably did at the extraordinary general conference of 9 May 2008, then one can rest assured that under the leadership favoured by those who defend the status quo, Labour will not be colonised by such hidden interests that already control the PN.
The accusation that government is a puppet to commercial interests is disrespectful of the general electorate who, in a democratic manner, has elected the same government three times in a row. This is not to say that certain safeguards are not needed to avoid risks of undue influence from business lobbies. Chief amongst these is a transparent mechanism for party funding. I have, in the past, expressed the view that this should exclude business donations altogether. Political parties are crucial for the execution of democracy and they should be funded by the state, with adequate controls to ensure that political parties remain responsible to the general electorate and not to narrow interest groups.
Claims that these commercial interests are about to infiltrate Labour is a very serious matter. But in reality, have they not already done so? The pitiful state of party financing, and the lack of political will to force the government to put party financing at the forefront of the political agenda, means that the party regularly goes cap in hand demanding “donations” from commercial organisations. It is not simply a case of “il ftit minghand il hafna” as I did in the 1992-96 period for the funding of the CNL project.
However, the most debatable is the third argument, that the status quo gives Labour the inner strength to avoid becoming a colony of “just a few interests”. Labour’s raison d’être is to be in government in order to implement its doctrine of social democracy. Eternal opposition, even if free from colonisation by narrow interests, will never permit Labour to reach its objectives. Organisations that consistently miss their objective inevitably finish on the history dump.
Furthermore, by staying eternally in opposition, Labour exposes itself much more to the risk of being dominated by narrow interest groups. Running a political party is not exactly cheap, and no-strings-attached small and widespread donations are stimulated by the achievement of success. Success brings in more no-strings-attached donations, as the Obama experience shows in the US. Serial losers will not attract the necessary volume of such donations and this makes reliance on the strings-attached variety more likely.
Strings-attached donations to serial losers are high-risk, high-return investments for the donors, who would expect a great return on their investment if the unlikely were to happen.
Defending the status quo is therefore more conducive to colonisation than the prospect of change. How one can argue conversely is not quite comprehensible, unless it is a desperate attempt to preserve one’s legacy from being branded by failure, stagnation, bankruptcy, rift and division.
This smells of patriarchal interference to impose a chosen successor: a clear attempt to protect Sant’s legacy and to protect those within Labour who are well served by it. Under Sant, Labour is already colonised by the PN. It has access to internal documentation and discussions even at the highest level. It influences the election of our leaders and executives through reverse psychology. It even decides who is to be alienated from Labour by flattering him and pitching him against the Leader. Tell me!
This is not a clash between Abela and Muscat, Falzon etc. They are all are valid contenders, if they are truly allowed to plough their field without interference. It is not a clash between those who want the delegates and those who want the members to elect the leader. It is not a clash between those who were alienated and those who swallowed their pride and stayed on.
It is a clash between those who have a legacy and private interests to preserve, even at the expense of the party continuing with its serial losses and sinking further into financial quandary, and those who are fed up of losing, fed up of seeing Labour following policies that betray its social doctrine, fed up of being considered as children of a lesser god and fed up of seeing the PN encroaching on Labour’s traditional territory as it becomes less fashionable with every new generation to be Labour.
Those resisting change have a position to defend: their earnings depend on the job they have with the Party (or its subsidiaries) or through the Party (eg full-time mayors). They want to change nothing and excel at delivering cheap oratory that warms the heart but blocks the mind. They do not even adopt the minimum of governance standards by declaring their personal interest in the preservation of the status quo.
On the contrary, those who are successful in their own private life, those who give without expecting anything in return, those who are loyal to the organisation and its principles rather than individuals, those who openly criticise because they can no longer take seeing the party suffering one humiliation after another – those are in favour of change. They want positive change, where there is space for everyone, even for those who are resisting it.
They want change that delivers success and makes Labour fashionable again with new and floating voters and with those nationalists who also believe it is time for a serious alternation of power. They want change that makes us proud again to be Labour.
No comments:
Post a Comment