*Sorry for the length... I got carried away!*
Break time! Not that I really busted my chops this morning, but anyway...
In the last few days, as the Brits were debating and negotiating over how their hung Parliament should eventually convene, with 'Tories leader David Cameron and Lib-Dems Leader Nick Clegg eventually agreeing to a coalition which will almost certainly collapse in the future (it would seriously be a miracle if Cameron manages to last his entire mandate, what with the instability that coalitions bring about); the Maltese parliamentarians decided that it was time for some fun and games and subsequently made a mockery out of the highest institution of the land, i.e. Parliament.
Yes, you read me correctly, they indeed made a mockery out of it. And believe me, the purpose of this blog is not to defend the Nationalists, but what Labour has been doing is completely out of order, and is unbecoming on so many levels. They're the prime cause for this fracas that Maltese politics is currently facing, and they seem to think that by acting in such a manner, they're going to turn more people against the current administration and further endear themselves to the public. In my opinion, if that's their strategy, then they're completely off the mark.
For those who aren't quite up to speed with the local political scenario, I'll write down a quick gap-filler here. Basically, to cut an extremely long story short, when the Nationalists were re-elected in 2008, they were admitted to Parliament with a majority of votes nationwide, but a minority of seats obtained in all the electoral districts (31-34; the same thing effectively happened when Labour claimed victory in 1981, but that time, it was the majority of seats gathered that won the election as opposed to the majority of votes obtained). In order for the PN to govern by virtue of the majority of votes they had, they were 'granted' four extra seats in Parliament, to which four originally unelected members were co-opted. Therefore, as we speak, the PN has a wafer-thin one seat majority in Parliament, something that obviously creates problems in general, especially if one of the government parliamentarians is sick or abroad and hence cannot attend a sitting.
The whole fracas vis-a-vis Parliamentary affairs started a week ago today, when both the Government and the Opposition were voting on a motion as put forward by the Opposition regarding the extension of the power station at Delimara. Nationalist MP Mario Galea mistakenly voted in favour of the Opposition motion, before hastily retracting his vote in order to support the Government. The result? The usual mud-slinging by Labour - if someone voted 'yes', then the vote should not have been retracted and Labour's motion would have therefore passed, etc. In brief, Labour claimed that they won the vote with regards their motion, when in reality, the mistake that occurred was retracted and Galea voted in favour of Government rejecting the motion. Over and above that, there was another fracas involving Justyne Caruana's vote, as certain Government MPs claimed that she voted in favour of the Government. In any event, without going into too much useless detail, Labour stormed out of Parliament and claimed that the PN were, as usual, being undemocratic in their ways and means and that this was essentially a weak, unstable and failed government. Yeah, pull the other one Joseph, before you go crying on Super One again - we've heard the same repetitive moaning and groaning ten thousand times.
Fast forward to yesterday's debate, which regarded a MEPA Reform Bill amendment, for which Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando was absent due to business outside our shores. From independent reports being stipulated, Labour seemed to initially have a gentlemen's agreement with the PN vis-a-vis voting on this matter, primarily due to Pullicino Orlando's absence. However, pulling the other one, Labour thought that this too would be a good opportunity to, using the Maltese expression, try as hard as possible 'biex jaqa' l-Gvern', and therefore went against their prior agreement and insisted on a vote on the matter, knowing fully well that the PN was missing one of its MPs. Of course, with the result tied, the Speaker had to intervene and use his casting vote as done in accordance with Parliamentary procedure, for which he voted in favour of the Government so that the institution would not descend into (further) chaos. Cue Joseph Muscat, yet again, speaking the same old drab and useless stuff that we have now heard for the ten thousand and first time.
It's clear from both scenarios that the institution of Parliament has been made a mockery out of, and that Labour's main aim is just to criticise the government as much as possible without backing up such criticism with viable alternatives. I know that this has also been repeated countless times, but they've had the best part of 23 years to come up with something, and yet they've still failed to do so. It's incredible, incredulous and speaks volumes, unfortunately, about the Opposition's sheer incompetence when compared to the current Government. Granted, the PN may not be perfect (far from!), but they must be doing something right if they've been in power this long... or else the lack of competition has just been so immense that the people feel that there's been no other alternative to them. And who can blame them - this is the 'movement' (to use their progressive and liberal terminology) that appointed a blinker-eyed journalist as their 'Mexxej' as opposed to a successful lawyer with prior experience in politics, a genuine person who could have been of great use towards a better Parliament and a viable alternative come 2013.
Having said that, perhaps it's time for some kind of change in Parliament. Per se, the current electoral system does allow third parties to be elected to Parliament, obviously provided that a prospective candidate has enough votes. Therefore, it is not impossible to envisage a scenario where, if Daphne Caruana Galizia, for instance, opted to run for Parliament as an independent candidate, she would get elected. Therefore, if the proportional representation system isn't at fault, then what is? Perhaps unrealistically, I think the solution lies within the dynamics of the aforementioned system, which would require a tweak or two. The Constitution reads:
52.(1) Such members shall be elected in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in Malta in equal proportions from the electoral divisions referred to in article 56 of this Constitution, each division returning such number of members, being not less than five and not more than seven as Parliament shall from time to time by law determine...
56.(1) The members of the House of Representatives shall be elected upon the principle of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote from such number of electoral divisions, being an odd number and not less than nine and not more than fifteen, as Parliament shall from time to time determine.
Therefore, one can have between five to seven MPs being elected from nine, eleven, thirteen (the current amount) or fifteen electoral districts. Hence, theoretically, if one had to have the maximum amount of MPs elected in the maximum amount of districts, then it is possible that Parliament would end up consisting of 105 members. If Parliament had to make such an adjustment where there would be more members than the current amount, then the probability is that such situations would not continue to occur, and that as a result, there would be the more 'stable' Parliament that Muscat has been rooting for since the day he assumed a seat in Parliament. It would also decrease the possibility of the government having a simple one seat majority (although that would have been doubtful in this legislature, based on the results of the last election) and help many citizens' concerns be heard more effectively. On the downside, however, it would also be more than possible where one would end up with a coalition scenario, as seen in Britain, with the third party elected assuming the role of 'kingmaker'.
To conclude, many people have seemed to be unimpressed by the 'strategy' that Muscat and his cohorts have recently embarked on, and I'm one of them. It's instances like these which keep on confirming for me that no matter how many 'earthquakes' that Muscat has promised will come our way, it's still inevitable that none of my foundations will be shaken to the core, due to their hollowness. I believe that it's inevitable that in the current scenario, I'll just continue having to vote Nationalist - especially so that Labour are not elected to govern this country; and subsequently govern in a manner which will only run us to the ground.
God Bless You all!
Matti
4 comments:
I don't agree with one thing, although I might have misunderstood you.
You suggested that the leader of Opposition should be "a successful lawyer with prior experience in politics"
I don't see why the lawyer part is necessary.
I think it was a misunderstanding.
Quoting the paragraph:
"And who can blame them - this is the 'movement' (to use their progressive and liberal terminology) that appointed a blinker-eyed journalist as their 'Mexxej' as opposed to a successful lawyer with prior experience in politics, a genuine person who could have been of great use towards a better Parliament and a viable alternative come 2013."
My implication is that they chose Joseph Muscat as their leader when in reality, someone better (George Abela) was available, willing to become their leader - but not elected. There isn't an implication that the leader of the Opposition or any political figure for that matter must be a lawyer - after all, one of Malta's best-known Prime Ministers, Dom Mintoff, was an architect!
Prosit zekk gd post ... qed tara i read it for once :p was a gd read !
I don't think electing George Abela would have been such an easy thing Zekk for a couple of reasons;
1) Labour perceived him as the preferred canididate to Nationalists (rightly so, he was the least ahdar and idiotic - incidentally he was also one of my dads best friends as they were in the law course together), ergo rather than reasoning that he'd be able to gain those floating voters they need, they perceived his 'normality' as a weakness
2) George never had the backing in his party, partly because of the above reason, and also because the 'magna' tal-partit (Sant had a say then) wanted Joseph.
3) Labour don't want a good govt, they want revenge. They can't wait to be back to bullying nationalists after having spent 20 years in opposition, and who could they elect with more hate and ambition than a worker of their own propoganda who has been submersed in that mentality all his life (barring his few years in brussels, which he spent hitting the wrong buttons in true labour fashion).
4) Because of the above reasons, even if Abela was elected as their leader, the PL is at a stage where it is very clear that the party and the leader are on two different fronts. Whilst Muscat is preaching unity, political cooperation bla bla bla, his supporters are desacrating graves. George Abela would have had no control over these people, he's a rather timid character, with no decorum whatsoever in my opinion. I don't think that he makes that good of a president (politcally it might have been a good decision, but his class shines through unfortunately sometimes). The genius, so to speak, of Muscat is that he lives a double personality. He is the Christian kissing the archbishops ring, and the Leader putting forward the private member divorce bill, with his paper lambasting the Pope. He's the one preaching political unity and democracy, and then going against prior arrangements to continue stirring up his followers. Whether people can see through his mask i'm not sure as you are. I believe that few Labour supporters might realise but they're too ingrained with either hate or partisanism to vote PN, so they convince themselves that he'll have to do and hop along with the rest. With regards to floating voters, the same goes, i'm afraid that if some voters who were skeptical last time round needed some justification fr a clean conscience, they may in some way find it in Muscat.
Post a Comment