My final post on AD's role in the 2017 general election

Today's Malta Independent reports that Arnold Cassola said that AD members should follow the decisions of the executive. 

Fair enough, though I do not consider this to be an end in itself when essential principles are involved. And Greens tend to prize open dialogue. 

For example ex-French Green leader Danny Cohn Bendit publicly supported Macron and not the Socialists (who were supported by the Greens) in the recent French presidential election. 

When I appeal to AD to join the coalition I am also reflecting the opinion of a number of members, ex-members, ex-candidates and green sympathisers who are constantly communicating with me about their preoccupation with #Malta's current situation. 

In any case, I recently offered my resignation as AD member. 

This will be my final post on AD and the elections. I respect their decision not to join the coalition but I disagree with it. 

I reiterate that the only possible way to remove the Panamagang from power is through #ForzaNazzjonali. And the latter is also proposing some great progressive policies. My only interest in the whole matter is to live in a normal European country.

Election at speed of light

Times of Malta 8 May 2017

In the long weekend leading to May 1, everybody felt that a snap election would be called. It was the talk of town, newspapers were speculating and political parties were spinning.

Then, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat pronounced the inevitable. He did so at a party meeting in front of the Prime Minister’s office, with the podium just in front of the main door. A symbolic confirmation of Malta’s lack of distinction between State and party.

Not that we had a lack of this in the past weeks. From the collapse of public trust in the Commissioner of Police to the massive increase in Tagħna Lkoll positions of trust, to the lack of resignations, Muscat personifies the party-state par excellence.

One could also note the Planning Authority’s timed decisions and non-decisions, depending on the political ramifications of each application in question. Decisions on politically sensitive projects such as the Paceville master plan and Sliema Townsquare were postponed, while small-scale individual developments in rural areas are being granted permission like hotcakes.

But what is really striking in Muscat’s decision to hold a snap election, is that he probably is even preceding the normal time frames to take advantage of the power of incumbency.

Alfred Sant had spoken at length about incumbency after the 2008 general elections. This refers to how the party in government uses the state apparatus to its electoral advantage. This could include resurfacing roads, employing people and so forth.  Usually this takes time and various projects are planned to be finalised near election time. Photo opportunities and unveiling of plaques galore.

In a previous article in the Times of Malta I had imagined that Labour would use money from the non-transparent cash-for-passports scheme to give favours. But maybe it did not even have time for this. Or maybe it did. At this stage one can only speculate, as this scheme is shrouded in secrecy.

Muscat therefore could not take full advantage of the power of incumbency, despite a massive parliamentary majority. The Panama Papers scandal is escalating like an uncontrollable snowball, and the consequences of this cannot be predicted in advance. Nor can they be controlled in a runaway world of global networks, social media and reflexive citizens.

So Muscat might have calculated that it would be better to hold an election as early as possible so as to avoid further escalation of the crisis of his own making. But he would probably know that even an electoral victory might only postpone the crisis we are in.

Muscat’s snap election would also put disgruntled Labour activists in line, as when one is in war mode there is no time to debate. Only that member of parliament Godfrey Farrugia quickly said that he has nothing to do with this.

So Muscat is now doing his utmost to bank on the country’s economic performance, and promise improvements across the board. To promise yet another batch of income tax decreases, while expanding social welfare.

To promise the finishing of the only infrastructural project carried out under his government, namely the Kappara flyover. To promise a tunnel between Malta and Gozo. To promise resurfacing all of Malta’s roads. To promise jobs, promotions and housing. We can only imagine what else is to come. I wouldn’t bet on promises to remove Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi.

In the meantime, some are resorting to a myriad of explanations to justify Muscat. This ranges from the cynical ‘all politicians are the same’ bait to the pseudo-historical faith that Labour is destined to modernise Malta as it is the workers’ party. Only that workers do not usually form part of the Panama Papers elite.

I believe Muscat’s strategy was very simple, really: the dominant group in the Labour government has a 10-year plan to populate its assets. This is done while attempting to buy support from specific single-issue lobbies/individuals and from the public through feudal electoral freebies financed by the taxpayer. Never mind the real bill.

In the meantime, the Labour PR machine is doing its utmost to depict Muscat as offering a safe pair of hands, as a strong leader, and so forth. Only that his body language is giving him away.

How is a tyrant identified? Michael Briguglio

Picture: Charles A. Buchel: Herbert Beerbohm Tree as Macbeth

Times of Malta 1 May 2017

History does not repeat itself, but it does instruct us. It can warn us about signs which show that the political order is in danger.

This is the opinion of Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University and contributor to the New York Review of Books and the Times Literary Supplement.

He writes about this in his most recent publication, On Tyranny: Twenty lessons from the twentieth century. The book is mainly aimed at an American audience, but its message is universally relevant.

Snyder’s first lesson states “do not obey in advance”. As he puts it, anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy, as was the case in Nazi Germany and communist Czechoslovakia, when Nazi and communist parties won respective elections in 1932 and 1946 but quickly carried out regime change from democracy to tyranny.

The reader is then told to defend institutions. Examples include courts, newspapers, laws and workers’ unions, which might fall one by one unless they are defended from the start. In this regard, Snyder appeals to the reader to be involved in politics. This does not necessarily mean party politics – it could also include membership in organisations, expressing views, and donating money to charities within civil society.

On Tyranny adds that every one of us should take responsibility for the face of the world.

We should not look away when we see signs of hate such as racism and discrimination. Withdrawal from daily life through apathy, renunciation and non-engagement can help empower oppressors.

One may also go a step further and stand out. Snyder explains that the moment one sets an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.

On a political level, this is what Winston Churchill did in May 1940, when Great Britain was initially alone in standing up against Hitler’s Nazis. So did many selfless individuals who helped Jews escape persecution from the Nazis.

The book adds that modern tyranny is terror management. It is not the first time that tyrants have profited from ‘sudden disasters’ by eroding civil liberties, checks and balances and normal procedure. But we can always choose not to comply. This is what Hannah Arendt did after the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany. Indeed, she wrote that “I was no longer of the opinion that one can simply be a bystander”.

Snyder adds that professional ethics are imperative in such circumstances. As he puts it, when political leaders set a negative example, professional commitment to fair practice becomes even more important. In his words, “Authoritarians need obedient civil servants, and concentration camp directors seeks businessmen interested in cheap labour”.

Here, it is imperative to believe in truth and not to reduce everything to spectacle. The reader is warned that one submits to tyranny when one renounces the difference between what one wants to hear and what is actually the case.

“Post-truth is pre-fascism”, and fascists loved slogans that resonated like a new religion.

Snyder also refers to various ways how we can equip ourselves against tyrants in the making. These include reading, investigating, figuring out things for oneself and spending more time with long articles. One may also wish to subscribe to reputable media and to share and retweet statements and writings of those who follow journalistic protocols.

We may thus equip ourselves against perils such as fake identities, fake news, alternative facts and online trolls. We may also avoid internet bait which tries to hook us.

We may also be attentive to the use of language to justify power. For example when adversaries are labelled ‘extremists’ or when governments justify ‘exceptional’ behaviour by removing checks and balances.

Finally, Snyder invites his readers to be patriotic and courageous. As he puts it, patriots are not those who share advisers with oligarchs or who admire foreign dictators. Patriots are those who serve their country and who want it to live up to its ideals.

In turbulent political times we may be tempted to ignore the bigger picture in favour of personal perks or detached gratification. But we may also choose not to succumb to those who imperil democracy. And no one can take away this freedom.