We want fights, not projects

Published: February 1, 2009 at 2:24pm

The announcement of more public spending on capital projects is supposed to jolly things along, liven up the atmosphere, put a little bit of zing into the economy and the merest spring into the step of people who should be thinking positive for all our sakes rather than saying of a recession ‘Bring it on.’

Instead, those capital projects have been fallen on like fresh carcasses by starved hyenas. It’s not capital projects that we want, but capital projects to fight about. Whether they materialise or not is irrelevant, just so long as we have something to get worked up about to lift us out of the tedium of daily life in a confined space where you see the same people every day and it’s just like being in a glorified village, but with drugs and violence thrown in.

Why am I left with the lingering impression that some people are getting a kick out of their campaigns, that it’s the process of lobbying, of drumming up opinion, of fighting for a cause that interests them more than the end result? To challenge government action – or private commercial action with public consequences – when you understand that there is just cause to do so, and when you truly believe in the opposition that you are putting up, rather than making opposition an end in itself, is admirable. But when individuals and organisations begin spreading themselves thin, objecting to this and that, north, south, east, west, high and low, under and over, speaking with self-assumed importance and arrogating to themselves the voice of authority over matters of which they know little or nothing, it dawns on me that it’s not so much about the project but about the battle. And that is precisely why there is so much grand-standing, so many petitions, so many God-awful ‘Facebook groups’, and so many people who are quite obviously adoring every minute of every day that they have something to get worked up about.

One imagines that the government could have foreseen what would happen when it announced the new Renzo Piano project, that the St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation might have envisioned the same when it gave word of its plans for an underground museum. People don’t want something to get excited about. They want something to get angry about. Anger is a far more satisfying sensation, particularly when it involves that deeply rewarding element of Resisting The Machine that has been missing from our lives since – oh, roughly 1987. We all need to feel we’re doing our Che Guevara bit sometimes, even if in sedate middle-age it no longer involves manning the barricades and throwing stones at the police who threw them first.

The projects are useful only inasmuch as one can’t very well bicker and grand-stand about nothing. One needs a reason. Apart from that, they might have been anything. They just happen to be two big – and rather interesting, if you’re taking time out from apoplectic rage or barely controlled hysteria – projects in Valletta, a place in which every man and his dog appears to have a stakeholder’s interest.
So of course, there have been weeks of unparalleled fun, with seemingly every day bringing forth fresh suggestions as to where ‘the government’ can house ‘its’ parliament (preferably up its back-alley, one would imagine), which leaves me wondering how many people actually grasp the notion of what a parliament actually is, and its direct link to democracy. The other day I found myself reminding somebody or other, who was up on her high horse about the government building a Piano palace to house its representatives (how dare it), that actually, parliament houses the representatives of the people, including the MP for whom she voted so as to represent her interests in any future ‘Piano palace’.

I find it odd, really, that we dedicate so much time and effort to brainwashing children about our 2000-year ‘history of oppression and colonisation’, then when we get to run our own show, with our own little democracy and our very own dinky parliament, everyone comes howling out of the woodwork demanding that this very thing we have supposedly been longing for throughout a couple of millennia of being stomped upon by il-hakem be housed in some palazzo basement or at the ars
e-end of Valletta, where it cannot be seen nor heard, in a fort hastily converted for the purpose, preferably by Rachel Vella of Tista Tkun Int.

At last, I understand why the Valletta bomb-site has remained a bomb-site for more than 60 years, while architectural competitions are held, drawing-boards are returned to, grand architects are commissioned, public exhibitions held, and big announcements made. The Valletta bomb-site serves a crucial purpose: that of drawing us together in division. Is it a paradox? No, it isn’t. Fighting about what should become of the bomb-site is something we share. By fighting about it, by beating each other over the head with our conflicting views, what we are saying is that we belong, that we are involved in this thing we share. The arguments over what should be done with the bomb-site have come down through three generations. The way things are going with the current attempt to do something about it, there may well be another three. At this stage, the only thing that it seems appropriate to build on the site is a memorial to the projects that fell through because everyone had an opinion and no two opinions were the same.

Now let me throw in a wild card. I think that many of those who are most vociferous in objecting to a parliament house on the bomb-site don’t really want an opera house, or even a theatre. They just don’t want a parliament house. The idea of politicians ‘getting something’ offends them. It offends them particularly because so many of them, at least going by what I have read and heard, seem not to know what parliament actually is. They believe it to be an office for lots of people they don’t like. In that case, I am not surprised at their fury and their objection, and I can’t say I blame them. I would feel the same way if I believed a national theatre or an opera house to be the private demesne of a bunch of squalling amateur actors who fake American accents badly, and for whom I have no time and even less patience.

But that is not why I believe a national theatre or an opera house to be wholly inappropriate. It’s because both of those things are the legacy of a bygone era. Those whose national theatres and opera houses were built in another age continue to use them, yes – but nobody is building national theatres and opera houses now. They are building other things, things more in keeping with the 21st century. Maltese theatre audiences are shrinking, not growing, despite the best efforts of several theatre groups which have worked hard to raise the standards. It’s always the same few hundred people who go along. As for opera, it would be a mistake to judge potential regular opera house audiences on the basis of the turn-out for annual or bi-annual open-air performances by Joseph Calleja or, once in a blue moon, Miriam Gauci.

Given that nobody seems content to let the others get away with a parliament house, a museum of modern art, an opera house, a national theatre, and now even a public library, we run the risk of being left with the one thing that will offend no one: nothing. We will be able to carry on joyously bickering about what to do with the place until we are lying in our graves, and then our children can carry the torch. The only good thing about this is that by the time their turn comes round to fight and nag about the site, an opera house will be even more irrelevant than it is now. So with that eliminated from the equation, and with parliament housed safely out of sight in the cannibalised rooms of some poor sod’s requisitioned palazzo (with parliamentarians having to cross the road to use the lavatory at Café Frans after Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar has objected to interior alterations on the grounds that politicians have enough privileges and don’t need washrooms too, whatever next), our descendants will have to find new reasons to divide them. And I’m quite sure they will.

This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.




12 Comments Comment

  1. Graham C. says:

    Nothing is better. You’ve convinced me on the opera house. I’ve never really gone to theatres as such (except for the New York ones- those are amazing) or being an usher in a nativity play, and building one in Valletta would be building another white elephant.

    I’m against a parliament house, because clearly no party deserves one. Politics is a disaster in Malta; on one hand we’ve got the ex-Stasi and on another we’ve got Winnie the Pooh always ready to dip his fingers in honey. They’ve done enough for themselves. I don’t have a Jaguar or a really cool top of the range Mercedes (cos I don’t collect taxes or make car registration taxes that don’t apply to me).

    Leave it as it is, a place for protesters to jump up and down on. At least the people of Malta won’t be fighting over how their money gets to be spent!

  2. Steve says:

    “I’m against a parliament house, because clearly no party deserves one”

    Who says parliament belongs to the parties? It’s an institution that belongs to the nation as a whole. If you don’t like the parties that are there, vote for someone else.

  3. NGT says:

    Mario Bonnici (26 minutes ago)
    He said that the Opposition should stop trying to waste people’s time by distracting the public on petty issues.

    Look who’s talking!!
    And what about the rebuilding of the old opera house in Valletta. What do you call that?!

    [Daphne – A major exercise in public spending on a capital project is not a petty issue. It’s the kind of thing that governments do when they want to inject some life into the economy.]

  4. NGT says:

    erm I agree! – I quoted the whole thing from the Times’ online comments.

    [Daphne – OK. It wasn’t clear.]

  5. david gauci says:

    I fully agree with Daphne, we are good at objecting,fighting etc…

    How can we exploit EU funds, employ our professionals and work force if not through projects? The problem with Malta is that projects get delayed, and that maintenance on finished projects is nil. I argue that this is the result of people sitting idle in government departments and agencies, getting paid from taxes and ultimately objecting to change and the new.

    Finally, the media goes out in Valletta and ask passers by: Sinjura x’jihdirlek mill-progett ta’…….?
    Jien, ma nifihmx, imma nahseb li hazin.

    We never learn, we only feed uncertainty, half-truths, jealousy for the hardworking, and the results speak for themselves, failure. To put the cherry on the cake, we hear from the same people who go abroad for their holidays or visiting families abroad, how clean and organized it is ‘abroad’. Well, I tell them that success is no accident, but the fruit of sacrifice, dedication,commitment, planning and hard-work.

  6. Marku says:

    I think you’re really on to something here, Daphne. This 50-year debate whether and what to build or not to build on the site of the old opera house has been a godsend for generation of losers, especially since the internet and timesofmalta.com came along.

  7. Mario Debono says:

    Sorry Daphne, it’s people of your ilk who have puffed up little dictators like Astrid of the FGHAA. They are the people who oppose just for the sake of opposition, they are the new divisive factor in our toqba. Beat your hearts and say “mea culpa” . I saw through FghAA ever since it started as a vehicle for all those armchair critics who have nothing better to do than look at their neighbour and hiss issss hey every time their neighbour did one better than them.

    [[Daphne – Excuse me, but in what way am I responsible for the emergence of Astrid Vella and Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar? I agree that the organisation grew out of precisely my social milieu, and is made up mainly – as far as I can discern, because the only ‘face and name’ are Mrs Vella’s – of Slimizi. But I refused to join and the outset, and when I was sent the original petition for signature, I refused politely on the grounds that I have very strong views on property rights, views which are liberal rather than to the right or left. Rightist and leftist views on restricting property rights tend to coincide: the right wants the past protected at whatever cost to the private owner, and the left thinks there is something inheriting wrong about profit through property. I resented most of all the assumption made by Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar that I would jump on their bandwagon. It shows how little they know me. What I find most absurd about the organisation is the way it reflects the typical mindset and experience of those behind it: Malta’s most ancient villages, Mqabba, Gudja, Qrendi, Hal Kirkop, Hal Safi are being destroyed through demolition and the building of maisonettes, but those campaigners probably don’t even have a clue where they are, know their historical significance or have ever been there. Yet those are the rare instances where I would say that there is a strong case for protection of the village core – that it would in fact be beneficial to the owners’ property rights where value is concerned, though it’s too complicated to explain why in this reply.]

  8. Malcolm says:

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if after all these debates, whatever Piano constructed on the site ended up looking a lot like the Magic Kiosk? It’s not too far off from his style…

  9. Mario Debono says:

    “I agree that the organisation grew out of precisely my social milieu, and is made up mainly – as far as I can discern, because the only ‘face and name’ are Mrs Vella’s – of Slimizi”

    You personally are not responsible, but collectively, as a social milieu, you are. I seem to remember quite a few posts by one of your sisters on a Times blog when I opened my mouth in favour of the property rights of the guy who applied to demolish half of lower Milner street, though.

    However I do applaud your stance on FghAA, because you have described them down to a “t”. I also agree with you re our villages. Mqabba and Safi are gone, Zurrieq still resists because the village core is lived in well, Qrendi is still in pretty good shape. The village core should be protected, but then, FghAA only fights for the Slimiz, as you say. That’s why it will never be credible. It’s just a vehicle. That’s all.

    [Daphne – My sister and I are not conjoined twins who share a brain, Mario. We do have different views sometimes. I don’t think Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar fights only for the Slimizi, but I do think that it labours under a typical Slimizi mindset. It also had the backing of rather a lot of koccuti – I can’t find a better term to describe them – who made a point of not voting in the last election because they didn’t mind having a walking mess like Sant running the country as long as they got themselves the satisfaction of ‘punishing’ the Nationalists for allowing building in their backyard. I have even less time for people from my social background than you do, so don’t worry about offending me, because you’re not.]

  10. Mario Debono says:

    Most of my friends come from your social background…..but one has the luxury of choosing one’s friends…..

  11. Mario Debono says:

    As for the koccuti, yes, many of them wanted to “punish” the PN on one hand, whilst holding out their property to the highest bidder on the other! Not worth the words written about them. They were going to saddle us with Sant; now the danger is that we are going to be saddled with someone who is, in my opinion, dangerously worse.

  12. Amanda Mallia says:

    Mario Debono – I take it that with your comment above you were referring to me and to this:

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080724/local/asds

    Ifimha kif trid.

Leave a Comment