Carnival country

Published: February 11, 2010 at 9:16am
No, it's clearly not Nastassia Kinski

No, it's clearly not Nastassia Kinski

Robert Musumeci, unable to face the fact that his political career has blown up in his face because of his own ill-advised personal choices and behaviour, is now trying to blame others for having ruined his future in the Nationalist Party.

Well, what can I say?

There’s always Labour.

I’m sure Joseph Muscat will be thrilled to have him, along with all the other semi-useless rejects he’s been gathering up along the way.

By switching to Labour, Musumeci will at least eradicate the tensions between his social life and political loyalty that have beset him for the last few years, when he came across as a man torn two ways and perhaps even one who has been manipulated in a particular direction, to the detriment of the political party and government which he – on the face of it, at least – is bound over to support.

There is little that can be said of Musumeci but that his short life so far has been the quintessential Greek tragedy. He had it all, and he blew it away.

Five years ago he was the golden boy with so much potential and political promise. But because of a series of truly unwise decisions in various areas of his life and work, he’s blown it.

At least he has the consolation that he can carry on with the business of being a successful and popular architect.

The curious thing is that he seems to think he has a right to do as he does without facing the consequences.

He doesn’t think there should be consequences. He appears to be one of those people who believe that just because something is legal – or rather, not illegal – than it is acceptable, justifiable or moral. And the rest of us can’t say anything about it.

That’s hardly the case.

Perhaps Musumeci should ask himself why he trailed in so weakly in the general election two years ago.

It wasn’t the MEPA-related scandals, which only erupted later under the stewardship of Astrid Vella and her organisation.

It was, quite possibly, because people didn’t like what was going on in the rest of his life.

It is my view that the Nationalist Party should never have accepted Robert Musumeci to stand on its ticket in that general election.

It was wrong, even deceitful, for a political party to put forward to the trusting electorate somebody packaged as a decent family man when it turned out shortly afterwards that he was not, and when the party knew at the time what was going on.

It was a time-bomb, waiting to explode.

Now Musumeci is trapped, face-to-face with the knowledge that actions have consequences, sometimes quite serious ones.

A series of little actions that seem inconsequential at the time sometimes snowball and their effect is exponential. He has roped in the newspaper Malta Today in his efforts at fighting back, but it is pointless.

If the newspaper continues to fight his battle, it won’t win his case – for there isn’t one to be won – but it will lose its credibility, or the little it has left.

Musumeci’s latest line is that the ‘coterie’ who targeted John Dalli is now targeting him. That’s a line bound to go down well with Malta Today, but it is foolish.

He knows that what started this was his mistress’s deeply unwise decision to talk too much, and about the wrong sort of things, at a dinner party which the two hosted, when she knew that I would have the news within minutes.

I did. Somebody actually texted me from the dinner-table. I am not to blame for Robert Musumeci’s choice of mistress, or the fact that her lack of discretion, to say nothing of her historic spitefulness and her love of playing chess-games with people, perhaps due to very different political views, might sink a couple of ships along the way.

It was sheer coincidence that it came to happen in the run-up to the casual election to fill John Dalli’s seat. I did not choose the date for the dinner party hosted by Musumeci and his mistress, Magistrate Herrera, nor did I press his mistress’s buttons and make her speak as she did.

Malta Today is now making a great deal of fuss because the prime minister – or so it reports; I cannot have this information confirmed – has told Robert Musumeci that he is unfit to stand for the casual election on the PN ticket, and would he please retire from the race.

The newspaper says that the prime minister was wrong to do this on the basis of my ‘malicious allegations’, and that the request is pointless anyway, because Musumeci, with the votes as they are and his rival getting most second preferences from John Dalli, has no chance of being elected.

This shows how skewed and corrupted Malta Today’s thinking has become.

That Musumeci has not enough votes to get into parliament is one issue. That he is unfit to stand on the PN ticket is another. The point the prime minister would have wished to make – if indeed he did make it – is that somebody of Musumeci’s character taints the PN ticket merely by standing on it, even if he has no chance of winning.

This message should have been communicated to Musumeci in February two years ago, but I am beginning to think that the prime minister had no idea at the time of what his candidate was doing, and may have put it down to gossip until Musumeci left his wife to set up home with the magistrate some months later, and then it became incontrovertible.

I find it hard to accept that the prime minister might have known of the affair and still allowed Musumeci to contest in his party’s name, putting electors in a position where they were voting for one thing and getting another.

There is lots of talk about cleaning up politics, but this is how it is done.

If the prime minister requested Robert Musumeci not to taint the PN ticket with his presence on it, then he was correct to do so. It may have been rather late in the day, but it was better done than not done at all.

It may come as a surprise to Malta Today, but there are more people who think that way than there are people who think like Robert Musumeci.

Those people are now desperate for decisive action. Sometimes, a tipping-point is reached, and this is one of them.

Malta Today and the Labour Party are foolish not to understand that the average person is more than able to draw a distinction between liberal and progressive politics and what they see as disreputable, even immoral, behaviour.

Saviour Balzan, writing in his newspaper last Sunday, issued the threat that if this is the way things are going, then he would reveal secrets from the cupboards of other politicians, tit for tat.

He seems to think that this would be a bad thing, when I would think that most of his readers see things differently: that concealing the secrets of politicians who are legislators or who seek to be legislators is the bad thing.

Unwittingly, Balzan has revealed just why this unspoken pact not to reveal politicians’ secrets works against the interests of the public. So many people have something on each other that the potential for blackmail, arm-twisting, threats, favours and manipulation is huge.

Malta Today and Labour should have understood this when they saw that Robert Musumeci survived any number of sustained attacks on his involvement with controversial development projects and certain MEPA permits. But it was the development of his relationship with his current mistress -at 10 years his senior she is unlikely to remain his permanent one – that undermined him completely in the public mind.

For that, he alone is responsible.

This article is published in The Malta Independent today.




7 Comments Comment

  1. Rover says:

    Trust Balzan to back the wrong horse again.

  2. Malcolm Bonnici says:

    But why did it take you so long to publish Musumeci’s infidelity and the magistrate’s unethical behaviour? I mean you knew about all this for so long but never published anything and you only published this now. I guess that if you knew you could have informed us about all this prior to the general election.

    [Daphne – I would never have done anything so utterly horrible to Dr Scerri and Mrs Musumeci, who didn’t know at the time. Imagine waking up one morning to learn, along with the rest of the country, that your spouse is currently cheating on you. Finding out is bad enough; finding out through a newspaper, and so publicly, is terrible. That’s why I think the political party should have done it, removing him quietly from the list and dispatching him to sort himself out. Though I believe that it is wrong to conceal the clandestine affairs of legislators and those in positions of power, like magistrates and judges, because it can have implications on their public life, I find the business of talking about it completely distasteful because revelation, unfortunately, also means a shock to the spouses involved. It is only now that the two people involved in this case are living together that I feel able to talk about it at all.]

    • Malcolm Bonnici says:

      Fair enough. What about as soon as the relationship was “public”? Wouldn’t that have been a better timing than two weeks ago?

      [Daphne – I had no reason to do so, but now I do. I am not an investigative reporter, nor do I work for a newsroom. Perhaps that is a question you should address to Malta Today, which persecuted the former police commissioner but thought nothing of the magistrate’s extra curricular activities. Your reasoning carries within it a logical fallacy: that the timing of the discussion makes the discussion somehow wrong. The discussion would have been the same whether it took place six months ago or now, for the content would have been the same and the implications also. You also fail to overlook that the reason why I came out with all this now is yet more evidence of the magistrate’s sorry behaviour: apparently colluding with a scandal-rag on a story (she knew what they were working on before it was published), using incomplete and even false information to which she was privy through the police/courts, and maliciously telling her dinner guests to buy the newspaper the next day to read about me – when I am appearing before her in two cases. It is better that these things are said now than that they are left unsaid. I imagine that you are unfamiliar with the way the media works. In all stories, there is invariably a trigger. People do not release information for nothing, having woken up one day and decided to do it. They have to have a reason to pick up the phone and talk to a journalist; something triggers them. The problem here is that you are confusing my role as the one who reveals with my other role as the one who writes about it, because in my case, the two are in one. I just happen to write and have a popular blog, that’s all. But I am NOT a reporter, even though I have reporting skills and investigating skills, and have worked as one very briefly. My work is something else, in another field entirely.]

  3. iain says:

    “he is unfit to stand on the PN ticket is another”

    I disagree. Two faced lying and cheating behind the backs of those who trust him? Perfect fit for this administration.

  4. Tony Pace says:

    Daphne, I think what you wrote today is clear, to the point, but above all provides enough ammunition for the powers-that-be to do something very final about these characters.

    Frankly, they have brought nothing but ill repute to their respective professions, although Consie’s is the one that has to be addressed immediately.

  5. Hot Mama says:

    These two people fail to realise that they are the architects of their own fate.

Leave a Comment