One to read
The Times, yesterday:
PUT THE ETHICS BACK INTO POLITICS
By Simon Busuttil, MEP
When Carm Mifsud Bonnici was axed by a parliamentary motion earlier this month, I wrote a piece in this column entitled Dangerous Brand Of Politics. The title is enough to remind you of the drift of my argument.
Now, our House of Representatives has gone one worse. It axed someone who is not even a member of the House on trumped-up charges of treason in a pseudo-trial that failed even the most basic tenets of natural justice.
I do not need to sing the praises of Richard Cachia Caruana. He does not need it and a lot of ink has flowed in that direction. I will just say that I share the concern of those who feel that the country will gain nothing from his departure.
Quite the opposite, really. We stand to lose. And this is one area where we cannot afford to lose, especially at this particular juncture in Europe.
Our country has done extremely well in the first eight years of EU membership. But this does not mean that it was all a coincidence or that it will always be that way. After last week, it will be decidedly more difficult to keep it that way.
I hope that all those who supported the motion realise that this will ultimately hurt all of us rather more than it will hurt its intended target. What is sure is that this motion crystallised a dangerous new brand of politics that is now staring us all in the face.
I call it dangerous because it fails the test of reason and the common good. Because it is a kind of politics where the end justifies the means. Where might is right. Where envy is encouraged. Where people are disposable. Where party comes before country. Where power is an end in itself. Where opportunism prevails over righteousness.
Last week’s motion had pretty much all these ingredients that I just listed. That is why it was a case of dangerous politics.
Why are we here? We are here because of two reasons.
The first is that the Nationalist Party is divided. And it is high time that we come clean on this one. People are loathe to trust a party in government if it is unable to stand united.
So unless unity is restored, the party is in for a rough ride. That would be a pity because the second reason why we are here is even more grave.
The second reason is that the Labour Party unfortunately lacks a basic sense of ethics that is required for politics and that is a pre-requisite for anyone to be trusted with power.
The absence of a basic sense of ethics has led the PL to throw reason and moderation straight out of the window on countless occasions. Be it on democracy 30 years ago, be it on Europe 19 years ago, be it on the euro four years ago, be it on the parliamentary motions this month.
All the while, the PL calls itself a moderate party. I have to admit that I expected better from Joseph Muscat.
I thought that his four-year stint in the European Parliament would have given him the necessary training to inject his party – and the entire political system – with a fresh verve that would construct politics on reason, on bridge-building and on cooperation. After all, the European Parliament, where no single party enjoys a majority, is a tough training ground for compromise-building among very different political views.
I was wrong.
Unfortunately, far from refreshing the local political scene, Dr Muscat has allowed himself to be poisoned by it. This explains why, under his watch, the Labour media remains an incredibly vicious venom-machine. It explains why Dr Muscat constantly panders to expired Dom Mintoff stalwarts and pushes them to the fore.
It explains why his decisions often betray a keener interest for his party’s trajectory to power than for the country.
It explains why Labour is basing its campaign on attacking individuals and on village politics rather than on coming up with policies and solutions.
This is parochial politics rather like Sali Berlisha’s and Eddie Rama’s Albania.
It is politics built on personal attacks, which Europe has been trying to eradicate but which Labour continues to embrace.
Politics should not be like this.
Politics should be about serving with a sense of ethics, with loyalty and integrity and it is about pursuing goals based on reason and on cooperation.
Last week, we saw anything but. It is time to put ethics back into politics.
20 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What a breath of fresh air!
I fail to grasp the point of blaming the PL for the shenanigans of the PN loose cannons. It is obvious that a party who has been in opposition for donkey’s years will grasp at any opportunity to weaken its opponent in parliament.
Besides, the PN used the same tactics when Mintoff went all out against Sant so they can hardly play the part of the innocents here.
Let’s stop the hypocrisy please. What has happened is the doing of the Debono/JPOS/Mugliette trio, and it is at their feet that the blame should be laid.
I would go further than that, however – I would say that the responsibility should be shouldered by whoever allowed such a trio of mercenaries to contest in the name of the PN in the first place. I trust that in the future, the PN will put in place better screening procedures, possibly even psychological testing, for selecting appropriate election candidates.
i agree with you 100%. However I am afraid that such screening will be difficult to put in place. The PN is finding it hard to find valid candidates for both the general and local (even worse) elections and in some cases are taking the slang saying ‘bubba b’li kellu ddubba’ as a policy.
I agree where it concerns Franco Debono.
Not the other two are an interesting breed – seeing them dip their toes into the water, undecided what to do, knowing fully well they screwed up their chances with the PN, on a leash.
What’s hilarious is how Mugliett, ex-minister if you please, confirmed his utter lack of clarity and character. Jeffrey’s an open book, he has a major issue with female resolve. I mean, Enya?
The PN did NOT adopt the same tactics during the Mintoff debacle.
They did not put forward a single motion to try to topple the government.
Please do not tarnish all politicians with the same brush.
The PN definitely needs to vet new candidates better but if the PL were to vet their own properly they’d have no one to contest any election.
Who, in the PL, is clean enough to vet the party’s candidates?
How about Botox-lips Ciantar, La Redoute?
She has vested interests, so, no.
Simon’s main point was ‘putting ethics back in politics’, therefore there is a direct link with blaming the LP and the ‘Gang of Three’ for their actions in the last couple of months.
That’s because ethics in politics would preclude the aiding and abetting errant MP’s whose aims were not political at all but so strikingly personal.
1. Franco Debono declared publicly that he would not work with the PM (his Boss!) and that he deserved a ministry more than Austin Gatt and CMB. Personal stuff, no doubt.
2. JPOS worked on the attainment of Divorce in Malta because he needed one himself and would not spring for a few euro and get one in Sicily. Again, personal stuff.
3. Mugliett was still sore about not retaining his previous ministry even if he was ruled incompetent and was allegedly embroiled in some doubtful dealings. Personal gripes, again.
All three expect no repercussions from the party or its leader! Thick skinned as he is, JPOS also wants one of the victims he helped boot out of his position to be also thrown out of the Nationalist Party! This appears more than a case of personal antagonism, it reeks of insanity.
The Mintoff-Sant rift bears no resemblance to the present situation except that Mintoff was labeled ‘traitor’ and was ostracized for 14 years and our Three Amigos will be unceremoniously booted out at the appropriate time.
Unless you have prophetic powers which few if any have, then how can you blame ‘those responsible for letting the three run under the PN banner in the 2008 election’? Then similarly you would have blamed the LP for letting Mintoff run in the 1996 election!
Candidates are approved trusting that once they run under a particular political banner, they are men and women enough to accept the party’s principles and be loyal to the Party Whip. Of course, they can change their mind during the course of the mandate, but in order to respect the wishes of those who voted for them in the first place, they should do the only moral thing and resign their seat and let the runners-up take their place.
As for two in particular who may have had some valid points, they should be reminded that it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to set priorities and that which was not included in the electoral programme of the last election, would by necessity be low in the list of priorities. There were no extenuating circumstances warranting changes in plans or the speeding up of the ‘wish list’ at the expense of the ‘to do’ list.
Angus, Mintoff’s motivations may not have been personal, or perhaps they were, I don’t know – and neither does anybody else for that matter.
I very much doubt that he went through all that trouble because the Cottonera waterfront was so close to his heart, however – his hate of Sant was quite obvious and if that isn’t personal, I don’t know what is.
But apart from the respective enfants terribles’ motivations, in all cases they found encouragement as well as moral and physical support from the benches of the opposition – in the case of Mintoff, the PN going so far as to allocate him parliament time of their own for him to elaborate at length on his arguments as well as giving him air time on Net TV.
True, they did not put forward a no confidence motion – Sant quickly did that for them, thank you very much.
My point about candidate selection and approval is that perhaps there should have been a lot less “trust” involved in the process and a lot more hard-nosed investigation into the motivations, personal issues, psychological make-up and potential grudges.
I am sure that even a relatively cursory look at all of the three PN backbenchers would easily have revealed potential problems.
I’m sure that it had already been decided before the last election that Mugliett would not be given a ministry – that should have lit up a red light given his personality.
Similarly, Franco Debono’s obvious personality problems and his grudge towards Carm Mifsud Bonnici should have been noted.
And isn’t even just JPOS’s “sleeping with the enemy” and the company he keeps a big red flashing light all on its own?
The PN knew that the last elections would have been a close shave if they won – they knew that they could only expect a one-seat majority. Given that fact, they should not have risked putting forward personalities who had reason and inclination to take personal advantage of the precarious situation.
Of course with “hajndsajt” everybody’s an expert, but the glaring deficits in these three people’s personalities would have been obvious in the eyes of their colleagues who see them every day at the party headquarters and who had known them personally for years.
In a similar way, with regards to Mintoff, it was obvious from the guy’s personality that he would not willingly relinquish control of the party he considered his own creation, especially to a man who seemed to be doing his utmost to negate Mintoff’s influence over the party that had been accruing over decades.
The difference is that Sant could hardly have denied Mintoff a MLP ticket during the ’96 elections – it would have been instant political seppuku for him. Not so with the three PN upstarts.
“I thought that his four-year stint in the European Parliament would have given him the necessary training to inject his party – and the entire political system – with a fresh verve that would construct politics on reason, on bridge-building and on cooperation.”
Same here!
But ever since Joseph Muscat has been at the helm of the MLP, it has all gone down hill, with one disappointment after another.
Personally, I could even have come to terms with his opportunism – after all politics are as dirty as it gets – if there had been one iota of sensibility in his choice of candidates and something concrete in his plans.
When the country is doing well it is easy to assume that things work out by default, that there is some “automatic mode” in Castille and that the country somehow runs itself into prosperity.
Well, I am sure we are in for a very ugly surprise if the MLP win the next elections with the current crop of people. It takes a good leader to steer a country away from trouble in good times let alone in a catastrophic economic meltdown.
They can facebook and tweet until they are blue in the face but I see no viable alternative to Gonzi in sight. Not by a long shot.
Dr Busuttil’s analysis is spot on.
Unfortunately village politics are what the majority of Maltese understand and can identify with. Don’t give them vision, long term policies and lofty goals, they are beyond their grasp.
This is why the PL can get by without any plan or policies.This is also why Joseph Muscat’s tactics will ultimately be successful and enable him to achieve his personal goal of becoming PM.
You cannot win against the type of campaign the PL are conducting especially in harsh economic times like this.
Sometimes I feel that what we practice here are in reality tribal politics, What this means is that we are not really one nation and one people, but two separate tribes with different cultures, identities, beliefs, morals and standards.
This is sad but unfortunately very close to the truth. Many people have this concept in their mind (unconsciously perhaps) particularly when thet reason that the PN’s have ruled the country for a long time and now it is the Labour turn. This kind of logic leaves me speechless.
What are the chances he will be the next leader of the PN?
Almost worth suffering a couple of years under Labour to make it happen.
Simon Busuttil says that the PN is divided.
I would qualify the word ‘divided’. There are two MPs (three if you count Jesmond Mugliett) who have abused the one-seat majority to further their own personal agenda.
It is a problem, yes, but I am sure that the rest of the Party is UNITED in their condemnation of their actions.
Seeing it as an outsider, the problems do not stem from any fundamental ideological differences between two different camps in the PN (although of course there are frictions).
Nor is there any widespread concern of Gonzi’s leadership. His confirmation as leader earlier this year confirms that.
The problem is that Franco Debono and JPOS have lost any sense of correct ethical political behaviour. FD and JPO have betrayed the people that elected them on the PN party ticket.
Very well said.
The Labour Party picked up a catchphrase:
Partit Laburista @PL_Malta
MEP Simon Busuttil: ‘PN is divided’
Collapse
Reply Retweet Favorite
3:15 AM – 27 Jun 12 via web · Details
They didn’t see fit to include a link to the full article, perhaps realising that it wasn’t exactly flattering to them.
Prosit Simon. I agree with Diamond1. But with people who reason like Bubu around it is like feeding pearls to the pigs.
Most people take the PN’s achievements forgranted and that after all it doesn’t take much to get such good results in most spheres. Until an MLP government is elected and very quickly dismantles all that. But then to some people having “il-korpi tax-xoghol” is the acme of job creation.
@Jo
Irrespective of what you may have or have not read between the lines of my comments, I am not overly idealistic nor naive.
And believe you me – neither is Simon Busuttil.
Don’t think I don’t appreciate Dr. Busuttil’s appeal for an ethical approach to politics – but in life one has to learn that one has to watch out both above as well as below the belt in order to keep standing.
Full marks to Dr. Busuttil for his analysis, especially about the Labour Party and its leader.
If Labour wins the general elections, we will be back to vindictive, personal politics, based on suspicion, envy and mud slinging, to divide the nation once again.
Who is going to censure the Clerk of the House, and the Speaker?