Firstly, from an academic point of view, if any truly objective and wise socio-anthropological scholar wanted a challenge in assessing the local scene, this perspective will help make any thesis a milestone piece of anthropoligal/sociological research.

Secondly, and from a pragmatic point of view, the knowledge that would be derived from a study of Maltese Society from an ‘amoral familism’ perspective would serve any organisation, institution or political party very well for the present and future.

Kwalunkwe ufficcju? Anke minn pjazza pubblika fejn hemm il-WiFi li dahhal il-PN, trid tghid. Kienu jiffrankaw anke il-kera u spejjez tal-ufficju dawk tat-Times.

Sandro Borg …and Daphne, the names of people who don’t vote is public domain.

After the ballot boxes are sealed , the political party reps can take note of the people who did not vote. That’s perfectly legal.

If I’m not mistaken the names are published on the Malta Government Gazette some time after the election.

It would be interesting to know what the conversation was about.

Well said. Unfortunately, what I get from what I hear people say is that their idea of the State is providing just (or their version of ‘just’) results rather than just opportunities.

The fact that the Maltese State actually had this role for some time (especially under Labour) by directly providing employment for its supporters has only made this expectation more difficult to remove.

I think education needs to be taken seriously as having a role in this regard. Part of the PN’s downfall was, in my opinion, that they were too naive and expected their results to speak for themselves. Unfortunately, while the results do so, most people wanted their own lazy and egoistic results and couldn’t care less for others.

Maybe if political philosophy were taught more widely more people would be able to open their minds up to what real government should be like. I only studied it for one year at University, and it made me appreciate what real politics and government are all about.

You also spoke in complete disgust towards those who brag about who they will vote, yet that is always what you have been doing.
it takes one to know one

[Daphne 1. It is Ivan himself who revealed that he planned not to vote (as distinct from how he planned to vote). He tore up his voting document in the presence of others and told many people because that was his very aim: to make it clear that neither he nor his wife were going to vote. 2. I heard all this from several people and had the decency to ring him for confirmation rather than just going on what was said. He confirmed it to me. 3. If Ivan and Nicolette did not wish to be embarrassed by public knowledge of their actions, they should have kept quiet instead of making a point of telling people. That is why the vote is secret – so that you don’t have to tell people if you don’t want to. 4. The reason that Ivan and Nicolette now feel compromised is because they have spent the last couple of weeks telling people that they are “now back on board with the PN” and are once more actively sucking up to certain people. They are, of course, absolutely not to be trusted. The Nationalist Party should have learnt its lesson over the last couple of years about people who have a perverse attitude towards loyalty and decency. ‘Back on board’ – when only the day before yesterday Ivan Camilleri told me that he wanted to see the PN defeated? His aim now is to have Mario de Marco, who he can’t stand, out of the race. Hence the sucking up to one of his rivals, who shouldn’t touch him even with a spiked barge-pole. 5. I am very happy for everyone to know how I vote because, unlike Ivan and Nicolette Camilleri, I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in this regard. They, on the other hand, do. Not ashamed for not voting, particularly, but certainly of their motivation in doing so. I’m guessing that wider exposure has given them a different perspective on how correct and justified that motivation was, but more crucially, it hasn’t helped their personal ambition. Forget the political angle: what you have here are two people who are both/have both been consummately disloyal to their employers who went out of their way to help them, actively betraying those employers and briefing against them. It is quite obvious that somebody like that cannot be trusted by anyone else, ever. I do NOT express disgust at those who say how they will vote.]

What is interesting is how Maltese people have not managed to adapt to neo-liberal politics, especially since we entered the European Union. People EXPECT things from their government and simply use their vote as a means of exchange for something personal – as currency.

Also, the way neo-liberal states work is that the State takes a step back from people’s personal lives and offers funds and opportunities for all; promoting REAL equality. Through privatization opportunities are created.

It then depends on the individual’s motivation to take up these opportunities and make something of himself or herself. Yet this distancing by the government is felt as abandonment as people perceive their needs as “particular”, “special” and “exceptional”.

The fact that the Maltese state was the major employer in Malta for a long time, before privatization really started to kick, is also relevant. But amoral familism also played a huge role.

Sadly, culture changes much slower than state politics and clientelism is still the means by which people understand their relation to the state.

Anyway, very interesting article Daphne.

Interviewing panels! Ha! Kangaroo courts, more like.

Emigrate, leave Malta while you can, etc.

Finally I am starting to understand, some logic ( or no logic), of the Maltese soceity. Most probably in his book “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society”, Banfield was referring also to Malta and not only to the Southern Italian region.

[Daphne – No, it’s an academic study of particular places. Malta doesn’t figure, though yes, the culture is practically identical.]