Martin Scicluna’s idea of democracy: “Now it’s THEIR turn.”
I read with interest Martin Scicluna’s article in The Malta Independent on Sunday (link below). It is a little hard to see what he is up to, given that Joseph and Michelle Muscat represent practically everything he holds in contempt and looks down upon.
Maybe he thinks – as, indeed, others do – that an ex Super One reporter from Burmarrad and his butcher’s daughter wife (I have no problem with butchers and their daughters in general, but Mr Scicluna certainly does) may be impressed by him in a way that his social and intellectual equals and superiors elsewhere are not.
In other words, he thinks he will find it easier to tell them what to do and to inculcate himself into a consultancy position which will give shape to his days.
When Martin Scicluna writes that he believes Joseph Muscat is the better man to run the country, that the (ghastly and inept) 1970s relics around him will do a better job of government than anybody within the Nationalist Party, I don’t believe him.
If he is not lying, then he is not bright. It’s got to be the one or the other.
His argument about what democracy should be is one of the stupidest I have ever heard. I expect it from people who have not had the benefit of his education or experience of decades of life in Britain (he left Malta in 1964, the year I was born, and returned in the 1990s), or who have not yet reached his great age of almost 80, but I do not expect it from him.
Democracy, he argues, means ‘taking turns’ at running the country. No, Martin, it does not. Democracy is when people choose their government, choose their prime minister, in free elections held every five years, and their choice is respected.
The Nationalist Party has not been in government for 15 years (still less 26). It has been in government for JUST FIVE YEARS. Five years ago, the Maltese electorate was asked to choose the government. We could have chosen Alfred Sant and Labour, and we almost did, but we chose Lawrence Gonzi and the Nationalist Party.
Five years. That’s all. Five. There is no longer term. Every five years, it comes up for the vote.
With Martin Scicluna’s reasoning, that democracy is ‘taking it in turns’, we need not have elections at all. We can simply have a rota of power. Labour for five years, PN for five years, then Labour for five years, and so on.
I think the root of Mr Scicluna’s problem is divorce. He went to war with this government on the divorce issue and has never recovered from the anger. I was in the same camp, and wrote in favour of divorce legislation and against the Nationalist Party’s stance, which I knew wasn’t shared by most of its key members, who are liberal in attitude.
But that was a single issue, it’s been sorted, done and dusted, and there is no way I was ever going to vote against the Nationalist Party or for that bunch of sad sacks in Labour, because of it.
If Mr Scicluna doesn’t give a damn about the economy or the future of Malta because at 80 he hasn’t got much future left himself, and so he can afford to play games and take risks, he should think again and take his lead from another man exactly his age, who stood on a stage before a massive crowd last night and spoke about our responsibilities towards present and future generations.
20 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-03-03/opinions/time-for-a-change-to-labour-1024294927/
Yes Mr. Scicluna, contractors, hunters and public land squatters should also have their place in the sun according to your reasoning. It`s their turn to rule now if the PL gets to power.
I am seriously beginning to believe that the PL may lose these elections yet again.
This is my newspaper column on a related subject:
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-03-07/opinions/the-big-picture-1078722563/
Daphne have a look at this video. I think it is excellent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlZx5DkVc-k
Among the nobility and British Army officer class, it is common to vote for the PN but to talk in favour of Labour and mix with the Labour MPs.
Because they really are peasants, and the aristocrat or Sandhurst officer feels morally and psychologically superior.
But they absolutely love to have Guido de Marco and Lawrence Gonzi and the Archbishop for parties and dinners, because they cannot bear the thought of sharing a dinner table with the likes of reporter Joseph Muscat or Joe Debono Grech.
Where on earth did you get the idea that Martin Scicluna belongs to ‘the nobility and British Army officer class’ or that he is an ‘aristocrat or Sandhurst officer’?
He does not and is not.
His professional army training in the UK was not at Sandhurst acadamy – as was that of leading officers who have occupied the post of Colonel or Brigadier in the AFM.
His ‘aristocracy’ consists mainly in pontificating on subjects of which he has the barest knowledge and the most personal interest.
I used to follow his articles in The Times several months ago – and never found anything enlightening besides small-mind concepts repeated practically ad nauseam.
I cannot say that he actually needs to grow up one day – an octogenarian with a mind-set like his never will.
I had the same feelings described in the first few paragraphs when I read Mr Scicluna’s article last Sunday. I couldn’t believe my eyes because although I don’t know him personally I always held in high esteem (almost).
Your analysis of his article and his (possible) motives are quite interesting and (to my way of seeing things) very convincing.
Then there was your other article referred to in the second link which again was brilliant.
U mbaghad jigi dak Privitera u jghid (x’imkien aktar qabel f’dan il-blog) li l-qarrejja tieghek jammirawk ghax huma nazzjonalisti ippatentjati u ma jahmlux il-Labour!!
Caruana Galizia arrested for breaching ‘political silence’…. Prosit.
Guess who’s after a seat on one of Joseph’s pair of planning and environment authorities. Or both.
Martin Scicluna projects himself as the impartial voice of reason yet everything he says and does is for a reason and to further his own agenda.
For example, his writings on the environment up to 2008 were intended to get himself appointed Chairman of MEPA. His supposed concern for the environment and supposedly knowledgeable writings on environmental issues were nothing more than a front for his ambitions. Thankfully the PN Government saw through him and did not appoint him at MEPA or anywhere else remotely connected to the environment.
I remember on one occasion (pre-2008), he made a speech with a series of proposals on the environment. One well-known developer stood up and said that he was so impressed by his speech that government should seriously consider appointing him as MEPA Chairman. They could not have been more obvious.
Daphne, I agree with you when you say that he is hoping for a consultancy position in the new Labour government. Either that or his desire to become MEPA Chairman still burns strongly.
Ilni nsegwi dal-blog ghal hafna zmien imma qatt ma kkumentajt. Imma wara li gara llum nhoss li ghandi nuri l-appogg u l-apprezzament tieghi lejk. Kuragg u grazzi.
With Martin Scicluna’s reasoning, five years PN, five years PL, five years AD, five years Il- partit tal-Ajkla etc. etc.
Armula ic-cavetta dik il-qahba sahhara. Jekk ma tibqax go cella mawnx gustizzja!
@drattax prosit eh x’ragunament dak. Sa fejn naf jien ahna nghixu go pajjiz demokratiku mhux in-North Korea.
Malta Taghna Lkoll. Kif tista temmen li intom il-Laburisti temmnu fis-slogan taghkom stess? Inkreddibli dan il-kumment. Bil-qalb nivvota PN.
Thank you for expressing my own thoughts on this so eloquently.
I am disgusted at Mr Scicluna. By writing that column he showed no respect for Din L-art Helwa, the organisation he has been a council member of for years and who he has become synonymous with.
Din l-art Helwa is a respectable institution that has a policy of not getting involved in partisan politics and as its Vice President mr Scicluna should have been more discreet about his own thoughts.
Having said that I think his column was self-serving. His self-appointment to the chair of a think-tank which he set up says a lot about him.
He obviously has an opinion, expects to ram it down our throat and anyone who dares has a different one is rubbished.
He has no place to express an opinion on living in Malta today as compared to the ’70s and ’80s when he has had no experience of it. Reading a bunch of reports from a distance is not quite the same thing. I spent my entire childhood and adolescence under that Labour government and instill recall the feeling of uncertainty and fear that rules the day.
Mr Scucluna it is time to retire. Please leave us in peace.
DLH should have him removed from Vice President.
An NGO undermines its credibility when it engages in partisan party politics. Having a prominent post at DLH, his writings could be construed to represent those of the NGO. With his articles during an election campaign, Scicluna has done a disservice to DLH.
From what I heard he has been asked to resign as Vice President of DLH.
His argument is so flawed, that when I read this article I thought the same thing, that Scicluna want to be reappointed for another term as consultant. In fact he worked with Alfred Sant when the latter withdrew Malta’s membership application to join the PFP.
His reasoning becomes more erratic once you read the subsequent opinion piece of last Wednesday, where he implies that he is voting against Austin Gatt, whereby Austin Gatt is no longer on the PN ticket.
THEY are in a mess – a great mess. And if elected WE will be in a greater mess..