Gordon Pisani is the right choice
The Labour Party and its website Maltastar.com are speaking in a scandalised tone about the appointment of the Nationalist Party’s former information secretary to the post of head of government communications. They say that this is a partisan move which ‘proves’ that the prime minister does not mean what he says about running a government for all the people.
Unfortunately, George Abela has joined in with these rubbish arguments. I prefer to think that it’s because he doesn’t know Gordon Pisani at work, rather than because he wants to do as Maltastar does and try to score a cheap point.
The head of government communications is there to do a proper job, and not to be a symbol of political unity among the people. It is a difficult job and a highly specialised one. More to the point, he will be communicating and explaining government policy, and the government is Nationalist not Labour or ‘I don’t know’. This is not a job for a neutral civil servant, but for a political appointee – not just in Malta but almost everywhere else.
Very few people in this country can do that kind of job, though many think they can. In my own line of work, I am forever meeting people who are appointed to posts they cannot possibly hope to fill, doing jobs while being blissfully unaware of how far short of the required skills level they repeatedly fall. Standards are low, good people are hard to find, and individuals are slotted into jobs for which they are not qualified.
In Gordon Pisani, the government has found the right person for the job. I mean that, and you had better take my word for it, because media and communications are the fields in which I have worked for years. I have seen a long parade of incompetents in my time, including men who can barely cobble a paragraph together bluffing their way from one meeting to another while getting nothing done and trying to look more clever than everyone else. They are the ones who are largely responsible for shaping my feminist outlook.
The thing about the Nationalist Party, which the Labour Party fails repeatedly to understand, is that part of the secret of its effectiveness lies in finding the best people for important jobs within the party structure. Like him or dislike him, Joe Saliba is certainly not Jason Micallef, and the Nationalist Party would never, and I mean never, have appointed somebody like Jason Micallef to that crucial organisational role. Gordon Pisani was a highly effective information secretary, responsible for much of the success of this last electoral campaign, the previous one, and the referendum campaign. You can always depend on me to notice that somebody is a useless ass, and to point this out. Gordon Pisani, on the other hand, struck me for being extremely good at his job.
I like him for another reason (which reason also makes him good at his job): he notices everything and says nothing. Extracting words from Gordon is like pulling teeth. He won’t say anything unless it is a very pointed observation. As a person of very few (spoken) words myself, I appreciate this quality. Also, I absolutely can’t stand those blah-blah-blah bluffer men who are all talk and hardly any brains. I just want to put a rocket under them. I’ve noticed on my journey through life that the people who talk most notice least. It’s hard to observe things when you’re busy yak-yakking and your mind is on trying to bluff and impress.
Gordon Pisani was an excellent information secretary for the Nationalist Party and he will be an excellent head of communications for the government. He is perfectly qualified for the job, and to be straightforwardly honest, I can’t think of anyone else who is equally well-suited to the role, even though I know so many people in the communications business. Serving as head of government communications requires you to have all the skills of a media professional in the private sector, but also considerable experience in political structures and a certain level of political expertise and astuteness. Above all, Gordon Pisani is a very, very nice chap and completely devoid of that insufferable back-stabbing spite that you find so often in political people.
Given the choice between somebody from the private sector who hasn’t half a clue but who will not be perceived as ‘political’, and somebody all-clued-up like Gordon Pisani, the government did the right thing in picking Gordon. The most important thing – in government as in business – is that the job is done well by the person best qualified to do it, and not whether the Labour Party and Maltastar.com approve or not. Who cares what they think, when they are so bad at choosing the right people to do the many jobs in their own show?
80 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Of course you would say that Daphne. It’s obvious that winner takes all is still your way of thinking.
[Moderator – Don’t be ridiculous. What do you propose, that the staff at the Office of the Prime Minister be split to reflect seating in the parliament?]
This kind of article merits no comments except that such an appointment is a real threat to democracy.
[Moderator – Who did you expect to be hired for the job? Joseph Muscat, based on his experience of setting up Maltastar?]
Well said Daphne!
Seems like Gonzi is taking some good decisions. Keep it up Lawrence.
There is absolutely no doubt that Gordon is the right man for the job. It is a “private secretariat” and the post is that of a mouthpiece for the government – what do Labour expect? A neutral appointed by the Broadcasting Authority?
A government mouthpiece is a government mouthpiece and nobody other than a trusted servant of the party should be doing that job.
Of course one cannot forget Gordon’s confused face at the JPO/Alfred Sant press conference incident (no matter what you say we still had a non-journalist issued with a press card in blatant flaunting of the rules.
And what about the issue of the Super One cameraman and interviewer forcibly kept under “arrest” at a Gonzi press conference long after it was gone?
Of course running the government PR show is a different kettle of fish from the “No Holds barred” environment of an election campaign so we will probably be spared embarassing incidents of the sort.
Probably. Or should I say hopefully?
DCG, I don’t know Gordon but your endorsement is enough for me. Since Joe Muscat thinks that the MLP should be treated as an equal partner in Government, notwithstanding that it lost the election (again), should anyone be surprised that the little Elves are going to stamp their little feet about Pisani’s appointment?
I strongly believe that Gonzi should have appointed Charlon Gouder instead of Gordon.
Not that I, personally, would equate one with the other (I’m fonder of Gordon than I am of Manwel). But…
The problem, of course, is that for half the country Gordon Pisani is what Manwel Cuschieri is to the other half: a scathing, venomous and partisan purveyor of his master’s truth.
And the beat goes on…
@ Moderator … Why such a silly comment? Please keep in mind such appointments would in the long run be of great detriment to democracy.Time would prove me right.
Do not ever forget that a relative majority gives no right to make impositions on the rest. Malta has already witnessed such a situation and hell broke loose.Ask your master, who lived such a situation.
Is this what you are praying for? Don’t you learn from past mistakes? I hope not.
[Moderator – There is no difference between Gordon Pisani as the mouthpiece of the government and Gordon Pisani as the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party. Anyway, is everyone so blind as to not notice that this is one big paradox? Gordon Pisani will be working for the executive, who is the leader of the Nationalist Party and the leader of a government that is formed by the Nationalist Party. So while you’re decrying the appointment of Gordon Pisani to the prime minister’s private secretariat, why don’t you just go ahead and sink the whole ship? After all, how dare Gonzi appoint himself prime minister, when he’s so blatantly Nationalist, for heaven’s sake?]
A threat to democracy, Peter Muscat? For a minute I thought that al-Sadr was appointed to the post. Maybe you prefer Manwel Cuschieri?
@ A.B-C.. Elves are much different from decietful monsters.
At least Elves does not form part of any group where corruption, abuses and all sorts of illegalities are in abundance.
Within a few months we are to have ‘ a political surprise’ that no one ever dreamt of.
Keep it up and play intelligent.
[Moderator – Peter, are you Dr Who?]
@DF – There is no way on earth that Gordon Pisani (nice, astute, well-educated and intelligent) can be compared with Manwel Cuschieri (spiteful, thick, uneducated and…thick).
@Peter Muscat – where on earth did you get this idea that a relative majority gives the government fewer rights (and duties, it follows) than a government elected with an absolute majority. However a government is elected – with a relative majority or an absolute one – the fact remains that it IS the government and it does not have to share its toys with the Opposition.
I believe Gordon will prove to be the right man for the job. The MLP wouldn’t have done anything less, after all as someone said on radio , months ago “ghandna kollox lest , dak hemm u dak haw , kollox ghandna ppreparat…… m’hemmx hafna tgerfix…..”
I am sure he would do a better job than his predecessor the late Toni Pellegrini , the ex-general secretary of the MLP , who later became head of the only TV station when Labour was in power.
The MLP believes in political appointments in sensitive areas of the administration. We can call it good governance.
@ Peter Muscat
Ahhaaa… now I understand why all this hype all over the net with your comments. You must be preapeing for an other election campaign, right??
I admire your persistence, if that what is keeping you going good luck!!
@ Moderator. ‘There is no difference between Gordon Pisani as the mouthpiece of the government and Gordon Pisani as the mouthpiece of the Nationalist Party.’
Sorry to split hairs, but there is a difference between government and party. Your implication that there isn’t is dangerous.
@ Peter Muscat. Better governing with a relative majority than with an absolute minority, as the MLP did from 81 to 87, in order to satisfy the corrupt freeloaders that were bleeding Malta dry. It is precisely because of that that I can never bring myself to vote Labour, no matter how incompetent the PN are. (and they can be pretty incompetent). A sad state of affairs, you will agree.
[Moderator – Yes, and Gordon Pisani does not form part of the government. He isn’t even a civil servant. Your implication that someone can’t be appointed to a position within the prime minister’s private secretariat because of their political affiliation is dangerous.]
@Peter Muscat – don’t patronise me by asking me to “play intelligent”, you’re getting as irritating as Charles Buttigieg and his supercilliousness (if the spelling is wrong, live with it) I’m looking forward to the “political surprise” – what’s it to be, a coalition between MLP and Lowell or something?
Daphne,the plain truth of the matter is that if Manwel had been nominated to that post, you would have been up in arms. You would have been horrified – probably rightly so.
To you (and perhaps even to me) Gordon might be a nicer, more pleasant chap. To half the country, he’s a frontline partisan enemy who made a career out of bashing Alfred Sant and the MLP. That’s the bottom line.
If people are going to have their cake and eat it, let’s at least be honest about the game being played out.
I suggest that Dr Gonzi appoints Manwel Cuschieri as Government’s PRO while Dr Sant (or whoever) appoints Gordon Pisani as the Opposition spokesperson.
I think this would help us move towards Dr Joe Muscat’s vision where Malta is among the best countries in the EU.
Can someone confirm whether this Dr Joe Muscat is the same one who used to produce Made in Brussels, aired on Super 1 TV before the victory of the partnership?
@DF – yes, I would have been up in arms if this were a Labour government, and if Manwel Cuschieri were head of government communications – not because Manwel Cuschieri had a party information role before, but because Manwel Cuschieri is incompetent, uneducated, ill-informed and ignorant, and therefore wholly unfit for the post.
I don’t react to people’s appointments according to whether they worked for a political party or not, but according to whether they are fit for the job or not. Gordon Pisani’s appointment was based on merit, irrespective of whether he was information secretary or not. Manwel Cuschieri’s would not be based on merit, because he is not equipped to do a job like that.
The question we should be asking ourselves is: is he the right man, professionally speaking and in terms of competence, for the job? And the answer to that question is yes. In Manwel’s case, it would be no. Let me put it starkly: if Gordon and Manwel both applied for the same private sector job in communications, which involved dealing with a wide variety of people and making intelligent decisions, Manwel wouldn’t even be shortlisted. He has no people skills, no social skills, and wears his lack of brains plainly on his face.
@Wistin Schembri – thanks for reminding us that our future prime minister, who stares at the television camera like a rabbit trapped in headlights, used to host that Super One show called Made in Brussels. Or was that Brussel? It was all about the bad things that EU membership would do to us. That was before he tripped and fell on the road to Damascus.
There you have it, the party and governemnt are one and all. Might as well do away with Parliament then and govern by decree :) But then the PM has the right to choose his own staff and obviously such a sensitive appointment had to come from within the PN’s ranks. Still, you should read Manwel Micallef’s article in Illum to observe what is happening at PBS now John Schembri. Blue eyed boys only just appointed to the newsroom are alraedy drafted to raed the news when they just kicked Norma Saliba out. You call that good governance? You’re just a load of hypocrites.
[Moderator – It is not a sensitive appointment. Gordon Pisani isn’t even on the civil service payroll.]
It’s good to have Gordon at DOI too. Maybe he can make JPO’s press card permanent and add a few other ‘news people’ to the list so that they can bash Labour whenever possible. Good thing a press card these days.
Why has it got to be Manwel Cuschieri after all? Labour has plenty of talented, young journalists and media people who can do such a job? That’s the problem with the PN, they only think that their people are capable and qualified for the plum jobs.
[Moderator – Yes, maybe the prime minister can employ a pair of puppets from Super One.]
There is no way Gordon Pisani can be compared to any other ‘prospective’ candidate for this post. Who would have been this person if the Pepsodent Government was in power? Maybe Charlon? Maybe Joe the prophet of ‘strieh u serrah’? Or maybe someone from the kitchen cabinet of Alfred?My wish was to see Gordon Pisani as general secretary of the P.N. but since the well being of our country comes before, I am more than happy to see Gordon in Castille!! Good luck Gordon!!!
Moderator, what is a sensitive appointment in your opinion?
[Moderator – An appointment that is easily offended.]
Talented people at Super One? I just choked on my bedtime hot chocolate
THIS IS THE PROSPECTIVE NEW LABOUR (MOP)
“Aspiring leader for Labour Party Joseph Muscat doesn’t look enthusiastic that the Labour Party will take part in the discussions to create a social pact. In a comment he gave to MaltaRightNow.com, Muscat didn’t want to commit himself to what position he holds with regards to the Social Pact. While he spoke about other topics in relation to other themes to justify his position, at one point he said that there’s a government of minority in Malta”.
FLIMKIEN KOLLOX POSSIBLI
mAYBE when they were referring to flimkien they mean only the inner circle. What the difference if insted of jordan pisani they put in his place il-Hanfusa???
Jordan?
You mean this Jordan? http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_01/jordanDM_468x550.jpg
or this one?
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/map_jordan.jpg
the new politics and flimkien kollox possibli means puttin valid people in important posistions without being afraid of being criticised. what are you expecting that this post should have been filled by one of the lions of the supposed victory? or maybe by the one who was supposed to fill that place when labour had everything ready to lead (catastrophically) the country?and what will be the difference now in the MOP (Malta Opposition Party) if they put Joseph Muscat or a Poodle?
MComb – you’re not seriously saying that a government – any government – should have as its spokesperson somebody who supports the Opposition?
@ all GP bashers
The problem as I see it with all those rushing out to condemm GP’s appointment is that they are labouring (sorry couldn’t resist) under the impression that the PN somehow lost the election, and have no right to govern.
Before these people accept the fact that the PN is the goverment for the forseable future, and has a legal and moral obligation to govern, than they will question every decision taken.
If however it is accepted that the PN is the Goverment (by a sbrixx or whatever you want to call it), it stands to reason that any appointees are choosen from those the goverment has full confidence in. It is useless saying that there are a lot of people in the Super 1 who are capable. The fact is that when an employer hires somebody for a job, the choosen one will be the person the employer feels that he can best work with, and is the best person for the job. I have never heard of a company appointing somebody as a sop to a business rival.
Anyway, I see that none here have questioned GP’s credentials for performing the task. Therefore, leaving aside political considerations, there seems to be an agreement that he is suitable for the job. So I suggest that we all let him get on with it.
I can’t believe the people criticising this appointment are so stupid.
Come on guys, please tell me you’re just being disingenous?
Or are you really that dumb?
The guy is there to publicise and defend the government’s policies?
How can anyone in his right mind suggest appointing anyone NOT explicitly and demonstrably in favour of those policies?
Have you gone stark raving mad?
un-bloody-believable……… and then you keep wondering why you keep losing elections. Go right on blaming everyone else and you’ll keep losing……
Does anyone know if there’s an emoticon for “shakes his head in disbelief and despair”?
[Moderator – Yes, there is one. On MSN Messenger type (torca) and it will come up.]
@ Meerkat.
Probably Mcomb is referring to the teletubi or whatever it is that they call them. Otherwise I really can’t think to whom he’s referring when he says ‘talented’.
@ Daphne …. and whoever is in same club.
I knew the lot of you would behave like il HANFUSA!You didn’t fail me. Thanks.I knew that there won’t be one witty or interesting response.
Got a ferry to catch and in 2 hrs time a plane. Enjoy yourselves and have fun. One way or other I’ll surely send you my best wishes from ‘the city that never sleeps’. Till then have fun with Gordon ‘Flash’ Pisani, who stared being paid at the tax payers’ expense.
Ciaoooooooooo
What a saddening exchange of views. Almost half a century after we rid ourselves of British domination we are still light years away from attaining that country’s political maturity. To avoid going too far back into British political history would anyone in his right senses ever dream that the likes of Alastair Campbell, Tom Kelly and Michael Ellam were chosen for their political impartiality ?
How naive can we Maltese be ? Nistghu almenu niktbu bil- Malti. Hekk ghall-inqas il-barranin ma jarawx kemm ahna tan- nej*
Please grow up. For Malta’s sake.
here’s an interesting question to all you guys who keep bringing up the issue of “relative majority” etc..
What was Tony Blair’s majority when he was elected, and how long was he prime-minister for?
That is called democracy………….
@moderator
Ermm…not to disagree with your point of view about whether Gordon Pisani will be on a civil service payroll or not.
But, since in general your comments tend to be correct, straight to the point and sometimes humourous too, I have to raise the following issue.
I suppose that Mr Pisani’s salary will be paid from tax payers’ money – which supposedly is the same or the equivalent of a civil service payroll.
Of course, any political appointee will be paid in this manner. Therefore, whether the role in question is given to Mr Pisani or to any other inidividual, it does not really make any difference, as long as he or she is competent and does a good job for the government and the country; something, which, I am sure Mr Pisani will be doing.
@Anthony, yes – I agree. With this line of reasoning, when Joseph Muscat becomes prime minister, he should appoint me head of government communications.
Well said Anthony. As DCG said the government spokesperson is always a political appointee in all democracies.
The MLP supporters have little to cling to at the moment and thus have a bash at anything the government does in order to discredit the promise that the PM made to try and work with the opposition. The real issue is who does the PM talk to? Charlie DNA Mangion? ALfred Sant? The five leadership contenders?
Mcomb wrote
Labour has plenty of talented, young journalists and media people who can do such a job? That’s the problem with the PN, they only think that their people are capable and qualified for the plum jobs
————————————
Your nonsensical arguments simply reinforce that notion or perception about Labour and its adherents.
How, by any stretch of credulity and imagination, can a person tasked with explaining and promoting government POLICY (and here comes the party-government link) be credible or effective if such a person doesn’t believe or even actively OPPOSED such policies?
This is not a chairmanship post of a state entity where political allegiance is (or should be, to be fair) a distant second to sound management and leadership skills.
This is a post which calls for a person who BELIEVES in the policies and ideas being proposed and implemented.
Not much change in the standard of debating. I still stand by what I wrote earlier re Gordon Pisani. One thing for the “stalwarts of democracy” though – sure, the Nationalist party is governing democratically because of a constitutional provision that allows for governance by relative majority. Then again so did Mintoff’s 1981 government (although this time the constitution allowed a majority of seats to govern – but still it was the constitution) … and does that mean that everything that government did was right?
That was just a little eye opener to point out that this “qieghdin fil-gvern u naghmlu li irridu” is just Festa and School talk but not a rational or reasoned one.
And before I end up having to waste time answering those who misunderstood let me make it clear – I agree with Gordon Pisani as Communications whatever for Government because (and read my lips) EVERY GOVERNMENT IN THIS WORLD PUTS A FAITHFUL LAPDOG AT THE HEAD OF ITS COMMUNICATIONS. That is an undeniable truth… what Labour (and everyone else) should be more vigilant for is abuse of power by those who occupy public positions and not continue its list of sour grapes for not being able to influence who is chosen to be the government’s mouthpiece.
Remember…. democratic governance in accordance with the constitution? That was Mintoff’s kick off in 1981 too. And there’s no arguing with that fact.
Daphne – you’d like me to believe that you’d ONLY be uncomfortable with Manwel Cuschieri in that position because you think “he has no people skills, no social skills, and wears his lack of brains plainly on his face”. In other words because he’s incompetent.
I am convinced, however, that that is only part of the equation. The other has to do with the manner in which the man methodically and systematically went about his job of hacking down the opponent at every opportunity.
Gordon Pisani is the right person. He is dedicated and a hard worker. He done a lot for our party and deserves the gratitude of all party members and pn voters.
He is young and an asset to the party.this new position would help him and the party a great deal. So let it be and say thanks.
[Moderator – I have a sneaking suspicion that Omar Azzopardi is the alter ego of Peter Muscat.]
Things are getting back to a wholesome state again (if I may borrow from the nineteenth century statesman George Canning, when noting that the vagueness and ill-fitting alignments of post-Napoleonic international politics were beginning to dissipate).
I never said that the post which GP occupies should be filled by a Labour sympathiser.
‘Why has it got to be Manwel Cuschieri after all? Labour has plenty of talented, young journalists and media people who can do such a job?’
M- Mediocre
L- Low down
P- Paltry
I am simply baffled about the hype being created. A private secretariat consists of people closest to the minister in question and therefore it is obvious that the people chosen are going to be done so on the basis of trust. So it is obvious that if the Nationalist Party is in government then the people chosen to work in direct contact with the Nationalist Minister would be of a strongly Nationalist opinion. All the people part of the secretariat need to be pulling one rope in one direction.
If the opposition had won the election the exact same thing on the other side would have happened. This is how it has always been and this is how it will remain. No minister needs to defend his choice of staff in the Private Secretariat. I am pretty sure that no nationalist would have been chosen to be part of any minister’s secretariat had the Labour Party won the election and I would be strongly suspicious of any labourite who argues that it would have been the case.
i think it’s better that these ‘qatta laburisti mahruqin’ go and discuss who will they choose as leader and leave the democratically elected government work in peace and appoint who he thinks is fit for the job….at least gonzi is capable of appointing someone fit for the job of head of government communications…..the ‘qatta laburisti mahruqin’ were not capable of appointing someone fit for the job of their ‘leader’ for ages…first we had kmb..(cause fortunately i don’t remember the mintoff era, i’m still young), then they had alfred sant (the one who cut off my university stipend when i was there) and now…..who will they choose? And remember what one of the Laburisti said (I think it was Alfred Grixti)…he said that Gonzi had a good team with him….while Sant didn’t….Gordon Pisani was one of this team…one of those who made the PN win this election….so he will be part of the good team at Castille also…!!! (fejnhom l-iljuni tal bidla???washing their teeth with pepsodent)
Louise Vella: You really must be joking.
DF: “The problem, of course, is that for half the country Gordon Pisani is what Manwel Cuschieri is to the other half: a scathing, venomous and partisan purveyor of his master’s truth.”
That might be a challenge to Gordon Pisani, but why should it be so to anyone else? The argument against appointing Manwel Cuschieri to the post Gordon Pisani now occupies is that Manwel Cuschieri is unqualified and incompetent, and not that he represents the MLP.
Michael Ellam who is the head of communications in Downing Street is a Civil Servant. He worked for Mr Brown since he became chancellor in 1997, and for his predecessor Ken Clarke (Conservative) before that.
Corinne – please refer to the comment I left earlier today.
@Maria Vella – that might be why Gordon Brown has failed so miserably in communicating with the public. The London broadsheets are rife with ‘hopeless Gordon (Brown)’ stories at the moment. Back when he first took over from Tony Blair, hopes were high that his appointment of Michael Ellam, a Treasury official (Brown was previously Chancellor of the Exchequer), as head of government communications would mean the end of the age of spin. Read this interesting news story from a year ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jun/18/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia
Instead, it has meant the resounding failure of government communications. Communicating with the public is a highly specialised profession that requires expertise and experience in public affairs, not the civil service.
It seem that many of those of oppose Gordon who naturally come from the labour camp do not follow politics in other countries. Nobody in Italy ever questioned Prodi’s Government with just .11% majority the right to Govern. His Govt even appointed an ex communist as the President of Italy. Prodi did not share any of the posts with the opposition. Berlusconi will naturally do the same. The idea that because of its slim majority, Govt should consult and share with the opposition should be squashed right away. Once Govt got the necessary majority it should carry on with its business with the personnel it deems fit for the job for the interest of the county.
@ ABC : I think you meant Charles J Buttigieg ?
@ Mcomb : “You’re just a load of hypocrites”
I do not write under a pen name to insult fellow commentators , I don’t know anything about Norma Saliba . But I do know that on the PBS editorial board we now have people from both sides of the political fence.
@ Peter Muscat : Enjoy your stay at the Big Apple , I hope you will survive after the screenings and body searches at the airports , and don’t forget not to pack any candles to bring home with you , you will surely find your luggage forcefully opened ” for your own safety”
Enjoy your stay and grab the opportunity of the good exchange rate .Remember you can bring in the equivalent of Lm 65 of goods duty free.
I take Daphne at her word that Pisani is the best guy to be the PM’s private secretariat communications guy. If the PM thinks he is, he did a good thing in choosing him. What leaves me a little more perplexed is the choice of the designation of ‘Head of Government Communications’ – because in actual fact, there already is one in the Maltese system, and it actually should be a ‘neutral civil servant’ – the Director of Information. The reason behind this is that all Ministries, secretariats and government departments’ media releases are supposed to fit in with the government’s policies – and having a civil servant filter these should ensure that rather than spouting partisan drivel or having an endless stream of Ministers’ PROs making fools of themselves in The Times by slagging off and getting personal at every bit of criticism, you’d have a coherent, rational and policy-based set of replies. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been the case in the Gonzi years, and if Pisani manages to curb this kind of thing – well, it’ll be a real feather in his cap.
My personal view is that the real threat comes from an inexorable process under Gonzi whereby the line dividing what competences Ministers and their secretariats have – policy setting – and what should be left to a professional, permanent and most of all accountable service – policy execution – is growing thinner and thinner each year.
The idea that Gordon Brown is unpopular because he has a public servant as PRO (UK minister’s staff are all civil servants, with the Ministers’ own picks being special advisors – the idea being that secretariat officials serve the public first and foremost) is obviously not worth considering – Brown’s unpopularity is due squarely to his own and his party’s lack of mettle.
@Daphne Caruana Galizia
I am in full agreement with your views on Gordon Brown’s weak image. I doubt if this is down to Ellam. Gordon Brown took over from a seriously shop-soiled Blair who got it totally wrong on Iraq. The Blair fallout slipped beyond Robin Cook and clung to labour. You will know that it is neigh impossible to thaw crystalised perceptions in such situations. People are bored with Labour, Brown is boring. There is little one can do other than demolish Cameron’s reputation or pray that Boris may do it for Labour at the expense of London.
As much as I would love to discuss Brown and a labour party doomed to electoral defeat, may I retreat to my original post. The following are the points I was hoping to make with a two-liner:
1. Not every Government puts a party acolyte as head of communications.
2. Every Government puts a trusted person to Head communications, hoping that the person will have the required qualities
3. We all know the role that Alastair Campbell (the ultimate spinner) played in the rise and fall of Blair
4. The Campbell spin was bound to swoon, given the UK’s critical mass of journalistic fervour
5. The Maltese Government has every technical right to place any person of their choice as Head of Communications
6. It would have served Maltese Democracy better if Government went for a capable person who did not carry partisan political baggage. A Prime Minister represents the nation, be he a Nationalist or a Labour Prime Minister. The Maltese journalistic body may not have the clout to act as an effective watchdog, and this Government needs to be self-motivated in the interests of responsible dissemination of facts. It can also choose to take advantage of all that is going its way. Some see this to be a natural way forward, others genuinely fear for our democracy.
7. Yes, there are a number of capable (reliable/nationalist) individuals who fit the non-partisan ‘Robin Cook’ mould.
Regards
Maria
@ Jacques Rene Zammit
Are you honestly insinuating that PN’s victory in last March election is akin to MLP’s election victory of 1981?
In 2008, the democratically elected party had a constitutional right to govern.
In 1981, the democratically elected party was constitutionally not allowed to govern.
Comparing and finding similarities between the two is simply preposterous.
Erm Colin, while I am no Labout supporter, the following correction is pertinent.
In 1981, the party with the absolute majority did not govern because what was written in the constitution at the time implied otherwise.
Nevertheless, the then PM, Perit D Mintoff opted to continue governing with the instability that followed that almost led to a civil war.
That is what was wrong in 1981. The then MLP government was elected according to the consitution, with all the gerrymandering involved in plotting electoral districts.
We all know what was the outcome of that undemocratic legislature. MLP is still deeply buried in s, because of that and its actions in government, including the 22 month period after the 1996 election.
@Malcolm
I said, “In 1981, the democratically elected party was constitutionally not allowed to govern.”
You said, “In 1981, the party with the absolute majority did not govern because what was written in the constitution at the time implied otherwise.”
Your statement is not a correction of what I said since we both wrote the same thing. The democratically elected party in 1981 was the PN.
By the way, neither am I a Labour supporter. In fact, I am a “nazzjonalist”.
I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding.
Colin: feel free to consult my blog for further explanation. I am not insinuating. I am stating two facts.
1) IN 1981 the laws of the land were such that a party electing a majority of seats would govern. That this did not translate into a majority of voters may be described as an unfortunate (or very unfortunate consequence) but the rules of a democracy are never perfect.
2) In 2008 the laws of the land are such that a party getting a minority of the votes cast but having a relative majority vis-a-vis other parties will govern. That too is a consequence of democracy. Whether you view this as right or still unjust (the possibility of coalitions, for example, ensures that the government represents a majority of votes cast – but coalitions too entail problems (and don’t we know it)) is a relative question.
There is no insinuation in both facts. It is law. It is not a matter of opinion. In both cases the election was democratic. In both cases the government was in place in accordance with the laws of the day. There was no violent takeover, no junta, no generals assuming absolute power.
What we can say is that our appreciation of what is democratic is constantly changing. After 1981 there was a compromise in order to avoid an unpleasant situation of governance by the majority. After 2008 I can make a subjective assessment and state that in order to mature further this democracy must look beyond the interests of safeguarding the interests of two parties that remain cocksure and confident of never being challenged thanks to the tampering of the rules. We must get out of this race to the bottom – the race to mediocrity.
In the meantime your description of “preposterous” is perfectly legitimate. From a subjective point of view. It is encouraging to see that you have seen half the equation – that the situation in 1981 was not pleasant. Let me speak from what Daphne calls my high horse and say that you still have the other half to grasp. You and the nationalist government will one day understand that governing with a relative majority is legitimate, is democratic but nevertheless requires a greater respect of the majority who voted otherwise or opted not to vote than they would usually grant.
Again. For the sake of clarity – although the origin of this debate is the Gordon Pisani appointment I still stand by what I say above. Gordon is the right man for the job.
@Jacques
You have a very good concept of the principle democracy. Just ignore the law for a minute and tell us you view on which is more democratic:
1) governing without a majority
2) governing with a relative majority
I think I know the answer.
@ Jacques René Zammit
What you are conveniently leaving out is the fact that Mdina formed part of the first District through a corridor that passed between Marsa and Hamrun in a way that it was obvious that there will be a situation where the party that gets most votes will get less seats.
An election based on gerrymandered districts is not in line with the ‘spirit’ of the constitution and so are in their inception perverse and illegal.
The MLP supporters who are questioning Gordon Pisani’s qualities , and stating inter alia that the PM could have found a person who has no political connections are the same people who viciously attacked another Gordon (Cordina) who was apolitical, and a dedicated professional in economics .
In my opinion the opposition is behaving as it behaved for the last decade (or two) if the government employed a pro European they will hunted him down , so the government does what it has to do because no matter what it decides it will find an opposition, opposing its decission.
Let us take for example when they ask for a magisterial inquiry about anything they want us to focus on , and the government does not hold the inquiry , they voice their dissappointment stating that the government is corrupt and wants to hide the truth . A few days ago we hear about what happened at the Police depot and the government asked a retired judge to hold another inquiry while a magisterial inquiry is being held. The opposition spokesperson and ex Police inspector Anglu Farrugia OBJECTED for this separate inquiry, it would have been a smart move if he congratulated the government for such a bold decision.
Probably experience is telling Gonzi that with this kind of opposition you can never win an argument.
@ all.
You want my view on what is more democratic? What’s the point. For me more democratic means a representative system that ensures that government always represents a majority – in my book that means that you accept coalitions with their pros and cons. Relative majority is as much of a minority of votes cast as is a minority government that governs thanks to gerrymandered seats. Fact is that a nationalist would prefer the first and not the second for historical reasons but not rational ones. What is more democratic? – in our country democracy is in the eye of the beholder – what I call Maltese relativism.
Then someone goes and mentions gerrymandering imagining for one second that I condone it. Besides the fact that that comment misses the point completely, it also ignores that we have had our fair share of legal gerrymandering this time round too. How else would a compromise that speaks of proportionality only in the case of two parties be described? Once again, it’s all relative – Mintoff’s acrobatics with Mdina is bad but Gonzi’s acrobatics with proportional representation is good.
The Democracy Delusion. That is what we are on about here. My sides are splitting when I read comments about losers and winners… the only losers are the citizens who see their institutions hijacked by the pseudo-political class. You like football metaphors… it’s like the diehard supporter arguing about the loser and winner in a match when the real football is dead and what we have is a bunch of mercenaries earning money off the football industry that has drained every last bit out of the genuine supporter.
I know I’ll get the flak becuase I will be assessed through blue tinted glasses (at least in this forum) but I will repeat the phrase once again…. what a sorry bunch of losers. Relatively speaking of course.
Hi Jacques
If you insist on comparing the 2008 election results with those of 1981, can you please tell us what should your ideal government have been following the last general election?
According to your way of interpreting democracy, is today’s PN government morally illegitimate?
According to your way of interpreting democracy, is Gordon Brown’s Labour government morally illegitimate?
@ JACQUES RENE ZAMMIT
I dont want to sound patronising but I wish to explain something to you , because what you seem to be after is absolutely not workable.
If we had to have strict proportional representation without any treshold , this would mean that 1 seat is achievable in our parliament with just 1.515% of votes or approx 4400 votes. With such a small number of votes I can assure you that we would not only have AD in parliament but such representatives as The Hunters, Emporio Europa ( as in fact these latter 2 got approx this amount of votes in the Euro elections but did not elect anyone because there were only 5 seats )
Can you imagine what weak governments we would have, with the main parties being blackmailed into accepting the agenda of these 1 seat parties ?
So before you start harping for coalitions just look at the consequences of having several small parties in parliament. Perhaps you dont know that Belgium had such a situation last year and was without a government for 8 months ! That would be a disaster for Malta.
Every democracy with proportional representation has a treshold normally 5 to 10 % to ensure governability
And for all your talk about gerrymandering, perhaps you didnt even realise that the MLP got 3 more seats than PN 34 -31 with 1500 less votes than PN in the last election. PN was awarded an extra 4 seats according to the constitutional amendment.
& again
Glad to see the brain cells are tickled into working. Now here I go repeating the same argument.
When you shout loudly that the Gonzi government is democratic and legitimate I am not objecting. I am in full agreement. I am also pointing out that the Mintoff government was also democratic and legitimate. Both are FACTS.
Now both of you ask interesting questions that are open to speculation – you ask for an opinion. I could give you one. One that is as valid as your own insofar as it is an opinion. An OPINION not a FACT.
Let’s take “david s” and his smartass argument of “perhaps you did not realise…” . I’ll use his very language – perhaps YOU did not realise that I am fully aware of gerrymandering AND the constitutional amendments… both form part of the setup you are both so eager to call democratic. There is nothing wrong with that. The only wrong thing is acting as though they did not exist or as though the system was abused of by the nationalists but not the labourites or vice versa. It’s as ridiculous as comparing San Gorg to Santa Marija.
Look at yourselves, all in a huff because someone mentions Gonzi and Mintoff in the same sentence. Look at the facts and forget the emotions. Before you spit out words like morally acceptable (for heaven’s sake) try thinking in terms of how society works. This whole discussion takes place in a post by DCG which makes fun of the labourites who expect a nationalist government to choose a labour person as communications officer. Her answer is – the nationalists are the legitimate government and can choose who the hell they like. And she is right.
It has nothing to do with morality. It’s legitimacy. Both Gonzi’s government AND Mintoff’s are or were legitimate. Both have a minority of votes vis-a-vis the number of votes cast but both enjoy the comfort of a set of laws drafted to favour their situations.
While you are busy waving your maduma flags in people’s faces you are also busy missing the point. You want me to tell you that Gonzi’s government is more legitimate than Mintoff’s? There is no concept as MORE LEGITIMATE. There is a concept of acceptable democratic levels.
To you Gonzi’s government is more democratic than Mintoff’s. That’s your opinion and maybe mine. I believe that Gonzi’s government is simply LEGITIMATE until now. How it deals with its position of government by relative majority (which – and yes, I love to rub it in – means a MINORITY of VOTES CAST IN THE COUNTRY) will prove its democratic credentials.
Having a weak, non-existent or blundering opposition is not an excuse. Which is probably why more rational objectors like myself are a bit more irritating…. and don’t we love to be so.
Good night… and don’t get too het up by the coalition and numbers arguments… it’s all relative you know.
Ok Jacques, here we go again.
Facts from 1981:- The MLP was constitutionally elected to government with 49% of all valid votes against PN’s 51%. It was legitimate in as far as the constitution dictated, but it was morally wrong since the party in government obtained less votes than the party in opposition.
Facts from 2008:- The PN was constitutionally elected to government with 49.3% of all valid votes against MLP’s 48.9%. It was legitimate both constitutionally and morally since the party in government obtained more votes than the party in opposition.
I reiterate that comparing and finding similarities between the two is simply preposterous. Your argument would have made sense had the MLP won the government this year with fewer votes than the PN. This did not happen due to the constitutional amendments which kicked in to avoid a repeat of 1981.
Now, since you insist on calling the new Gonzi government a minority government (which isn’t true), can you tell us what majority government you think should have been elected following the results of the last general election?
And again, is UK’s Gordon Brown government a minority government?
Hope your brain cells conjure a straight answer this time, whether tickled or not.
@Jacques
I do agree with you when you say, Both Gonzi’s government AND Mintoff’s are or were legitimate, because the legitimacy argument depends on the rules of the game. I guess this is your main argument, but then it seems like you are saying a lot and losing balance…
Now forget about the third party for a minute, actually they are irrelevant to date since they never got enough to elect a seat. In this last election, we had a situation where a party got more votes but fewer seats, with both failing to obtain a relative majority. Now can you please tell us who should lead the country, morally wise?
Finally, in my opinion you really go overboard when you claim – Having a weak, non-existent or blundering opposition is not an excuse. Which is probably why more rational objectors like myself are a bit more irritating… – I cannot understand how this is rational thinking.
Of course it depends a great deal on the opposition’s behaviour, if the opposition repeats its recent approach of asking stupid parliamentary questions, voting no to everything, not participating in very important discussions and then be the first to shoot down the proposals, and all the behaviour one would expect from a 10-year-old. How can you cooperate and be able to obtain results? How can you trust labour inclined people with important positions? When at the first occasion they will try to backstab the government given our political obsessions. Actually, I believe it is in the government’s duty not to do so, because its obligation is to deliver what the majority elected for. One, however, truly hopes that the new labour leader will change the opposition’s behaviour.
Yes every country has or had a minister for propaganda.
Germany had Goebels.
Malta never had one. The MLP had Pellegrini a political appointee to administer the Department (not Ministry) of Information just like Mr. Gordon Pisani with the relevant difference that Pellegrini was a government employee (a Dept. of Education employee. If I remember well, a teacher)
Mr. Gordon Pisani was not a government employee. According to DFG he is the right person to manage the P.N. government propaganda. Nobody disagrees. He is the right person in the right place. But there is a hitch. Over half of his salary will come from those who voted MLP, A.D. A.N. and others.
Is it not an abuse to use taxes paid by Maltese citizens to finance a P.N. spokesman.
The former head of the DOI, the late Mr.E.Abela who had the full confidence of the P.N. not only of the government but also of the political party itself, was a civil servant of known political sentiments (a staunch P.N.)But at least he was a civil servant, unlike Mr. Gordon Pisani.
Mr. Gordon Pisani appointment from outside the establishment would therefore suggest that gonzipn has no one within the Civil servants that can be trusted 100 per cent. His appointment has even precluded a civil servant from being promoted to the post.
Whoever has some experience of the civil service knows that a promotion of a colleague creates a vacuum that will have to be filled by another public servant, hence a chain of promotions. Thanks to Mr. Gordon Pisani this chain reaction will not take place to the detriment of public servants.
Mintoff`s 1981 government was legal since our constitution then simply spoke of a majority of parliamentary seats. However, try to remember the way the electoral districts were drawn up before the 1981 election, and try to remember that PN cried foul immediately the new districts were announced. Do you know anything about gerrymandering? It was then immediately clear and claimed by PN that MLP would clutch on to power with a minority of votes and a majority of seats. The electoral result of December 1981 proved the PN true.Does that make for a legitimate and democratic government?
The constitutional rules in 2008 are different from the 1981 ones, (although, again, the PN cried foul when the electoral districts were last drawn up. The new districts clearly favoured the MLP and again the electoral results proved the PN right). – There was no gerrymandering on the part of the PN, and with two parties represented in Parliament, the party having the biggest number of first count votes took on the role of Government. No, it`s no minority government; it`s a fully fledged government enjoying more popularity (read votes) than its opposition in Parliament.
In 1981, the gonernment side was clearly guilty of gerrymandering. In 2008 no similar accusations can be levelled against the (government) side which won most first count votes of the two sides in Parliament.
No, please, do not mention the Gonzi 2008 government and the Mintoff 1981 government in the same breath. Please.
@Peter Muscat, if you read this in time here’s the deal: tomorrow (Sunday) morning, Nevada Smith’s (3rd Ave between 11th & 12th Str.); your “political surprise” for all the beer you can drink. Just shout your name and “ta’ Daphne” as you walk in.
*breathes in*
*starts to breathe out and speak* “Gonzi Government” (pause) “Mintoff Government” *breathes in*
There. I’ve done it again. In the same breath. Not that difficult.
A few more irritating notes (depends on the perspective):
Gerrymandering: It’s all relative. The pre-1981 gerrymandering. Atrocious. Really. The post-1981 first agreement. A step forwards – which also consolidated two party politics. Last summmer’s electoral changes – atrocious. Just as atrocious as the pre-81 agreement if you look from outside the box. I can call it gerrymandering on a bipartisan level – but then you call it democracy. Which does not make you right.
The Nationalist Government: Is legitimate. Behind its existence lie a number of reasons. A law that forces people to consider “The Wasted Vote” is one of them. A relative majority – or a minority of votes cast (a fact not an opinion) is allowed to govern for the sake of governance. Is it moraly right? It is not a question of morals it is a question of governance … and it seems to work.
The Opposition: Weak right now. But still entitled to use the little weight it has. Pairing, and pushing the limits is part of the game which the nationalists agreed to play. Tough shit… no need to get all “moral” about it.
It all boils down to getting nationalist diehards off their high horse of being some defenders of the democratic values. The proof of the pie is in the eating… and not on past gains. If we let our guard down we risk being taken for granted. All of us.
Feel free to speculate about coalitions, third parties or otherwise … that remains speculation. What I am calling for is a civic society that maintains a control/pressure on its politicians and keeps them in their place. Whether it is Gonzi or Mintoff who is in the driving seat. There, ‘ve mentioned them in the same breath again.
History is repeating itself.
It is agreed that gonzipn has made the right choice in nominating Mr.Gordon Pisani as the P.N. government spokesman. He is the right man for the job since there could be found no other person that incarnates better the P.N. or Gonzipn. His post (propaganda officer,secretary or what!) does not call for impartiality. In more simple words he is not a servant of the people but a servant of a political party in government such as someone else in a certain country some sixty years ago.
Will Mr. Gordon Pisani eventually (sic) vacate his post without expecting anything in return, such as a Government compensation that will run into thousands of Euros? If he will expect such compensation then his engagement is irregular because there was no call for application to fill the post even on a temporary basis. Being a political appointee he has no right to receive any compensation out of citizens’ taxes on termination of his let say political contract.
He could have been employed as a government adviser and that’s all. His employment could be terminated at any time without expecting anything in return from the government coffers. That is what hurts.
@Michael.Debono – what you’ve described is precisely the way political appointees are employed and the way presumably Pisani was employed. It is perfectly within the law, unlike the thousands KMB had employed to try to win the ’87 election, since you mention history.
History means Goebels at the time of German Nazism not Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, a person with no equal for his love of others. At least he gave employment and not brought people from as far as the USA just to vote and win the elections. I know what I am saying. I have proof but will not make it public not to prejudice a realative a staunch PN who even contributes to local papers. He has not resided in Malta for the necessary period to be eligible to vote.
In Maltese we say “id-demm qatt ma jsir semm” if I am right in my Maltese spelling.
[Moderator – You either have proof or you don’t.]
Michael Debono: “at least he gave employment” For heaven’s sake, what employment could an unelected prime minister ‘give’, unless you mean illicit and unnecessary ’employment’ which translates into nothing more than a burdensome payroll for a largely unproductive workforce?
If that’s your idea of ‘love’, then I dread to think what your personal life must be like.
Jessie…
What a strange few weeks,do you think Obama can go all the way?…