The normalisation of clientelism

In the past few days, government has, once more, through various Ministers, sought to normalise clientelism. Each Ministry, nowadays, has a fully staffed office that is described as a “customer care” unit.

“Customer care” in the government Ministries is many a time, sugar-coated clientelism. Calling it “customer care” makes it more palatable in this day and age, maybe. This is the way the political system works, Robert Abela stated.

When the “customer care” unit helps citizens in negotiating the bureaucratic labyrinth, it may serve a useful purpose. The stories making the headlines are however of quite a different nature. They are the result of the utilisation of so-called “customer care” unit to short-circuit the rules which are applicable to all of us. Consequently, it is a “customer care” which screws the system applicable to lesser mortals.

At least two completely different services offered by the state are being sabotaged: severe disability pensions on the one hand and the issuing of licences to drive vehicles. To this one can also add Air Malta, which is clearly a victim of blatant clientelism practiced over the years by the PLPN.

Just four weeks ago Newsbook carried an interview with a person who was sought out by an identified official of the “customer care” desk at the office of the prime minister. She was advised to apply for a severe disability pension when she was aware that she was not entitled to it.

The details of the driving tests scandal, on the other hand, clearly show the link with the entourage of various holders of political office.

The electronic messaging made public clearly shows the manner in which the political system has worked. Referring the name of driving test candidates to the Transport Malta official responsible for the driving test is way beyond what is considered legitimate assistance from customer care officers. It is pretty obvious to one and all that it was a push to assist persons to pass the driving test in a deceitful manner.

Warning the examiner that if a particular candidate failed the driving test the examiner would have to answer to the Minister for his action is serious enough. It is anything but normal. A political system which considers that this is permissible, as the Prime Minister is suggesting, is unacceptable if the rule of law is to prevail.

In other jurisdictions political responsibility was shouldered for much less than this.

Consider for example the resignation of David Blunkett as Home Secretary from Tony Blair’s Cabinet in 2005 in the United Kingdom. The case involved a visa application for his ex-lover’s nanny which had been fast-tracked. Even David Blunkett had insisted that “he had done nothing wrong”. However, he resigned from his political office, as, he emphasised, that questions about his honesty “had damaged his government”. The BBC had then quoted David Blunkett as having stated that “any perception of this application being speeded up requires me to take responsibility.”

Political responsibility is all about accountability. Holders of political office, including the Prime Minister are accountable for the manner in which they and their staff act and interact with the public. Brushing such matters aside and labelling them as “normal” adds to the toxicity of the political system.

The resignation of Silvio Grixti from his parliamentary seat almost two years ago is not enough. Grixti resigned as he was being investigated for his alleged criminal activity. We are here dealing with those who have political responsibility for the ongoing normalisation of clientelism, which matter, unfortunately, is being completely ignored.

The continuous repetition of the phrase “he did nothing wrong” betrays what is wrong with the whole system. Depicting it as “normal” is even worse.

Much is wrong with the political system in place. We need a political system founded on what is right: one based on rights and not one based on favours.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 8 October 2023

The accumulating environmental deficit

The environmental deficit is increasing at a fast rate. We are approaching the point of environmental bankruptcy, from which there is no turning back. This is the whole point of the nature restoration debate currently in hand at the European Parliament. We must act before it is too late.

It is not sufficient to just protect nature. We must also restore it. We must make good the accumulated damage caused to date, primarily by human action. Notwithstanding all the good intentions since the first EU Environmental Action Programme in the early 70s was gradually translated into a developing EU environmental acquis, 81 per cent of protected habitats are in bad state and over 1500 species are threatened with extinction.

It is well known that the European Parliament is split right down the middle with about half of it being in favour of the constructive restoration of nature. The other half can be described as being supportive of the accumulated destruction as they couldn’t be bothered with supporting the required action. Next week, a definite decision could be taken as the EU Parliament is due to decide in plenary on the legislative proposal for nature restoration.

The legislative action being proposed by the EU Commission is not a very strong law. It is however a necessary first step in the long road ahead. It could be improved in the years ahead.

There is quite a lot to do. The havoc we see developing around us can still be reversed, even if it is getting more difficult by the hour.

We need to act within nature’s laws. The universal laws of nature are never amended: they have been consistent throughout the ages. They are not changed on the eve of elections. Nor do they offer a reprieve or probation for first time offenders. The punishment which nature unleashes, is non-discriminatory. In fact, nature rides roughshod over offenders and non-offenders alike!  We have seen this in floods and fires all over the globe. Occasionally, we have local examples too.

There are countless examples which we could list as being among the contributors to the present state of affairs. We read about them on an almost daily basis or watch reference to them on the different news channels.

We would do well if we start acting seriously on a local level about addressing Malta’s own contribution to the accumulating environmental deficit.

The current emphasis on green urban open spaces is good politics: all €700 million projected expenditure could be a positive step. It is however lost in the ocean of government indifference when agricultural land on the periphery of our urban areas keeps being taken up for development. Nor does the siege on Comino’s conservation status tolerated by the Planning Authority and the Environment and Resources Authority lead to any credibility to the open space initiative. Seen together, the green washing is too evident to pass unnoticed.

Unbridled development in our towns and villages, over the years has taken up a substantial chunk of urban green open spaces. Large gardens forming part of the essential urban ecology have been taken up and developed into residential blocks, encouraged by the continuous subsidies dished out to the construction industry as well as by a rationalisation exercise supported by the PLPN.

The conservative European People’s Party (EPP) has aligned itself with the climate-sceptic far-right in opposing nature restoration initiative forming an essential building block of the EU Green Deal. At the time of writing, it is not clear whether the campaign to derail the initiative will be successful. It is essentially down to the wire.

In the meantime, the environmental deficit keeps increasing, making matters worse.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 9 July 2023

The abortion debate: just the beginning

The approval of Bill 28 is not the end of the abortion debate. It is just the beginning. Maybe, the end of the beginning! The original proposals of Bill 28 were promising, even if they were no big deal. As originally proposed, Bill 28 was a reasonable starting point to an abortion debate which has been stifled for years on end.

It is neither normal nor acceptable for the Head of State to take part in such a controversial political debate in whatever form he opts to participate.

“Everyone knows my position”, President Vella said, when queried by the press last December. His active lobbying of holders of political office against the introduction of any form of abortion in the Maltese Islands was substantial. To add insult to injury he also went public on his intention to resign office and ignite a political crisis, if Parliament approved an abortion bill. In so doing he was giving full and open support to the conservative elements within the Labour Party and beyond, as a result bringing Robert Abela and Chris Fearne on their political knees and forcing them to change the content of Bill 28.

The Labour Party has buckled under the intense lobbying to which it was subjected. As a result, Labour ended up adopting the conservative political position of the Opposition. It has thus once more illustrated that, in such matters, when push comes to shove, Parliament is led by a unified PLPN. George Orwell’s Animal Farm description is apt: they looked from pig to man and from man to pig again, and could not tell which was which!

As PN MP Claudette Buttigieg emphasised in the Parliamentary Committee for the Consideration of Bills, last Monday, the PN Opposition was consistently conservative throughout the debate. Labour, on the other hand, unfortunately, ditched a draft which was a reasonable start for a serious debate and at the end adopted the conservative PN position.

Where do we go from here? The conservative forces, represented by PLPN have presented a united front in Parliament through the unanimous approval of the amended Bill 28. There are however rumblings that the fundamentalist right is considering the possibility of collecting signatures to call an abrogative referendum as the abortion amendments to the Criminal Code, in their view, go too far!

Notwithstanding what the fundamentalists do, the abrogative referendum procedure, is a unique opportunity, to take the conservative PLPN establishment to task. It is also an opportunity to contest the artificial consensus leading to the approval of Bill 28 as well as an appropriate instrument to denounce the interference in the democratic political process by George Vella, President of the Republic.

On Monday, in their different ways, in Parliament, Professor Isabel Stabile, Integra Foundation leader Maria Pisani and ADPD Chairperson Sandra Gauci, exposed clearly that in view of the fact that Bill 28 as amended is a huge step backwards, it is worse than the status quo, as Rosianne Cutajar quipped after the parliamentary vote. The changes made will not save lives. It will only protect medical practioners, as ably explained by Professor Isabel Stabile.

The way forward is to scrap the approved amendments to the Criminal Code and to alternatively legislate in favour of decriminalisation of abortion. Any woman who opts for an abortion needs empathy and not persecution from the state. A limited legal access to abortion is essential, not only when the pregnancy is a potential threat to the life or health of the pregnant woman. It is also necessary to legislate in favour of abortion in cases of rape and incest as well as in those cases where a non-viable pregnancy arises. These issues have to date been avoided in the public debate. They must be addressed the soonest.

We need to clearly identify this as the moderate way forward. Far away from the emotional appeals of the fundamentalist lobby. Also, considerably distant from the extreme position of those who insist on total individual liberty without any limits.

The 2011 divorce referendum entrenched ethical pluralism in Malta’s political agenda. This was an irreversible step which affirmed that different ethical views not only exist: they need the protection of the state.

The PLPN approved abortion amendments entrench a 19^th century-Malta in our statute books. They need to be ditched and replaced with decent legislation fit for the 21^st century. This is the only reasonable way forward.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 2 July 2023

Djun tal-PLPN: theddida demokratika

Matul il-ġimgħa l-oħra kien hawn delegazzjoni f’Malta mill-Parlament Ewropew biex tistħarreġ dwar il-progress li sar fil-konfront tas-saltna tad-dritt (rule of law) fil-pajjiż.

Wieħed mill-kummenti li għamlu kien dwar id-djun esaġerati tal-partiti politiċi parlamentari! Iddeskrivewhom bħala ta’ theddida għas-sisien demokratiċi tal-pajjiż. Id-djun akkumulati tal-partiti politiċi parlamentari li jlaħħqu miljuni kbar huma ta’ theddida għad-demokrazija għax jorbtuhom fit-tul mal-karru tal-flus u poġġuhom f’posizzjoni kontinwa kompromettenti.

Aħna mill-ADPD ilna nitkellmu dwar dan u dwar il-ħtieġa ta’ qafas serju ta’ finanzjament pubbliku tal-partiti politiċi.

Madwar tmien snin ilu inħolqot leġislazzjoni dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi. Liġi li fiha toqob iktar minn passatur.

L-ewwel nett hi l-Kummissjoni Elettorali li tiffunzjona ta’ regolatur f’dan il-qasam. Issa l-Kummissjoni Elettorali hi magħmula minn rappresentanti tal-PLPN. Kif jistgħu dawn jirregolaw lilhom infushom?

It-tieni ħallew barra minn dan kollu lill-kumpaniji tal-partiti politiċi. Toqba kbira din għax qed tiġi użata biex d-donazzjonijiet politiċi jinħbew bħala taparsi servizzi li jinxtraw mill-kumpaniji tal-partiti politiċi. Dan ta’ lok għall-każ magħruf bħala tal-invoices foloz jew għall-każ l-ieħor ta’ servizzi fittizji. Meta wieħed iqies li l-kumpanji tal-PLPN ilhom snin kbar ma jippreżentaw l-audited accounts tagħhom wieħed jista’ jifhem iktar kemm huma moħħhom mistrieħ li l-abbużi li qed isiru jibqgħu misturi għal ħafna snin.

Ma’ dan kollu jeħtieġ li nagħtu każ tal-kontijiet li jammontaw għal miljuni f’arretrati tad-dawl u l-ilma mhux imħallsa mill-PN u l-PL u l-kumpaniji tagħhom.  Anke ħlas b’lura tal-VAT għandhom li jmur lura għal ħafna snin.

Ex-Ministru kien iħobb jikkwota qawl Ruman li hemm liġi għall-bnedmin u oħra għall-annimali. Hekk ġiebuh il-pajjiż. Hemm liġi għalihom, li jippretendu li jagħmlu li jridu (u fejn jaqblilhom iħokku dahar xulxin) u oħra għall-bqija, għalina lkoll.

Għalik li iddum ma tħallas il-kont tad-dawl u l-ilma malajr tirċievi theddida ta’ qtugħ tas-servizz. Imma dawn b’miljuni ta’ arretrati jibqgħu għaddejjin qiesu ma ġara xejn.

Hemm bżonn leġislazzjoni sura dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti li tagħti każ dan kollu. M’għandhomx jibqgħu taparsi qed jirregolaw lilhom infushom.

The financing of the PLPN

Through a number of articles in the local press we have been repeatedly made aware that government and its authorities do not treat the parliamentary political parties (and their commercial companies) as the rest of us when it comes to outstanding bills, including those relating to taxes due.

The regulation of party-political financing should not stop at donation reports. We need to shine the spotlight on their pending bills too as these are an additional substantial financing source which in practice serves to finance the political parties through open-ended credit facilities! It is being carried out by the state, directly and by stealth.

To be clear I am referring to outstanding VAT payments and pending water and electricity bills which go back a number of years which have accumulated to millions in outstanding dues. In addition, there are also NI and PAYE contributions collected by the parliamentary political parties and their commercial companies on behalf of the Inland Revenue Department from their employees and retained unlawfully at their end. Any private employer who acts in the same manner is normally subject to legal action, in particular for failure to act on repeated reminders to conform! If you try not paying your water and electricity bills for years on end you will very soon receive a polite notice from ARMS indicating that you will soon have no more access to water and electricity!  But it is kids gloves for the PLPN. 

The amounts due run into many millions of euros and form part of the accumulated debts of the parliamentary political parties. It is difficult to quantify the precise amounts due by PLPN and their commercial companies as the authorities continuously withhold information as to the precise accumulated amount of the arrears due. The only information available in the public domain is sourced through leaks indicating that the amounts due run into millions: an upward eight digit spiral! Public knowledge of the extremely generous credit terms which public authorities grant parliamentary political parties and their companies would reveal the systemic abuses which have been shielded for too long a time.  This information should be disclosed as this is in the public interest. Good governance requires it.

This is an indirect source of political party financing which needs to be quantified and acted upon immediately. It is unfortunate that the regulator of political party financing is the Electoral Commission which is itself composed of nominees of the PLPN, who are thus regulating themselves, in addition to regulating their direct competitors, the other political parties.

It is also about time that the commercial companies belonging to the political parties are dealt with as an integral part of the political parties which they service. Stricter controls and real-time reporting time-frames are essential if we really want to ensure that these commercial companies are not used as vehicles to channel illicit funding to oil the PLPN political machinery.

As expected PLPN are in denial. The PL insists that its companies have not entered into a deal with Yorgen Fenech. The PN on the other hand insist that all is above board at its end: they proclaim that they have not issued any fake dB invoices! Yet both of them continuously fail to play by the rules. Audited accounts for their companies have not been presented for many years. As a result, there is no way to verify whether and to what extent the PLPN commercial companies are innocent of the charges that they are being continuously used to circumvent the rules regulating the funding of political parties.

Both the PL and the PN sanctimoniously proclaim their adherence to the basic principles of good governance. It is about time that they start practicing what they preach!

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 17 April 2022

Beyond 26 March

Increasing our vote tally by almost doubling it between general elections is no mean feat. That is what has been achieved by ADPD-The Green Party on 26 March. Notwithstanding the small numbers involved, the achievement is substantial, getting close to the best green result achieved in the 2013 general election. 

The 26 March electoral result, however, once more, exposes an electoral system which does not deliver proportional results when it really matters: results that is, supporting minority views. Political parties representing the PLPN establishment, have continuously benefitted from various adjustments to the electoral system, from which they obtain one proportional result after the other: proportionality which they benefit from but simultaneously, continuously and consistently deny to others.

Fair treatment would possibly have seen us achieve much better results than we have achieved so far. Unfortunately, the electoral system is designed to be discriminatory. This includes the setup of the Electoral Commission itself as well as the manner in which it operates under the continuous remote control of the PLPN. Even simple access to the individual district provisional results, which I requested, was continuously obstructed and objected to by the Electoral Commission late on Sunday 27 March when the counting process was still in progress.

Furthermore, PLPN have normal access to electronic counting data held by the Electoral Commission in order to be able to vet the validity of the final results. Repeated requests to extend such access to the green monitoring team in the counting hall were ignored. Even the OSCE election observation team present in the counting hall found this very strange and queried our monitoring team continuously on the matter.

Tomorrow, we will start the long process in court which could deliver some form of justice: the restitution of the parliamentary seats which our party has been robbed of by the PLPN political establishment throughout the years.

Normally, after elections, we waste a lot of time engaged in soul searching discussing whether taking the PLPN establishment head-on, one election after another, is worth the effort. This time we are immediately taking the plunge to ensure once and for all that each vote cast in Maltese general elections, irrespective of whom it is cast for, has an equal value. It is a long journey which may possibly take us to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, if this is considered essential, in order to settle the issue of electoral justice in these islands once and for all.

We have had to take this line of action as parliament in Malta has been consistently incapable of acting fairly. Parliament is, since 1966 under the complete control of the establishment political parties: PLPN.

By next Tuesday all bye-election results will be known. Subsequently the constitutional gender balance mechanism will be applied in favour of the establishment PLPN. This will be limited in implementation, similarly to the proportionality mechanism: limited in favour of the PLPN

The PLPN duopoly which has completely hijacked the institutions wants to be sure that its control is adequately embedded such that it can withstand any future shocks.

It is unacceptable that electoral legislation treats us in this despicable manner: differently from the manner in which it treats the establishment political parties. Unfortunately, the PLPN duopoly have not been able to deliver any semblance of fairness in our electoral system. The Courts, consequently, are our only remaining hope to address and start removing discrimination from electoral legislation, which is why tomorrow we will embark on our long overdue Court case.

The team we have built in the past months at ADPD has functioned quite well in achieving one of our best electoral results. It is now making the necessary preparations to ensure a better Green presence in our towns and villages in the months ahead. As a result of the excellent teamwork developed, we have starting preparing plans for the future which should lead to an organic growth of the party. This will make it possible for us to achieve even better results in the next political cycle.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 10 April 2022

Kull vot jgħodd

Nhar l-Erbgħa, flimkien ma’ Ralph Cassar Segretarju Ġenerali tal-Partit, f’isem ADPD ippreżentajt kawża kostituzzjonali dwar ir-riżultat elettorali li ġie ppubblikat f’dawn il-ġranet.

is-sistema elettorali, tul is-snin, ġiet żviluppata fl-interess esklussiv  tal-PLPN, iżidu is-siġġijiet għalihom u jinjoraw lill-bqija . Għandna sistema elettorali mbagħbsa, mhux denja ta’ pajjiż demokratiku.

F’demokrazija b’saħħitha, kull vot jgħodd: il-valur tiegħu m’għandux jiġi mkasbar għal kwalunkwe raġuni. Sfortunatament, f’Malta, il-leġislazzjoni elettorali hi iddiżinjata b’mod diskriminatorja, u dan bil-kompliċità tal-Parlament. Hi sistema elettorali diskriminatorja favur il-PLPN li bejniethom ikkontrollaw lill-Parlament sa mill-1966, u jridu jibqgħu għaddejjin hekk.

Vot favur l-ADPD għandu l-istess valur daqs vot favur il-PLPN. Imma l-liġi hi diskriminatorja għax tagħti valur u piż lill-voti tal-PLPN u tinjora l-bqija tal-voti tal-Maltin u l-Għawdin.

Dan hu riżultat ta’ żewġ miżuri speċifiċi: waħda dwar il-proporzjonalità u l-oħra dwar il-bilanċ tal-ġeneru. It-tnejn jiffavorixxu lill-PLPN u huma diskriminatorji fil-konfront tagħna, it-tielet partit, kif ukoll huma diskriminatorji kontra l-partiti l-oħrajn ukoll. Id-diskriminazzjoni li qed niffaċċjaw hi parti integrali mill-liġi elettorali.

Nhar it-Tnejn 28 ta’ Marzu 2022 kien imħabbar li r-riżultat elettorali kien aġġustat billi mal-lista tal-membri parlamentari eletti żdiedu tnejn oħra mil-lista tal-kandidati ippreżentata mill-PN. Din iż-żieda saret biex ikun hemm aġġustament għall-proporzjonalità bejn il-voti miksuba mill-partiti parlamentari fl-ewwel għadd tal-voti u s-siġġijiet parlamentari miksuba.

Meta sar dan l-aġġustament ġew injorati l-voti miksuba mill-partit ADPD fl-ewwel għadd tal-voti, liema voti kienu jammonta għal 4747 vot, ammont li hu ikbar mill-kwota nazzjonali. Din id-diskriminazzjoni tiżvaluta l-proċess demokratiku u dan billi l-voti tal-Partit Laburista u tal-Partit Nazzjonalista qed jingħataw valur billi jittieħdu in konsiderazzjoni biex isir l-aġġustament għall-proporzjonalità filwaqt li  l-voti ta’ ADPD qed ikunu skartati kompletament.

Il-proċess elettorali hu mistenni li jkompli fil-ġranet li ġejjin u dan billi l-emendi kostituzzjonali tas-sena l-oħra jipprevedu li wara li jkun konkluż il-proċess ta’ bye-elections assoċjati mal-elezzjoni ġenerali, l-Kummissjoni Elettorali talloka mhux iktar minn tnax-il siġġu parlamentari addizzjonali, sitta lil kull naħa biex jonqos l-iżbilanċ tal-ġeneru fil-Parlament. Dan ser ikompli jżid il-problema ta’ rappresentanza parlamentari billi ser iżid ir-rappresentanza tal-partiti parlamentari u jkompli jinjora l-bqija. Il-prinċipju tal-proporzjonalità li diġa huwa applikat b’mod dgħajjaf ser ikompli jiġi mnawwar bħala riżultat ta’ dan.

Il-kawża kostituzzjonali hi dwar dan it-taħwid kollu. Qed nitolbu lill-Qorti li issib li hemm ksur ta’ diversi drittijiet  umani liema drittijiet huma mħarsa kemm mill-kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta kif ukoll mill-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem. Hemm ukoll ksur tal-artiklu 3 tal-protokol numru 1 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem u dan dwar id-dritt ta’ elezzjonijiet ħielsa.

Qegħdin nistennew rimedju kontra d-diskriminazzjoni li seħħet diġa meta l-Partit Nazzjonalista ngħata siġġijiet Parlamentari u aħna b’mod diskriminatorju ma ngħatajniex, kif ukoll protezzjoni mid-diskriminazzjoni addizzjonali li ser isseħħ fil-ġranet li ġejjin meta jidħol fis-seħħ il-mekkaniżmu korrettorju dwar il-bilanċ tal-ġeneru.

Is-sistema elettorali Maltija mhiex isservi l-interessi tal-pajjiż imma biss tal-interessi tal-PLPN li kkapparraw ukoll l-istituzzjonijiet. Il-voti ta’ kulħadd għandhom valur u jeħtieġ li jkunu rispettati, mhux biss dawk tal-PLPN.

Inħarsu l-voti kollha.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 3 t’April 2022

Every vote counts

On Wednesday, on behalf of ADPD-The Green Party, together with party General Secretary Ralph Cassar I instituted constitutional proceedings relative to the election results just published.

The issue at stake is that the electoral system has, over the years been developed in the exclusive interest of the PLPN: milking more parliamentary seats for the PLPN and excluding the rest.

 In a healthy democracy, all votes have an equal value: every vote counts. Unfortunately, in Malta, electoral legislation, by design, that is with the clear intention of Parliament, is discriminatory in favour of the PLPN, the political parties which have exclusively controlled Parliament since the 1966 general elections.

A vote cast for ADPD-The Green Party is equal in value to those cast in favour of the PLPN. Existing electoral legislation is discriminatory due to its giving weight to votes cast for the two parliamentary parties and ignoring those cast for others.

This is the result of two specific measures: one dealing with proportionality and the other dealing with gender balance. Both measures are designed to benefit the PLPN and discriminate against us, the third party, and others. The discrimination we are facing is an integral part of electoral legislation by design. 

On Monday 28^th March 2022 it was announced that the electoral result was adjusted through the addition of two MPs from the list of candidates presented by the PN.  This addition is the result of a proportionality adjustment between the votes obtained at first count by the political parties making it to parliament and the parliamentary seats won.

When this adjustment was carried out the votes obtained at first count by ADPD-The Green Party amounting to 4747 were ignored. These votes amount to more than the national quota. This discrimination is a devaluation of the democratic process as it gives weight to votes cast in favour of  Partit Laburista and Partit Nazzjonalista but ignores completely the votes cast for ADPD.

In the coming days, the final stage of the electoral process will be implemented. After all the bye-elections associated with the general election are concluded the Electoral Commission will assign up to a maximum of twelve additional parliamentary seats to the two parliamentary parties in order to address gender balance in the parliamentary ranks.  This will add to the existing problems of parliamentary representation by further inflating the parliamentary seats of PLPN to the detriment of the rest. The proportionality principle, already very weak will be further eroded.

The Constitutional proceedings deal with all this. The Courts are being requested to find that there has been a breach of several human rights protected not only in terms of Malta’s Constitution but also in terms of the European Convention of Human Rights. We also point out that all this is in breach of the first protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights relative to free and fair elections.

We expect that the Courts identify suitable remedies to address the discrimination which has already taken place when the Partit Nazzjonalista was awarded additional parliamentary seats and the votes obtained by ADPD were ignored. We also seek the Courts’ protection from further discrimination which will occur in the coming days when the provisions of the gender balance corrective mechanism are applied.

Malta’s electoral system is not serving the country well: it has been manipulated repeatedly by the PLPN to serve their own interests. To this end they have also hijacked the Constitutional institutions. It is not only PLPN votes which are important: everyone’s vote is important and requires the utmost respect.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 April 2022

Lejn regoli elettorali ġusti

Hemm min qed jikkritikana dwar il-kawża kostituzzjonali għax, jgħidu, li irridu niktbu ir-regoli elettorali mill-ġdid.

Dak hu li eżattament irridu nagħmlu minħabba li r-regoli elettorali li għandna illum huma nġusti u diskriminatorji. Għax il-PLPN ħadu ħsieb tagħhom infushom u gew jaqgħu u jqumu minn kulħadd.

Ħu per eżempju l-proporzjonalità. Il-PLPN qablu bejniethom li huwa mportanti li r-riżultat elettorali jkun jirrefletti l-vot popolari u dan billi jkun hemm proporzjonalita bejn il-voti u s-siġġijiet parlamentari miksuba mill-partiti politiċi individwali. Dan hu tajjeb, imma jillimitawh għal żewġ partiti biss, jiġifieri għalihom.

L-istess jgħodd għar-regoli dwar l-iżbilanċ tal-ġeneru. Jgħoddu biss għal żewġ partiti.

Huma dawn ir-regoli diskriminatorji li rridu nibdlu, għax kull vot għandu l-istess valur.

Vot ADPD jiswa’ l-istess daqs vot PLPN.

B’sodisfazzjoni, inħarsu l-quddiem

Flimkien ma sħabi ħriġt mis-sala tal-għadd tal-voti f’nofs il-lejl bejn il-Ħadd u t-Tnejn.

Għalina din l-elezzjoni kienet esperjenza posittiva għax irnexxielna nirbħu lura l-parti l-kbira tal-voti li konna tlifna fl-elezzjoni tal-2017.

Sodisafatt li l-ilħaqna l-miri tagħna li naqbżu kwota fuq livell nazzjonali. Issa nistgħu ngħaddu għall-fażi li jmiss fil-kampanja politika tagħna: il-ġlieda għall-proporzjonalità vera. Proporżjonalità li l-liġi tagħna tirriżerva b’mod esklussiv għall-PLPN.

Kif diġa ħabbart, iktar tard matul il-ġimgħa ser nikkontestaw ir-riżultat elettorali. Il-kontestazzjoni tagħna hi limitata għall-mekkaniżmu tal-proporzjonalità u dak tal-bilanċ tal-ġeneru li jiddiskriminaw fl-applikazzjoni tagħhom. Il-fatt li ġibna kwota fuq livell nazzjonali jagħti saħħa u kredibilità lill-argumenti tagħna.

Il-Kummissjoni Elettorali tul il-kampanja kollha agixxiet ħażin. L-aħħar argument li kelli mal-kummissjoni l-bieraħ kien meta bi stupidita kbira irrifjutaw li jagħtuni kopja tar-riżultati bil-counts u l-wirt tal-voti. Domt ħin twil nargumenta magħhom meta fl-aħħar ċedew u għaddewli kopja. Ma nistax nifhem għalfejn jieħdu dan l-atteġġament.

Fuq nota personali għandi sodisfazzjoni kbir li kelli madwari team tajjeb li lkoll kemm huma ħadmu għat-team kollu. Ir-riżultat hu xhieda ta’ dan. Grazzi.

Jiena illum il-ġurnata għandi 66 sena u ma naħsibx li hu fl-interess tal-partit li nibqa’ fit-tmexxija wisq iktar. Lil sħabi ilni li nfurmajthom li jridu jsibu lil xi ħaddieħor biex imexxi lill-partit għall-futur. Mhux ser naqbad u nitlaq għax dan ikun ta’ ħsara imma hu l-mument li posti jieħdu ħaddieħor biex ikompli jibni fuq ix-xogħol utli li wettaqna flimkien. Jiena ngħin kemm nista’, mhux biss fi transizzjoni għal tmexxija ġdida imma anke fil-ħidma li trid tibqa’ issir. Għad baqali iktar enerġija!

Kburi li wasalna hawn. Grazzi lill-4747 votant li tawna l-fiduċja tagħhom. Inħarsu l-quddiem b’sodisfazzjon.