Presidential theatrics and arm-twisting

(photo: presenting to President George Vella proposals for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention : 5 November 2019)

The role of the President in the governance of this Republic, on paper, is just an issue of formality. In practice, however, it can be much more than that.

Undoubtedly Myriam Spiteri Debono will be a different President from her predecessors. Spiteri Debono has a distinct advantage over all of her predecessors: she has no political baggage because she has not held any executive political office to date. Only Sir Anthony Mamo, the first President, had the same advantage!

In her inaugural speech as President, Myriam Spiteri Debono made many an important political point. Fundamentally she emphasized that she will not seek to influence the political debate (a difficult pledge which, however, she did not strictly follow herself). Although she did not name him, this was a clear dig at her predecessor, who, in addition to lobbying the executive intensively in favour of his contrasting political views, unashamedly interfered in the public debate on proposals relative to the IVF legislative changes as well as on Bill 28 which sought to clarify the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code.

His Excellency George Vella would have been taken to task in any self-respecting Parliament. A motion for his removal, because of his behavior, would have been submitted for Parliament’s consideration.  Almost two years ago, given the President’s behaviour in office, I had written in these columns that there are “valid reasons to consider the impeachment of Dr. George Vella from his Presidential duties.” (TMIS: The Presidential rubberstamp: 31 July 2022)

Any person who allows his personal views to conflict with his or her Constitutional duties is, in my view, not fit for office.

Parliament, unfortunately, was not irked by George Vella’s arm-twisting of the executive. It was not bothered, as it thanked Vella for his services! Not one of the Members of Parliament stood up to remind one and all that when the holder of the office of the President interferes in the political debate, he/she is performing a grave disservice to the Republic.

One only hopes that there is no repetition of this interference in parliament’s work.

Parliament needs to reinforce the office of the President. In particular, for example, the Constitution needs some clarity as to how the President can defend the Constitution when he/she does not have the appropriate legal tools available. 

Let me clarify: It is essential to consider in some depth the role of the President of the Republic. Specifically, we should consider whether the President should continue to be just a rubberstamp or whether he or she should have limited review powers over Parliament’s legislative function.

ADPD- The Green Party, in submissions to the still pending Constitutional Convention, focused on this specific matter, among other issues. In the document submitted to the Convention, my party proposed that the President should be able to send legislation back to Parliament for its reconsideration, if, in his/her view such legislation runs counter to the provisions of the Constitution.

The President, on assuming office, declares that he/she will do all it takes to defend the Constitution. He/she is not however equipped with any (constitutional) tools with which to carry out this responsibility.

The Green proposal presented more than four years ago for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention identifies an essential tool with which His Excellency the President can act responsibly within the parameters of the law. We further proposed that should Parliament refuse to budge, the President should refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a final decision. 

This is how the Presidency should function. Much better than when it was subject to the George Vella theatrics, lobbying, and arm-twisting of the executive.

published in Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 April 2024

Pelting with eggs

The debate on defense policy requires to be dealt with much more seriously than through pelting Prime Minister Robert Abela with eggs, as happened last Tuesday during a political activity at Vittoriosa.     

Whether we like it or not, 23 out of the 27 EU member states are members of NATO. Malta, Ireland, Austria and Cyprus are the exceptions. (Cyprus had its NATO membership application vetoed by Turkey.) It is a politically difficult situation which requires a tightrope walking skill. It is never going to be easy with the European defense industry leaders breathing down the neck of the EU leadership.

The defense industry, including that within the European Union itself, is undoubtedly lobbying intensively on a continuous basis. An EU defense budget running into several billion euros would definitely be in their interest! In 2023 the EU’s military spending reached a record €230 billion.

It is inevitable that in view of the Russian aggression in Ukraine the defense debate intensifies during the current EU Parliament electoral campaign.

One of the points raised by the outgoing President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen is on whether it is appropriate to have an EU Commissioner entrusted exclusively with defense policy in the next Commission later this year. The European People’s Party (EPP) wants to substitute the top EU diplomatic job with a defense Commissioner post.

Defense, in all its aspects, is a matter reserved for the individual European Member states in terms of the EU treaties. I would have expected government spokespersons to be clear on this point. Unfortunately, they have been completely silent, at least on a public level. This is not on. It is not acceptable. The sooner it is rectified the better.

This is not a matter which can be relegated to the diplomatic level. It has to be taken up forcefully: positions taken must be clear publicly.  The warmongering on a European level must be brought to order the soonest.

On a local level, the debate on defense policy is completely absent, except for the partisan bickering from time to time. This has intensified in the past weeks.

Unfortunately, we have already had proposals by the Bavarian Christan Democrat leader of EPP, Manfred Weber, that the EU should invest in nuclear deterrence.  Last January, Politico reported that this Bavarian political outburst was delivered in the context of the perceived consequences of Donald Trump’s threats on the weakening of NATO, if he is re-elected to the Presidency of the United States of America later this year. Irrespective of the motivation it should be clear even at this stage that such proposals are unacceptable. A neutral Malta should have made her voice heard ages ago! Yet silence prevails.

Notwithstanding all the bickering on the EU Council’s final statement last week, this matter has been ignored. The Prime Minister then felt the need to seek the advice of the State Advocate in order to ensure that Malta’s neutral status is respected in the commitments made in the final statement. Yet we are not yet aware as to whether the proposal to create a standalone defense portfolio in the next Commission has yet been sent to the State Advocate for his advice.

The silence of the Opposition PN on the matter is also deafening, considering that the defense proposals on EU defense Commissioner as well as the proposal on an EU nuclear deterrence are being made by the European People’s Party of which it forms part.

Pelting with eggs is no substitute for the national political debate on defense matters. It is in our interest to wake up and smell the coffee.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 31 March 2024

Desmond Zammit Marmara: t-triq tal-irġulija

L-artiklu ta’ Desmond Zammit Marmara fit-Times tal-bieraħ kien riflessjoni f’waqtha dwar il-Partit Laburista. Riflessjoni minn persuna li tafu u ħadmet fih għal numru ta’ snin.

Irrispettivament minn jekk naqblux jew le ma dak li kiteb Desmond Zammit Marmara, il-bniedem jistħoqlu kull rispett. Hu wieħed mill-ftit li qed jikkontribwixxi għal diskussjoni politika matura li hi nieqsa ferm f’dan l-imbierek pajjiż.

Uħud mill-kummenti li hemm online għall-artiklu ta’ Desmond Zammit Marmara, mhux biss fuq il-paġna tat-Times, imma anke fuq l-Illum fejn hemm rapport dwar l-artiklu, huma kummenti li jqażżuk. Huma rifless tar-raġunijiet għax il-pajjiż tagħna qiegħed fl-istat li hu illum.

Dawn it-tip ta’ kummenti, u bosta insulti ukoll, ma sarux biss fil-konfront ta’ Desmond. Isiru ukoll fil-konfront ta’ kull min hu kritiku ta’ dak li qed jiġri madwarna.

Li ma taqbilx ma dak li qed jgħid Desmond hu dritt, imma dan id-dritt ma jagħtikx id-dritt li tinsulta u tkasbar. Huwa biss bid-diskussjoni serja u matura li nistgħu nimxu l-quddiem. Mingħajrha lura biss nistgħu nimxu.

Jiena kelli diversi opportunitajiet li nitkellem u niddiskuti ma’ Desmond Zammit Marmara. Xi drabi fuq il-programm li kellu fuq l-RTK fejn dejjem ta’ l-ispazju għal idejat oħrajn, differenti, b’diskussjoni li tfittex li tifhem u tgħallem. Iltqajt miegħu ukoll diversi drabi fis-sala tal-għadd tal-voti meta iddiskutejt miegħu l-ktieb tiegħu fuq Pawlu Boffa, Prim Ministru u mexxej tal-Partit Laburista.

Desmond hu persuna valida li minkejja l-insulti għażel u jibqa’ jagħżel it-triq tar-raġuni u r-riflessjoni. Hi t-triq id-diffiċli, però hi t-triq tal-irġulija.

Grazzi Desmond.

An invitation: keep the doors open

The abortion debate gets nastier by the minute. This was expected. It may even get worse!

The priest who described pro-choice PN candidate Emma Portelli Bonnici as a later day Hitler, kicked off this week’s instalment! The Archbishop’s Curia at Floriana forced the removal of the facebook post where he published these views: yet the damage was done. Will we ever learn to discuss anything respectfully? Is this too difficult to expect?

The Labour Party is being extremely cautious. It is very rare to hear any Labour Party speaker express himself or herself on the subject of abortion. Labour is aware of the different and contrasting views within its ranks when debating abortion. That in itself is healthy and could potentially lead to a mature debate. The current Labour Party leadership, however, as readers are aware, is acutely conservative on the matter even though there is a progressive element among its voters which is of the opposite view. This includes a couple of present and former electoral candidates and MPs/MEPs.

The PN on the other hand, going by Bernard Grech’s declaration earlier this week has not yet learnt its lessons from the divorce referendum campaign, ten years ago. I respect its political position on the matter but I still cannot understand its constant denigration of those within its ranks who have the courage to speak their mind. Stifling political debate is very damaging.  It has long-term effects which go much beyond the current debate!

As pointed out elsewhere, Bernard Grech’s declaration signifies one thing: the abortion debate is closed within the PN ranks, and anybody who dares think otherwise should start packing. From where I stand that is the clear message conveyed by Bernard Grech.

Within ADPD, the Green Party, last May, after a three year long internal debate, we approved a clear political position in favour of decriminalisation of abortion, as a result of which any woman opting for an abortion would not be subject to criminal action. We further emphasise that abortion should not be normalised but that it should be limited to specific, extraordinary and well-defined circumstances.

We have highlighted that Maltese legislation on abortion is not fit for purpose. It needs to be brought up to date after more than 160 years since its enactment. It requires to be brought in line with medical and scientific progress over the years.

We identify three such extraordinary circumstances in which abortion is justified, namely, when the life of the pregnant woman is in danger, when a pregnancy is the result of violence (rape and incest) and when faced with a pregnancy which is not viable.

There is definitely an urgent need for more emphasis on reproductive and sexual health education at all levels of our educational structures. This is a gap which needs plugging at the earliest!

We have been criticised by some as not going far enough. Others have stated that we have gone much too far.

Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is key in the abortion debate. It is essential that women who undergo abortion are not threatened any more with persecution and prosecution. They need the state’s protection as a result of which more will seek help before taking critical decisions. This will save lives as well as avoid unnecessary medical complications.

The abortion debate in Malta is unfortunately characterised by long periods of silence, alternating with outbursts of hate, insults and extreme intolerance. This is definitely not on. Political parties should take the lead by encouraging contributions to a clear and objective debate.

While others close their doors to the debate, ours will remain wide open.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 November 2021

Beyond GDP

“The GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile.” This was stated by Robert Kennedy at the University of Kansas 52 years ago in what is known as his GDP speech!

In what was a highly charged US Presidential campaign, during which he was assassinated, Robert Kennedy had further explained that the GDP “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.  It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country.”

We may use different language or emphasise different aspects to explain the problem, but not much has changed since: The GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile!

Pursuing economic growth as the single most important policy goal is in conflict with the earth’s limited resource base. It contrasts with the fragile ecosystem of which we are a part and on which we depend for our survival.

Economic growth is supposed to deliver prosperity. Instead it has delivered unbridled climate change, fuel insecurity, sky-high commodity prices, collapsing biodiversity, reduced access to depleted water resources or clean air, and an ever-increasing global inequality. Is this measured by the GDP? Definitely not.

The GDP is just concerned with material wealth, ignoring in the process our health, our education, the safety of our streets, the social tissue of society, the state of our families, the devastation caused by all forms of hatred …………… GDP includes the production of armaments and the destruction of the environment carried out in the name of “progress” as well as the television programmes that glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

The earth’s resources are limited and, consequently, they cannot fuel infinite economic growth. There are practical limits to growth, which should lead our economic planners to consider decoupling prosperity and economic growth.

This is the context in which Greens welcome the Justice and Peace Commission of the Church in Malta looking beyond the GDP. It is welcome not only because it is the correct approach but also because we have been at it for so long, mostly practically on our own.

The 54 page published Church Commission study entitled Beyond GDP – A framework to gauge Malta’s success through quality of life justifiably argues that limiting ourselves to gauging progress through the use of the GDP leads to a situation where other factors leading to a satisfactory quality of life can be easily disregarded.

The study, supported by EY, APS Bank and Seed Consultancy is a very valid contribution to a mature political debate which we lack so much.

The insistence that we should go beyond GDP in gauging our quality of life is not an exercise in diminishing the importance of the economy. Rather, it signifies the determination that the economy should not be seen in isolation but that it should be viewed within a realistic context. Social, environmental and cultural dimensions are extremely relevant, as much as economics, in the gauging of our wellness, or the lack of it.

A more just economy needs to look at the bigger picture and not limit itself to the GDP to get its bearings right. This is another way of emphasising the need for a sustainable development, a term which is much in use nowadays but unfortunately not sufficiently understood or catered for. Going beyond GDP in measuring our state of wellness would definitely yield more realistic indicators which we urgently require. 

Published in the Malta Independent on Sunday: 29 November 2020

Min hu ikbar mill-partit?

 

Bħalissa spiss qed nisimgħu min jgħidilna li ħadd m’hu ikbar mill-partit.

Dan il-kliem qed jingħad bl-iskop li jkun ġustifikat li dawk illi jsegwu u jappoġġaw partit politiku għandhom jbaxxu rashom meta t-tmexxija tal-partit tieħu deċiżjoni. Għax il-partit tkellem. Mela tbaxxi rasek.

Id-deċiżjonijiet li jittieħdu b’mod demokratiku għandhom ikun rispettati u implimentati. Imma anke hawn hemm l-obbligu li nirrispettaw lil min hu f’minoranza, irrispettivament kemm din tkun żgħira jew kbira.

Id-deċiżjonijiet li jittieħdu b’mod unanimu nibża’ minnhom, għax mhiex xi ħaġa rari li l-unanimità tkun faċċata li warajha jistaħbew ħafna affarijiet.

L-ebda partit politiku m’hu omoġenju u f’kull deċiżjoni li tittieħed ikun hemm min jaħsibha differenti u xi drabi dan mhux sempliċiment fuq id-dettall. Dan ma jitlobx biss tolleranza iżda ħafna drabi koeżistenza ta’ ideat li jikkuntrastaw. Dan mhux dejjem faċli, imma ċertament li hu possibli. Hekk jiġri f’soċjetà verament demokratika.

Ovvjament l-ebda partit politiku ma jista’ jiffunzjona jekk fuq l-ideat fundamentali li jirrappreżenta ma jkunx hemm qbil dwarhom fost dawk li jappoġġawh. Imma lil hinn mill-prinċipji fundamentali li partit politiku jirrappreżenta hemm lok għal ideat li jikkuntrastaw.

F’dan is-sens partit politiku hu ġabra ta’ ideat, kultant differenti, kultant kuntrastanti: ħafna drabi ftit, imma xi drabi kuntrastanti ħafna. Partit politiku hu kbir skond kemm hu kapaċi jirrispetta l-ideat differenti fi ħdanu. Għax ħafna drabi hi din id-differenza ta’ ideat, kultant dettall, imma xi drabi iktar minn hekk ukoll, li toħolq dibattitu fil-partiti politiċi liema dibattitu jwassal għal żviluppi interessanti fil-ħsieb politiku.

Il-partit politiku, għaldaqstant, jirrappreżenta lid-diversità ta’ ħsieb fi ħdanu fit-totalità tiegħu. Jagħmel żball partit politiku li joħnoq il-vuċijiet differenti fi ħdanu. Dawn dejjem qegħdin hemm: kultant jinstemgħu ħafna u drabi oħra kemm kemm jinstemgħu: skond l-importanza tad-differenzi. Imma dejjem hemm qegħdin.

Ma hemm l-ebda mertu li tirrispetta lil min jaqbel miegħek: m’għandek ħtieġa ta’ l-ebda sforz biex tagħmel dan. Il-mertu, u l-isforz, qiegħed biex tirrispetta lil min ma jaqbilx miegħek. Naċċetta li mhux dejjem faċli. Imma dan mhux biss hu possibli imma hu essenzjali.

Partit politiku li mhux kapaċi jirrispetta d-dissens fi ħdanu ma jistax jispira fiduċja. Għax jekk m’intix kapaċi tirrispetta lil min hu ħdejk u ma jaqbilx għal kollox miegħek, kif tippretendi li titwemmen meta tgħid li qed tiftaħ il-bibien għal min qiegħed barra? Tkun qed tissogra li flok il-bieb miftuħ iservi biex jidħlu minnu, jispiċċa jkun il-punt tal-ħruġ!

Mhux għaldaqstant kaz ta’ min hu ikbar jew iżgħar mill-partit imma ta’ kemm aħna kapaċi nirrispettaw lil xulxin b’mod partikolari meta ma naqblux.

Min jipprova jagħlaq id-diskussjoni billi jgħid li ħadd m’hu ikbar mill-partit qed jibgħat messaġġ wieħed: li jirrispettak biss sakemm taqbel miegħu.

Din xi triq ġdida hi?

Salvu Mallia qed jitfewwaq spiss

 

 

It-tifwieq huwa naturali. Imma b’daqshekk ma jfissirx li nieħdu gost jew niftaħru bih. Fil-fatt hu normali li meta taħrablek tifwieqa tgħatti ħalqek u tiskuża ruħek. Jekk minn waħda jiġu tnejn jew iktar, imbagħad ifisser li jkun wasal iż-żmien li twarrab ftit għax ma tkunx ta’ quddiem in-nies.

Bħalissa Salvu Mallia qed jitfewwaq spiss. Sfortunatament, dawk ta’ madwaru flok ma jistiednuh iwarrab ftit sakemm forsi jiġi ftit f’siktu, qed jiftaħru bih, għax, jgħidu, li l-lingwaġġ tiegħu jirrifletti l-weġgħat tan-nies tat-triq.

Il-lingwaġġ li juża Salvu Mallia huwa dak li jħossu komdu biex jesprimi ruħu bih. Il-lingwaġġ ikkulurit ma jagħmel ħsara lil ħadd imma dak insolenti jagħmel il-ħsara: kemm lil min jgħidu kif ukoll lil min jirċievieh.

Mhux sinjal tajjeb li irġajna nżilna f’dan il-livell.

 

L-Onorevoli jerġa’ jagħmilha

Hi sfortuna li d-dibattitu politiku fil-pajjiż reġa’ qiegħed jikkarga.

Il-Parlament hu l-post fejn issir il-kritika. Imma l-kritika, anke jekk iebsa m’għandiex tkun insolenti. L-insulti ma jagħmlu ġid lil ħadd: la lil min jgħidhom u l-anqas lil min jirċievihom.

Il-każi riċenti li dwarhom l-Ispeaker Anġlu Farrugia kien kostrett li jagħti ruling, għal wieħed tnejn huma inkwetanti, għax ifisser li fuq naħa waħda hemm min qed jitlef rasu u fuq in-naħa l-oħra hemm min hu sensittiv iż–żejjed.

Ovvjament kullħadd tad-demm u l-laħam u meta tkun ilek taqla’ ġo fik, fl-aħħar tixpakka. Dak li qed jiġri bħalissa fil-Parlament. Diskors li ma jagħmel la ġid u l-anqas ġieħ lil ħadd.

Kien floku kliem l-iSpeaker li ipprova jberred ftit l-affarijiet billi ta’ ċans biex dak li jkun jerġa’ jaħsibha u forsi juża’ kliem iktar addattat.

Imma jidher li ċerti nies ma jitgħallmu qatt.