Muscat’s first mistake (and no, it isn’t Franco Debono)

Amusing. That's the first word that springs to mind when faced with the astonishingly hysterical reactions to Joseph Muscat's first set of appointments as Prime Minister.

Part of the amusement, of course, is down to the fact that it is actually quite irrelevant who gets to chair various committees (or preside over various quangos, rule various roosts, or carve out various private fiefdoms, etc.) under the new administration... seeing as how Malta has already been publicly identified, along with Luxembourg, as the next target for total annihilation by the Troika after Cyprus; which in turn means that there won't be very much left of this country to administer, once they've finished picking our bones clean.

But don't let that upset you too much, folks. After all, the Prime Minister doesn't seem unduly concerned by the imminent dismantling of our financial services sector, so why the heck should the rest of us bother? As for the Opposition... well, it seems to only have eyes for the very small and the very, very petty (plus ca change, etc.) So before turning my attention to Joseph Muscat's first serious mistake as Prime Minister, a word or two about the collective mantra of "SNOT FAIR!" that is now being bleated by people who... well... just don't get it, really.

***

So far, two specific aspects of the new administration's way of doing politics have clearly rubbed some people the wrong way.

The first was the decimation of permanent secretaries within the civil service - which incidentally makes you wonder whether the word 'permanent' has somehow changed meaning while we weren't looking.

The second was the appointment of Franco Debono to chair the Constitution reform project (among other largely legal... things).

OK, let's start with the former decision. What I would like to know about all the people who suddenly howl in unison about the 'politicisation of the civil service' is this: where the devil have you all been hiding for the past, oh, 22 years or more?

You see, I don't recall any of you stamping your feet in indignation when the man who was appointed as chief negotiator of EU accession, and subsequently elevated to Malta's permanent representative to the EU, also doubled up as former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami's right hand hatchet-man, as well as a very public member of the PN core strategy team (at least until 2008).

I refer of course to Richard Cachia Caruana, who for two whole decades managed to lead a double life - occupying key positions within the public service, while also dabbling quite effectively in internal (and occasionally external) party politics - without anybody even so much as batting an eyelid.

Meanwhile, Cachia Caruana's own appointment to two of the most sensitive public service positions imaginable (of which one, the perm rep to Brussels, was and still is among the highest ranking positions the civil service has to offer) never quite stopped him from playing an active part in the formulation of the Nationalist Party's electoral strategy.

And for this we have his own word for it: it was after all Richard Cachia Caruana who used to write articles in the Sunday Times following every election, explaining in minute detail how he himself (along with others) had piloted and implemented the winning team's entire campaign plan.

So... why did nobody object to the "politicisation of the civil service" back then? Oh wait, it's not entirely true that 'nobody' complained. A certain Alfred Sant (remember him, anyone?) once kicked up a fuss about it... only to be duly pooh-poohed and exposed to ridicule by the same people who now express 'shock', 'horror' and 'disappointment' at Labour's decision to appoint its own fixers, shakers and hatchet-men to similar positions.

For let's face it, people. We all know the score in this country: if the PN does it, it's absolutely fine and dandy (and anyone who argues otherwise is obviously insane); if Labour does it, it's the equivalent of Hiroshima plus Nagasaki times around two million... possibly with a little Fukushima thrown in for good measure.

Yet the simple truth is that all governments do the same thing, for the simple reason that... they have no choice. You cannot appoint or retain a person responsible for the implementation of your own policies, when that person disagrees with those policies and would willingly work to sabotage your own government - as the civil service has in fact been known to do, in Malta and pretty much everywhere else. (Watch a couple of season of Yes Prime Minister and you should get an inkling of how and why this happens in practice).

***

Right: now onto the curious case of the Debono appointment. Or rather, the curious reactions to the appointment, which was itself spectacularly predictable and actually quite normal, all things considered.

Still, sometimes I can't help getting the impression that people who work in the unofficial propaganda department sooner or later start believing their own myths and fantasies... one of which tells the tale of how Franco Debono 'scuttled' the PN government, (when we all saw with our own eyes that the very opposite was true: the party attempted to destroy Debono - and up to a point succeeded, at least in reducing him to a local equivalent of Screaming Lord Sutch - and spontaneously combusted in the process)

So when the new government decided to appoint as Constitutional reform commissioner (or whatever the official name will be) the one man who has been talking about Constitutional reform for the better part of the last four years... and making considerable sense, at least on that one subject alone... well, sorry, but how can anyone in his right mind claim to be surprised?

But no matter. Debono is indeed a controversial and divisive figure, even though it is my belief that it was the Nationalist Party's handling of his so-called 'rebellion' that literally left him with no option but to pull the plug on GonziPN (hence destroying both the Nationalist administration, and his own future with that party).

So yes, the choice was obviously always going to ruffle a few feathers. And I tend to agree with criticism to the effect that Muscat did this quite deliberately to ensure that the PN will not pay ball on the Constitutional reform project as a whole, for various possible political reasons which are too complex to go into in any detail here.

Ooh, how very shocking. A political party behaving like a political party. Whatever next?

But as with the civil appointments, what really interests me here is the barefaced hypocrisy in the general reactions. We all seem to be forgetting that this is not exactly the first time that efforts have been made to change the Maltese Constitution. So tell you what: let's have a quick look at how the Nationalist government led by Lawrence Gonzi had set about trying to amend the same Constitution in 2005. Then you can all decide for yourselves which method you actually prefer.

As I recall (and I do recall, very, very clearly), it began with a Saturday morning 'press briefing' during which Gonzi unexpectedly announced that he would embark on a drive to amend the Constitution so that Article 266 of the criminal code - the one that deals with abortion - gets itself lifted out of that section of law, and instead plonked squarely into that part of the Constitution which determines the definition of our entire country (and is one of the parts that requires a two-thirds majority to amend).

Yes, believe it or not that was the only intention behind this so-called "Constitutional reform". Never mind the electoral system, never mind broadcasting, never mind issues such as the appointment and removal of the judiciary, or the executive powers of the police. Gonzi's plans for Constitutional reform were ultimately motivated by his own ultra-orthodox Christian fantasies, nothing more nothing less.

I could almost stop there, because if a government utilises the Constitution as a political weapon to manipulate his adversaries in that way... it also instantly forfeits his right to criticise others for trying to change the same Constitution in different ways.

But there was more: it was not just the flawed intention behind the amendment drive... it was also the ruthless manner in which the Government tried (unsuccessfully, in the end) to exploit public fervour for this project to intimidate members of parliament, even on government benches, who had very real and very serious reservations about the principle of the matter.

Do any of you need reminding? OK, here goes. The same people who now cry 'foul' over Debono's appointment, had tried to change the Constitution by literally bullying and browbeating all opposition (including both Alfred Sant and former Green Party chairman Harry Vassallo) into submission. Tonio Borg obviously led the cavalry charge - and just look where he is today - and he instructed his staff at the Home Affairs Ministry to utilise its resources to write letters - thousands of letters - asking for the support of every single member of civil society, all the way down to the smallest flower-arranging society and yoga centre, by the end of the month.

Before we knew it the entire country was in full foetus frenzy mode... which of course was part of the plan, because we all know how difficult it is for a lone politician to withstand a groundswell of national fervour and emotion.

To put the matter succinctly, Gonzi's Constitutional amendment idea catapulted Malta some 50 years back in time ... all the way to the mindless hysteria of the 'Interdett' issue of 1960.

And these same people now have the cheek and gall to criticise the appointment of Franco Debono as "divisive"? I mean honestly...

Meanwhile I apologise if what I am about to say comes across as blunt, but... Malta doesn't actually need any lessons in Constitutional reform from the architects of that ghastly and totally unwarranted 'abortion amendment' proposal of 2005: which was itself a violation of more Constitutional principles than I can even fit into this article.

***

Right. As usual I now seem to be forgetting something. What was it again? Ah yes! Joseph Muscat first serious mistake as Prime Minister (you wouldn't want me to leave that part out, now would you?).

I hope he doesn't mind if I address him directly, but: Dr Muscat, where the heck have been hiding these past three days? You do realise that you are Prime Minister now, right? And that all the stuff you used to criticise Gonzi for not doing, or for doing badly, is actually now your job, and not his at all?

I thought I'd ask because... in case you haven't yet noticed, Malta is under attack. Oh sure they're not dropping bombs on us like they did 70 years ago. But the Dutch finance minister on Monday took a clear aim with his personal bazooka directly at our country's banking system... in what was effectively but one of a number of indications that our country's success in the financial services sector has not gone down particularly well with our so-called 'friends' in the EU.

Muscat's reaction? A statement, released through the DOI, that sounded to my ears rather like: "Malta's banking system is busty and blonde" - or maybe it was "robust and solid", or "upright and firm". Can't remember now exactly (which goes to show how memorable the statement was). 

But... excuse me, is that seriously the extent of your reaction? A press statement that was never going to get very far beyond the Maltese press to which it was sent... and which nobody in Europe or the rest of the world actually reads?

Why aren't you out there defending Malta's economy on Bloomberg? Or in the Financial Times? Why no direct rebuttal, when a European finance minister spreads incredibly damaging lies and misinformation about our country's economy, in a way that is clearly aimed at undermining the financial services sector so that it can be stolen? And that goes for you, too, Edward Scicluna and Karmenu Vella. You're not in Kansas anymore, you know.

***

So no, all things considered not exactly the most impressive of starts, Dr Muscat. Meanwhile please let us know if you have no intention of defending Malta's interest against REAL attacks by foreigners (as opposed to all the imaginary ones your party rails against so often). That way, we can at least start looking for someone else who can.