Democracy for dummies

There was, I suppose, a certain inevitability about the whole thing. Having been the first to publicly defend the Theocratic Constitution of newly-liberated Libya - telling us all that we have 'nothing to fear' from Islamic democracy, because (let's face it) we already have the same thing ourselves: only we call it 'Christian democracy' instead - it stands to reason that our indefatigable Foreign Minister Tonio Borg would now take it upon himself to personally oversee Libya's transition from dictatorship to fully-fledged democracy.

Yes, indeed: democracy has always been the stuff of outrageous paradox, so I suppose it stands to reason that a man who embodies so many polar opposites on such a wide variety of fronts - Church and State, Religio et Patria, Gonzi and PN, etc. - should now take it upon himself to dispense lessons in democracy to countries less fortunate than our own. So without further ado, I bring to you a basic digest, compiled by yours truly, of Dr Tonio Borg's famous best-seller - re-edited specifically for a new Libyan readership, with a special foreword by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - entitled 'Democracy for Dummies'... or as the blurb on the back so helpfully explains: 'A simple, step by step guide to retaining all the power and prestige of a ruthless dictator, only without having to actually go through all that hassle and mess of getting pulled yourself out of a hole in the ground by an angry mob, and then being hacked to pieces on Youtube, etc.'

What can I say? Such a shame Gaddafi didn't live long enough to buy his own copy. But let's get on with it, shall we?

Chapter One: 'Democracy is Nice - I like'.

Tonio Borg starts off his guide by extolling the virtues of a political system that originated almost 2,500 years ago in Ancient Greece - you know, the same country whose democratically elected government was just last month unceremoniously booted out of office, to be replaced by an unelected, technocratic confraternity chosen exclusively by unidentified bankers somewhere in Brussels... and therefore unanswerable to (and unrepresentative of) anyone currently residing anywhere near Greece.

As Dr Borg so aptly observes in his introduction, the main virtue of this political system is that it translates directly into this thing called 'POWER', which the noble democrat uses exclusively to ensure that, in all cases without any exception, it will always be his own personal viewpoint gets enshrined into law, and not that of anybody else.

[Note: Borg repeatedly stresses how very, very important this detail really is, as the moment anybody else's viewpoint is given any form of credence or authority whatsoever, the system in question suddenly ceases to qualify as 'democracy', and becomes 'anarchy' instead].

And so, from the very earliest days of democracy right down to the present, the great question has always been the same. How do you get people to genuinely believe that they are really calling the shots, when in actual fact you are the one taking all their decisions for them, and even then, only for your own exclusive benefit?

This brings us emphatically to...

Chapter Two: Elections and how to win them. Always...

Not to be confused with 'general erections' - which by land large tend to happen quite independently of anything associated with politics: even more so where Christian democrats are concerned - general elections are, unfortunately, a standard feature without which no modern democracy is complete.

This means that, unreasonable though it undeniably appears, you do occasionally have to submit your rule to the indignity of popular approval. No, folks, I am afraid there really are no two ways about it. You just can't have this thing called 'democracy' without elections (unless you happen to be Greek or Italian, but let's keep things simple for the time being.)

The good news, however, is that there are a number of tried and tested methods that literally guarantee electoral victory for your party every single time. The even better news is that Libyans are already quite familiar with the basics, and should therefore have no real problems applying them to their own national context.

The first step is to discover exactly who votes for whom, and why. To this end, you will need something called an 'Electoral Office'... not to mention a number of volunteers, spread out across the entire country, willing to act as 'street leaders'.

Their primary role is to spy on their neighbours and find out what it is they're complaining about, their like and dislikes, and -wherever possible - their greatest fears (this comes in handy in the rare instances where simple persuasions fails, and blackmail becomes necessary).

Hence the good news: in a country where (under Gaddafi, at any rate) the secret police allegedly accounted for no fewer than one in three citizens, it should really be no big deal to recruit the numbers necessary for this task... which brings us to the second step, which is to eliminate as many as possible of the voters you have identified as 'likely to vote for the opposition'.

What? Oh, no, not exactly in the sense you're probably thinking. I'm afraid the good old-fashioned 'Jeremy Clarkson' method - i.e, dragging them out of their homes and shooting them dead in front of their families - is no longer acceptable once you start calling yourself 'democratic' (though of course, it's perfectly OK if you call yourself 'Jeremy Clarkson' instead).

Never fear, however. There are cleaner and less immediately bloody ways of preventing people from voting for any party but your own: for instance, by simply striking them off the electoral register. To achieve this aim, you will need the services of an amenable Electoral Commissioner - which shouldn't be hard to find, seeing as how the Maltese model of democracy has always allowed governments to simply appoint whoever they like to any public office, without so much as having to turn to parliament for approval. (Note: In other, less advanced democracies, parliamentary approval - possibly even a public grilling - is considered necessary for public appointments of this nature. Mind you, this shouldn't prove very problematic either, so long you create the necessary method to always ensure an absolute parliamentary majority for your own party: for instance, a nice little Constitutional mechanism which simply supplies your party with the number of parliamentary seats you need to form a government... instead of going through the hassle of actually winning a parliamentary majority on your own merits...)

Meanwhile, thanks to your network of neighbourhood spies... sorry, I meant 'voluntary street leaders', you will by now have identified all those voters who may be tempted to vote for the opposition party. All that remains is to write to the Electoral Commissioner, objecting to their eligibility to vote in the coming election, and justifying your reasons on any of the following grounds:

Ø  They are more than 70 years old, which automatically means that they are senile and therefore unable to freely and responsibly take any decisions of their own (this, by the way, being the method favoured above all by parties that cherish 'family values', and boast about their 'Catholic roots');

Ø  They have a history of alcoholism/drug abuse/mental illness in the family - anything from dyslexia to chronic migraine will suffice;

Ø  They have been abroad at any point in the past 12 years.

Note: it is possible - though unlikely - that a few of the several hundred thousand voters you try to disenfranchise on the above grounds may conceivably fight for their rights in court. Yes, I am afraid democracy does tend to make people a little unreasonable in that regard. But I wouldn't worry about it too much: for one thing, in modern democracies like Malta, governments not only get to appoint whomsoever they like as magistrates at any given time; but they also choose which of their own chosen magistrates will go on to be promoted to judges... a combination of facts which sort of has its uses, as I'm sure you'll all agree.

Besides, if 'proof' of mental infirmity/alcoholism/drug abuse, etc., is actually requested - again, an unlikely eventuality, seeing as you have to be barking mad to even think about taking the party in government to court, let alone actually do it - such 'proof' can always be drummed up at very short notice by means of a cursory glance through the individual's medical, criminal and other such 'confidential' records... all of which can very easily be made available through the complex network of information sharing that you will eventually have to develop... and which is described in some detail in Chapter 12 (though for the time being, page 8 and 9 of this paper should suffice).

Oh, and in case you were remotely worried about the legality of accessing such documents... well, don't be daft. The whole point of being democratically elected to govern is that you get to draw up the country's laws yourself, and amend them however you choose, whenever you choose... if necessary, by means of a simple legal notice, thus bypassing Parliament altogether.

Chapter 4: The media and how to make them sing for their supper

At this point, you may well be asking yourself what difference, if any, exists between the system you have just rebelled against, and the one with which you have just replaced it. The answer, of course, lies entirely in those elusive and much-misunderstood words: the 'Free Press', which can be loosely defined as all those media (TV, newspapers, radio... stuff like that) which can 'freely' be 'pressed' to see things your way, and no one else's; and of course to make sure everyone else sees things the same way.

One surefire way of achieving this aim is simply to control all such media yourself: owning private stations helps, especially if you simultaneously also get to enjoy full control of the State broadcaster. Ignoring any legal obligation for, say, 'impartiality' is another simple way of doing things; a less direct but equally effective method is to simply plant journalists of your choice in the 'independent' media (note: for maximum effect, don't forget to always accuse your political opponents of doing exactly the same thing... you know, just to add to the fun).

But to truly ensure that the 'free press' freely presses your point home, and no one else's... well, experience shows that the most effective way by far is also the most expensive.

Yes, indeed. 'Free press', my ass. All those retainers you constantly have to feed them with, your so-called 'independent' columnists, bloggers and so on... they never get enough, do they? But still, it's worth it in the long run. Once you have the most influential opinion formers depending on your generosity for their very survival, well, you will find you no longer even need to remind them of the precise words and music you have arranged for them to sing. And the best part of it all is that - who cares how expensive it is, anyway? It's not your money that goes towards financing their retainers and associated perks... oh, no! It's the taxpayer who always foots the bill. That's right, folks: the selfsame, long-suffering taxpayer who is supposed to be at the heart of the entire concept of democracy... but whose sole purpose in life is really to finance the entire operations that keeps YOU, and no one else, in power... while never uttering so much as a single, solitary whisper of complaint.

And that fool Gaddafi actually thought he was in power in Libya until last February? The fool! He didn't even know what the word meant...