Neither Fish nor Flesh

 

I once viewed Alternattiva as a sign of hope. About 15 years since their founding, however, I have long since had to write them off as a failed experiment. All the years of hard work by some rather talented people have not brought them even close to electing a single MP and have resulted in the realization of very few, if any, of their actual political goals. This is quite an impressive failure when one considers that many of their original causes, at least, have the wind of history in their sails, and when one considers the ideological bankruptcy and the practical incompetence of the two major parties. I believe that there is one rather obvious reason why this has happened, and this is lack of focus.

With its very limited resources, Alternattiva should have decided early on what its main raison d'etre is. (1) Is it to break the PN-MLP duopoly and give Malta a true multi-party democracy? (2) Is it to achieve certain environmental goals (control of hunting and of the destruction of Malta's countryside)? (3) Is it to give a voice to fashionable and well-heeled young people who may have left-wing sympathies but disdain the MLP? (4) Is it to achieve a more secular and liberal regime in the field of personal freedoms (the issue of divorce, for example)?

If the goal is (1) then the ideal strategy should have been to target almost exclusively the more sophisticated section of the PN electorate located in Sliema and its suburbs (which I believe is the only significant part of the Maltese electorate that is ready to abandon the traditional parties). The best vehicle for doing this would have been a party that reflects this part of the electorate, i.e. a centre-right pro-business and somewhat libertarian party on the lines of Germany's Free Democrats. A green party just doesn't do the trick here. The only hope is if the major parties miraculously agree on a new electoral law that may ultimately lead to their own decline. Fingers crossed.

If the goal is (2) then one might question the wisdom of contesting elections at all. An active and 'above-parties' pressure group that could have nurtured its influence over the electorate and used it to persuade the political parties to adopt its programme would probably have achieved better results. It might be argued that by contesting general elections without any serious hope of electing any MPs, Alternattiva is simply taking committed environmentalists out of the equation as far as first preference votes are concerned. The Hunters' lobby has not made the same mistake.

If the goal is (3) then this could have been achieved with much less effort and without having to contest elections at all. Maybe efforts and resources would have been better spent on the publication of a left-wing newspaper of the Monde Diplomatique type, for example.

If the goal is (4) then this would probably have been better achieved by following strategies (1) or (2).

Tribute to Luca Coscioni

 

The life of Luca Coscioni, president of the Italian Radicals and an indomitable defender of scientific freedom, ended yesterday. In the context of an Italian political landscape dominated by extremists and nostalgics of all hues, Coscioni was a lone voice of reason. He is irreplaceable but those whom he touched and inspired will carry on his struggle.

The European Parliament blocks European Integration

 

With its considerable powers under the EU's existing treaties, the European Parliament is in a position to play a leading role in Europe's transformation into "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world". And being itself the product of Europe's integration process, it has a golden opportunity to contribute to this same process by facilitating the Commission's efforts to complete the EU's 'internal market'. It is clearly not doing this.

After twice rejecting Commission proposals for the liberalization of port services the Parliament has now produced a compromise that has rendered the so-called Bolkestein directive toothless. Both of these decisions were detrimental to the interests of Malta: a small and open economy dependent on trade and capable of undercutting its wealthier neighbours on the basis of cost. But they were also highly detrimental to the interests of Europe as a whole. As this week's Economist points out, the reason for much of the productivity gap with the United States is to be found in services.

Our own MEPs, particularly those elected on the Nationalist Party ticket, have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why they sacrificed the general interest for that of the privileged few in the case of the port services directive. In the case of the services directive, all five supported the compromise text, which is something of a small mercy. Alternattiva, for their part, decided to go along with their rather more extreme continental cousins and opposed even this.

Nikol Cauchi weighs in

 

In an article on Wednesday's Times, the good Bishop (Emeritus) has let us know that, while violent protest should be condemned, "(it) should not be forgotten that provocation is unethical and the people who commit this misdeed should be held responsible for the consequences that ensue."

No doubt, he would therefore agree that the church itself should be held responsible for the sacking of the Archbishop's Curia, for example. It had, after all, provoked the anger of the workers' aristocracy through non-compliance with the demands of the government of the day.

For more on this subject, one could do worse than read Daphne's article in last Sunday's Malta Independent.

Good News and Bad News

 

Two articles on yesterday's Times of Malta inform us that (1) Malta has seen the highest rise in tax revenues as percentage of GDP among all EU member states and (2) that the government will be carrying out a review of its taxation policy if its financial targets are met this year. So far, this government has raised the tax burden without significantly raising taxes on labour and investment (while raising those on consumption and on activities that damage the environment). This (the choice of which specific taxes were raised not the fact that the overall tax burden was raised) has been one of the few important things that this government has got right so far. Let us hope that the review, if it comes, will lead to a reduction in income tax, particularly in the top band which, at 35% is still far too high. It must be remembered that this is the marginal tax rate for most workers and investors. So many of the additional economic activities that they undertake will be taxed at this rate. A policy of cutting the top rate of corporate and personal income tax has paid rich dividends for many of the EU's newest member states and it might help us break out of our current economic stagnation. It is sheer folly to punish people for undertaking those activities that you want to encourage for the sake of the economy's long-term health.

European Solidarity

 

I must admit that one of the reasons why I supported Malta's EU membership was the boost it would give to Malta's security - in relation to both external and homegrown threats. The economic reasons for joining were always rather feeble, as most of the benefits of membership (with the exception of structural funds, which in our case will not be there for very long) could easily have been achieved by joining EFTA and the EEA for example. Even greater benefits could have been achieved by aggressively pursuing a free-trade policy in acknowledgement of the fact that barriers to trade are the height of folly for an economy as tiny as ours. This will not be possible now that trade policy is no longer within our government's competence and when our partners appear to be moving towards isolationism and protectionism.

The failure of the EU to show any solidarity whatsoever with Denmark, during a difficult time has convinced me that I might have been wrong to expect the EU to enhance our external security in any significant way. It is quite apparent that an EU member state may be bullied by a number of third countries without receiving any support whatsoever from the EU or the other member states. This should be kept in mind by our policy-makers.

In the meantime, some well-meaning representative of the European Movement in Malta took the time to warn us in yesterday's Sunday Times that when people exercise the right to free speech they do so 'at their peril' if they happen to annoy someone else by what they say. We are, thankfully, allowed to say anything we like as long as we annoy and criticize no-one and, of course, as long as we do not 'shock or alarm public opinion' :)

The Morality Police

 

Last Saturday's Times contained this interesting letter reminding readers of Malta's own Catholic fundamentalist past. It is quite possible that in future this part of our history will repeat itself, this time with the leading role being played by imported ideologies. But these are pleasures yet to come. In the meantime, we have to make do with Tonio Borg ...

Freedom of Speech

 

Much has been written over the past days about the limits of free speech. It has often been stated that this limit is crossed whenever other people's sentiments, religious or otherwise, are offended.

This is certainly not the definition of free speech that exists and should continue to exist in Western societies. A man's freedom ends only where that of the next man begins. No one has the right to threaten or defame others, for example. Our legal systems provide sufficient remedies for both individuals and the community to combat such abuse. Anything which does not harm others - but simply annoys them because they do not agree with it or because it appears to them to be disrespectful to some higher being or concept - has to be tolerated anyway. Of course, it works both ways. Those who annoy others may be annoyed or (peacefully) protested against in their turn - but not to the point that their own rights are compromised. In other words, no one has the right to harm them or threaten them with harm. The simple truth is that no other system of rights and duties (or freedoms and their limits) is compatible with a free and open society. Any other system could allow the strong and powerful to arbitrarily establish what others can or cannot say or do. And the powerful may not only be governments but any other group or individual that is willing and able to threaten and use violence.

It should - after the events of the last weeks - be patently obvious that this fundamental concept is not yet shared by most Muslims but also by many others within Western society itself. While we cannot impose freedom on others, we should likewise allow no one to threaten such a fundamental pillar of our own way of life.

In the longer term, we would be well advised to invest in educating those beyond our cultural borders of the way our system works - not in order to convert them to it but simply in order to be able to coexist with them. The United States has a deliberate strategy in this regard, with radio and tv stations that explain its way of life and (more controversially) promote it. The European Union would be well-advised to do the same, albeit in a more subtle fashion. This is not a task that individual European governments have the resources or the will to carry out by themselves.

A liberal blog ...

 

This blog intends to offer a liberal/libertarian view on current political, social and economic issues - particularly those relating to Malta. As I am also a keen nature-lover and a believer in animal as well as human rights, you may expect occasional comments on environmental and related matters. But above all, the recurrent theme of my musings will be Malta itself and, indeed, a 'certain idea of Malta'.

Anonymity will, regrettably, be necessary for the foreseeable future due to the nature of my work.