Pietru Caxaru - Musings of a Maltese Libertarian Ayatollah

Interesting times

2007-03-09T14:46:00.000+01:00

As always, these are interesting times for Malta. Tomorrow the country will go to the polls for what may be the last round of local elections before the general election. If tomorrow's result will be in line with the past few local election results then there will be little that the Nationalist Party can do to turn the tables on Labour in the short time remaining. In that case, the almost uninterrupted 'ventennio' of the Nationalists is about to come to an end, although I doubt if this would lead to radical changes within the party itself, as there is no real immediate alternative to the party's current leadership, at least within the party's parliamentary group. If, on the other hand, the Nationalists' slide is arrested or partially reversed then we may be about to witness the end of the Alfred Sant era in the Labour Party. Either way, the coming months will see a very significant change in our seemingly static political system. Tomorrow's result might well give us a preview of how it's going to go. The only pity, from my perspective, is that I won't be able to follow it too closely as I'll be on my travels. I'll be back with my comments on this and other issues in a couple of weeks' time.

The Times, Xarabank and Statistics

2007-02-25T00:22:00.000+01:00

The headline of an article by Herman Grech in the Times of Saturday 24th February tells us that, according to the latest Xarabank survey 'Labour [would] win if election is held today'. Then it proceeds to inform us that the sample on which this conclusion was based consisted of individuals who in the last election voted predominantly for Labour (at least those of them who had voted in 2003 or who chose to answer the question). Leaving aside the obvious fact that there is a problem with the sample (which grossly understates the PN's vote and overstates those of both Labour and Alternattiva), one may simply note that, when those who did not express a clear voting intention are left out of the calculation, the situation would have changed from MLP 53% PN 45.5% AD 1.5% in 2003 (in the real world: MLP 47.51% PN 51.79% AD 0.68%) to MLP 54.5% PN 43.02% AD 2.45%. This is not a huge change from this sample's 2003 performance, and would mean that the two parties are virtually neck and neck (while Alternattiva will not go far beyond the 1% mark).

Now, I don't know who will win the next general election, although I have always more or less assumed that Labour are in pole position. This survey would suggest that the race is more open than I had thought. Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that a survey that screws up its sample this badly should be given too much weight (the next round of local council elections should give us a clearer indication, I think). Nor, I must say, did the Times cover itself with glory with its interpretation.

Italian for Beginners

2007-02-22T21:32:00.000+01:00

I have often written about what I believe to be the disadvantages of having more than two political parties represented in Parliament. In particular, here I had written that:

It could be argued that a two-coalition system can achieve [the moderation of the political debate] just as well as a two-party system. I believe it can do so only to the extent that the coalitions behave like parties (as the Conservative-Liberal Unionist coalition of the late 19th and early 20th centuries did in the UK). Seconda Repubblica style coalitions are unstable and tend to lead to situations where the tail wags the dog. The very fact that extremist parties of all hues end up being incorporated and legitimized is, I think, a bad thing in itself. It would be much better, in my humble opinion, if their voters are recruited by the moderate parties, who would take whatever legitimate interests they may have into account in order to acquire and keep their support.

I think that what's happening right now in Italy bears this out. But I also think that the source of Italy's current crisis is not just the extremists. The Prodi government was also betrayed by centrist life senators, some of whom may be interested in a new centrist coalition or in a centre-left coalition that excludes the Communists and the Greens. Whatever the merits of these options, they are not what the electorate voted for. For example, those who voted for the UDC did so because they thought that that party was the Christian-Democratic component of the centre-right coalition. Should UDC join any other coalition during this legislature it would essentially be betraying its voters' trust.

Those who wish to introduce full proportional representation in Malta in the hope that this would lead to the entry of Alternattiva (and possibly other small parties) in Parliament and to the splintering of the main parties would do well to take note of what's happening a few kilometres north of our shores.

Our House of Lords

2007-02-16T16:20:00.000+01:00

Today's Times reports that the Shipyards, the abode of our Workers' Aristocracy, are estimated to have lost another Lm 8.8 million (app. €20 million or about 15% of our budget deficit) last year, all of which will have to be coughed up by the public.

I sometimes wonder whether it wouldn't be actually cheaper to set them up as a real aristocracy and just pay them to stay at home. If the current restructuring process doesn't make the company viable by next year (as planned) then that's probably what it will come down to.

Before it's put out of its misery, though, maybe somebody should invite Hugo Chavez for a visit. It certainly did leave a strong impression on Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew when he visited in 1967:

I was determined that our attitude to British aid, indeed any aid, would be the opposite of Malta's. When I visited Malta in 1967 to see how it had sorted out its problems after the rundown of the British forces, I was astounded. The Suez Canal had been closed as a result of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War three months earlier, in June. Ships were no longer going through the canal, hence the dockyard in Malta was closed, but dockyard workers on full pay were playing water polo in the dry dock which they had filled with water! I was shaken by their aid dependency, banking on continuing charity from the British. The British had given fairly generous redundancy payments, including five weeks' salary for each year of service, and had also covered the cost of three months' retraining in Maltese government institutions. This nurtured a sense of dependency not self-reliance.

From Third World to First (2000), p. 52.

It seems they like omelette

2007-02-15T17:01:00.000+01:00

As if the police hadn't made themselves look sufficiently stupid already, they have now appealed Magistrate Mizzi's decision acquitting the 31 foreign lap-dancers.

I'd love to know what goes on in these people's brains, if they have any. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but all this enthusiasm in the pursuit of a case that clearly has no merit and has already cost their credibility (and the public purse) dearly strikes me as rather odd. In a small country like Malta where everyone knows everyone else and where conflicts of interest are the norm, it is not seemly for the authorities to fail to provide adequate public justification for decisions that have consequences on the marketplace (in this case the entertainment industry of the Paceville/St. Julians area).

Egg on their faces

2007-02-14T17:22:00.000+01:00

The local morality police have suffered a rather humiliating reverse with this eminently sensible decision by Magistrate Antonio Mizzi.

On 23rd January I had expressed my amazament at the fact that the police had got into this in the first place. Is it possible that after so many decades as an independent nation we have not understood the basic distinction between church and state and between sin and crime?

I do hope that a full explanation will be given to the taxpayer as to why scarce resources were wasted in a silly attempt at preventing people from enjoying their basic personal freedoms.

Remembrance of Horrors Past

2007-02-12T21:35:00.000+01:00

The news that Brigitte Mohnhaupt, a senior (and unrepentant) member of the notorious and brutal Baader-Meinhof gang ('officially' known as the Red Army Faction), is to walk free after serving only a fraction of her five 'life' sentences for multiple murders, does not surprise me. However, it does bring back memories of the 1970s and early 1980s. Although I was a child, I still remember Baader-Meinhof's equally brutal Italian counterparts, the Brigate Rosse, and their kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro. The war against this cancer was won, but certainly not thanks to some on the left who claimed that they were 'neither with the state nor with the Red Brigades'. Incidentally, what's left of the Brigades appear to have just been prevented from carrying out another attack, this time against former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

On a different but related note, another excellent article by Michael Falzon in yesterday's Sunday Times discusses the more ordinary type of criminality (but which is no less harmful to its victims). As is often the case, I agree with almost everything he says, except that he seems to deny that the sentences being given by the Courts are too lenient. I think anyone who regularly reads a Maltese newspaper would have noticed that most, though not all, judges regularly mete out ridiculously light sentences. Bail is also often given to the most unlikely of defendants, including one who was accused of savagely murdering the mother of his child. All questions of justice aside, I don't think this is very respectful of the right of innocent citizens to live in their homes without fear.

The Electoral System - (third and final part)

2007-02-06T14:02:00.000+01:00

So, finally, to the question: are there, in fact, any political groups that could break the 'duopoly'?

1. Alternattiva: very unlikely. Alternattiva can't decide on what sort of party it wants to be. In order to force its way into Parliament it will have to establish itself as a local phenomenon in some part of the island. I don't think that a party that's socially liberal, supports a soft line on illegal immigration and leans to the left economically will do the trick in Gozo. It won't do the trick in the tenth district either. They're too far to the left, and with very few exceptions their candidates are not the type of people that either Gozitans or the English-speaking middle class identify with. If they're determined to continue being a political party they will have to acquire a new identity and shift to the right, or at least the centre, and become truly local in the areas they've chosen. The dreams about getting 2000 first preference votes and another 1000 plus net lower preference votes are just another way of saying that they need to get the support of around 14% in a given district. Since most of these electors would presumably have to come from the ranks of the Nationalist Party (which has a very large majority in the 10th and a very significant one in the 13th - and whose voters are considered more independent), it would mean siphoning off 20-25% of the Nationalist vote in that party's heartland.

2. Josie Muscat: a one-man-show. His Grupp Indipendenti Marsaskala did get just over 15% of first preference votes in the last round of Local Elections, and he took one of the PN's three seats. He's obviously also strong in Zabbar. Even if he manages to reclaim his old seat, which is unlikely, this would not amount to a serious challenge to the 'duopoly'. It would just be a personal comeback by a former senior Nationalist politician.

3. The fringe movements (other than Alternattiva): impossible (thank Heavens!). By definition, extreme-left and extreme-right groups are never going to become national parties. Fortunately, they do not have a strong local presence either. They can be pressure groups at best.

4. Big-party splinter groups: unlikely, unless there is a traumatic event in the Labour Party, such as another electoral defeat and another particularly acrimonious leadership battle. A serious split in the MLP might, under certain circumstances, lead to a multi-party system for some years. As in the past, this would probably be a temporary phenomenon, although at the end of the day it might give us a better two-party system than the one we have now.

5. A party of the well-to-do: technically possible, but probably won't happen. As Daphne pointed out in her opinion-piece last week (see also Jacques), there is an increasing split between the English-speaking middle class, with its generally liberal outlook, and the more traditional segments of the population. The English-speaking middle class is also concentrated in a couple of contiguous districts, where it constitutes the vast majority of the population. A party on the lines of Germany's Free Democrats could, under the right circumstances, elect MPs in the 10th district and then cooperate with the Nationalists in Parliament. This becomes less unlikely the more the Nationalist Party alienates this important segment of its electorate. The religious conservatism of the current leadership weakens the Party there, but a poor showing in the next general election would probably force it to rethink its policies in order to win these voters back. If, for some reason, it cannot do so, then a more flexible arrangement might become appropriate. I don't think it will come to this for the simple reason that the Nationalist leadership has not yet lost its mind, although it might have lost its common sense.

The Electoral System - II

2007-02-03T18:42:00.000+01:00

Last Saturday I posted my first in a series of three posts on the electoral system. I claimed that the two-party system we have in Malta is as much a product of our political history (particularly the post-war Labour Party's size and orientation) as of the electoral system itself (which does not exclude third parties but makes it difficult for them to break in, and hastens their exit when they're in decline. Fausto made an interesting comment about the system actually encouraging splits, which I think it does, although only under certain conditions and not to the same extent that a pure PR system would.

Another part of Fausto's comment leads me to today's subject:

It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the direction of causality, but I think it is significant that in British political system the two main parties resembled each other the most in the 1950s (at the time of "Butskellism") when the two party system was then at its height.

Now, I am no great admirer of 'Butskellism' as such. However, I'm a great admirer of political moderation (which is what Butskellism was at that time), and I believe that this is what a two-party system delivers. To be electable, the two parties will have to stick to the centre-ground (whatever that may be at that particular point in time). Presenting a radical programme will mean almost certain defeat, although parties may still do it when they think they have a superiour idea that will triumph in the longer term. If it continues to lose them elections, however, they will eventually be forced to abandon it.

It could be argued that a two-coalition system can achieve this just as well as a two-party system. I believe it can do so only to the extent that the coalitions behave like parties (as the Conservative-Liberal Unionist coalition of the late 19th and early 20th centuries did in the UK). Seconda Repubblica style coalitions are unstable and tend to lead to situations where the tail wags the dog. The very fact that extremist parties of all hues end up being incorporated and legitimized is, I think, a bad thing in itself. It would be much better, in my humble opinion, if their voters are recruited by the moderate parties, who would take whatever legitimate interests they may have into account in order to acquire and keep their support.

I think that the arguments against a pure PR system, in particular, are extremely strong. Such a system does not guarantee that electors will have a genuine choice between potential governments. They would be able to affect the performance of individual parties but the formation of a government would be in the hands of coalition-brokers. In many cases, the result is that most governments include the same centrist party (or two) plus one or more of the others. Combined with a party-list system (as it often is) the result is that the electors can choose neither their individual represenatives nor their government.

A pure first-past-the-post sytem, while having lots of advantages, does not offer the electorate the same freedom in choosing their individual representatives that our STV system does. In our system, the parties don't just present you with one candidate, take it or leave it. Moreover, there are no real 'safe seats' even if you're running in one of your party's strongholds, because you can always be defeated by a rival from your own party. Indeed, on an individual candidate level the competition in our elections is between candidates from the same party. An added advantage is that, rather than wasting their last few votes, the electors of the other party can also have a small say in choosing the last of the other party's successful candidates, as I pointed out here. In other words, your vote counts, as it should.

Nor, as I argued last Saturday, does the system exclude third parties. If the electorate wants one badly enough, it can always get it, even through second and lower preferences (although this would normally require explicit cooperation between parties). Indeed, I view this as the only possible chink in the system's armour. I would be much happier if there were a threshold (say 7-10%) for a party to have representatives in Parliament, even if they can elect candidates from the individual districts. This would not lock out genuinely popular movements but would keep the fringe where it belongs.

Indeed, for all its faults, I think that our system is one of the best of those I have studied. This may not exactly have come about by design, but it is so nevertheless. I believe that the poor quality of our politicians may be attributable not to the system itself but to the fact that we're probably not the most sophisticated group of electors on the planet.

Of Headless Chickens

2007-02-01T18:12:00.000+01:00

One of our MEPs, David Casa, wrote an interesting piece on 25th January which I hadn't read until my attention was drawn to it by a letter in yesterday's Times by Karm Farrugia, who appears to find the two following points ridiculous:

1. "Despite the fact that people are living longer due to amelioration in our lives, fewer children are being born".
2. "As history has shown, there has never been economic growth without a growth in population."

While those points could have been phrased a little bit more accurately, I find that they do reflect two important realities:

1. While our total population figures appear to be stable (and are even growing slightly), this is mainly due to the fact that people are living longer. It does not change the fact that birth rates are falling rapidly. It will take some decades until this is reflected fully in terms of bottom-line population figures. For the next few years it will take the relatively harmless form of a higher average age. Still, the fact that a headless chicken continues to run doesn't mean that it's heading for a long and healthy life.

2. A serious demographic crunch would obviously have economic consequences - in terms of loss of economies of scale, among other things. This would interfere with our standard of living, even after the 'aging population' phase is over. I doubt if serious growth in GDP per capita could take place while the economy is contracting in absolute terms. And the potential economic consequences are, in my humble opinion, almost insignificant in comparison to the political ones.

So while Carm Farrugia has every right to amuse himself, and while David Casa's articles could do with some improvement, nothing changes the fact that we have a serious problem to address. The Government has already taken some feeble steps in the right direction but I doubt whether these alone will make any impression on the problem.

The Joys of Multiculturalism

2007-01-29T22:00:00.001+01:00

For a number of years now, it has been apparent that 'multiculturalism', like most policies that do not take reality into account, simply does not work. If any further proof of this was needed, a new survey published by Policy Exchange has shown that young Muslims are even less integrated than their parents and are actually becoming increasingly hostile to the civilization that has welcomed them in its midst.

The basic premise of multiculturalism is that cultures, if allowed to live separately within the same society, will necessarily respect each other. Unfortunately, this depends on cultures concerned. If they happen to be very tolerant then it may just work. If one of them happens not to be then it won't. Moreover, the heroic attempt at getting whole cultures accepted into a host society means that the individuals concerned can only be accepted if the whole experiment works. If it fails, as it almost always does, then these individuals have to pay the price too, in terms of remaining strangers in their adoptive country. The almost inevitable result of this trauma is political extremism - sometimes fascism - particularly when this is easily available as a component of the culture of the countries of origin.

The Electoral System

2007-01-27T17:06:00.000+01:00

The electoral laws, like those relating to marriage and rent, keep cropping up in the local political debate from time to time, even though significant developments usually occur only about once a decade.

With the recent agreement between the main political parties regarding the the electoral laws, and the talk about Josie Muscat being about to launch a new political party, the issue of what political system will work best in Malta has returned to the fore (see, for example, Fausto's posts here and here and this week's article in The Times by Alternattiva's Secretary-General) and I'd like to give my 2-cents' worth on the subject at greater 'length' than I have done already here on this blog.

In this post I'll start with what I view to be the basic origin of the 2-party system (basically why a semi-PR system is functioning like a first-past-the-post system), and then in later posts I plan to compare the electoral system with the possible alternatives and finally to give my views on the actual actors.

In Malta's case, the two-party system developed as a result of two basic facts. The first was the electoral system, which could actually handle three or four sizeable parties (or small regional ones). The small size of the island and the absence of strong regional identities (outside Gozo, which is after all, only one district) has meant that only sizeable national parties could survive in the longer term. As for national parties, while the system could indeed handle more than two, it nevertheless creates a virtually insurmountable barrier to entry for new parties and ensures a quick exit for parties in decline. With the exception of pre-WWII Labour, most successful third parties since 1921 have either been regional (the Gozo Party, the Jones Party and, to some extent, the Partito Democratico Nazionalista of 1921), or else splits from, or remnants of, the main parties (the MWP, the PĦN, Ganado's PDN and Mabel Strickland's PCP). The DAP are the only exceptions and they existed only briefly during the early post-war years, when the parties of the former 'semi-duopoly', the PN and the CP had been temporarily knocked out by World War II and the death of Lord Strickland respectively.

The second, and more important, reason for the present situation was the Labour Party. Until WWII, the system had not resulted in a clear 2-party system. However, with the extension of the franchise, the creation of the GWU and the sudden disappearance of the Constitutionals, the Labour Party became far stronger than all the other parties combined. Their natural support remained in the region of 55-60% well into the 1950s. Following Mintoff's take-over, the party also moved further to the left than it had ever been before and at that stage was having difficulty tolerating other points of view on the island. So, the perceived issue for non-Labourites for the next 40 years (at least) became how to avoid a one-party system. Fine distinctions between two-party and multi-party systems were not foremost in people's minds. The PN grew gradually to become the mass party it is today only in response to the Labour Party's strength. Indeed, I have no doubt that were the Labour Party to disappear tomorrow, the Nationalist Party would find it extremely difficult to hold itself together.

If the two parties appear to resemble each other, it is mainly because one of them exists to counterbalance the other. The system is a duopoly in a technical sense but I feel that the label 'MLPN' is misleading if it is taken to mean that the two parties habitually act in concert or are 'one party masquerading as two' as a friend of mine once put it. It is, on the contrary, an intensely competitive duopoly and one in which only one of the competitors has a truly independent existence as a mass party.

Separation between Church and State II

2007-01-23T23:55:00.000+01:00

On the same subject, I must say that I'm quite baffled as to why the police are pursuing this silly case.

It appears that while they are unable or unwilling to protect honest citizens from crime, they are more than eager to protect them from temptation.

Separation between Church and State I

2007-01-23T21:14:00.000+01:00

I have so far been trying to resist joining the debate on divorce, which has recently returned to the fore in the local political debate, but today I read a letter on The Times by a Mr. John Ghigo that makes what I believe to be a very valid point, and one which I agree with fully, and I've decided to reproduce it here:

I find it disappointing that many of those who declare themselves to be against the introduction of divorce base their arguments predominantly on their religious beliefs. It's a pity that many haven't yet realised that Malta is supposed to be a secular country, and that, therefore, our laws should not be based on, or influenced by, religious doctrine.
If divorce is eventually introduced, it would only apply to civil marriages, not Church marriages. Today, someone whose marriage has ended, and who seeks to build a new relationship, has no choice but to cohabit. If divorce is introduced, then this person would have the choice of either cohabiting or entering into a civil marriage with his or her new partner. If this person was originally also married by the rites of the Catholic Church, then in both situations he or she would still be considered by the Church as being married to his or her original partner, unless the Ecclesiastical Tribunal declares the original Church marriage to be null. Divorce wouldn't change anything in this respect.
Although, of course, everyone is free to express his or her opinion, I think that any religious argument on the issue of divorce is irrelevant, and only serves to blur the dividing line separating the roles that religion and politics should play in our lives.

I admit that it has always been something of a mystery for me why the Church in Malta exerts so much effort to defend the 'sanctity' of civil marriage. As far as I know civil marriages as such have no validity whatsoever in the eyes of the Church. Moreover, those who will seek divorce in order to remarry are by definition not observant Catholics. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that the Church is interfering in the private affairs of those who have voluntarily left its fold, or who have never been in it in the first place.

One can, of course, argue against divorce on several 'secular' grounds (social, economic, psychological or whatever) and the Catholic anti-divorce lobby, and the Church itself, also occasionally make use of such arguments. However, it's not difficult to see that these arguments are for them secondary and that the real issue is a refusal to accept the separation between church and state.

Having said that, it seems that the position of the new Archbishop is more respectful of the separation between spiritual and secular matters than was that of his predecessor.

Death-Spiral Demographics?

2007-01-19T14:24:00.000+01:00

Yesterday evening I took some time to pore over the National Statistics Office's Demographic Review for 2005, dated 17th January 2007. Most of this blog's readers would have already read the Times' report on the subject two days ago, which highlighted some facts from the document but provided little by way of analysis.

The Review is, of course, a goldmine of information and it certainly deserves a great deal more attention than it has received. For example, few have pointed out that the number of births we had in 2005, even if it were to remain stable in future (as a result of us somehow raising our total fertility rate to the replacement level, which is 2.1 per woman), would by itself still reduce the population by almost a quarter over the course of a single lifetime. If, however, the number of births were to continue declining by just under 1% per annum (which is fairly consistent with the present 1.37 total fertility rate and which is less than the 2% per annum decline experienced since the early 1990s) the population might be halved over the same period. The NSO's projections are consistent with this, although they stop at 2050, by which time the population of under 40s would have already fallen by around 41%. Were the fertility rate itself to decline any further, then even this figure could be optimistic. An extension of our life-expectancy beyond the present levels, and even the application of the existing life-expectancy to our present population, would on the other hand hide a big part of this decline for a while in terms of total population figures but would not change the basic underlying reality. In fact, in terms of the total population, the NSO's projected decline by 2050 is of 'only' 19% - or around 76,000 people.

Of course, demography is not destiny. The decline in the fertility rate may be reversed if the Government makes that a specific goal. This has happened already in Scandinavia, for example, where there has been a modest recovery and in France, where policies aimed at sustaining the birth rate have been in place for decades and have borne fruit. The US has sustained its birth rate mostly thanks to its growing Hispanic minority and to its higher level of prosperity rather than through any specific government programmes. I am, indeed, quite confident that our indigenous population will not, in fact, collapse during my lifetime or that of the next generation for the simple reason that at some point we'll probably wake up and develop a more family-friendly society. As with most problems, however, the later we leave it the harder it will be to solve.

People's Comissars

2007-01-17T18:25:00.000+01:00

One of the few common-sense libertarian voices on the media these days is former Minister Michael Falzon. Check out his refreshing article in today's Times about the Christian-Democratic tendency to create commissioners (and commissions) for everything under the sun.

The Maltese Property Market - and how not to make a bad situation worse

2007-01-16T14:36:00.000+01:00

Since the Church's Diocesan Commission for Justice and Peace issued a report (of variable quality) in which it expressed concern at the high level of property prices on the island, there have been a number of reactions, such as that of Lawrence Zammit last Friday and those of Dr. Karl Chircop, the GRTU and Albert Cilia-Vincenti, all of which appeared in today's Times, in addition to the same newspaper's editorial on the same subject. With the exception of Lawrence Zammit's article and to some extent of the Times editorial, most of the other reactions propose solutions that would do little good, and possibly much harm, if ever implemented. Dr. Chircop and the GRTU are essentially proposing that the Government should 'flood the market' by selling the valuable land it holds for nominal prices. Prof. Cilia-Vincenti, on the other hand, proposes a property tax.

I personally have no objection to asset taxes in general. I view a combination of asset taxes and consumption taxes to be much more rational than an income tax. I believe that they are also much more socially just (is it fair for a wealthy person who simply consumes a large inheritance without producing anything to avoid tax altogether while the hard-working middle class are punished for their efforts by heavy income taxes?). If, however, we're going to have asset taxes then I don't see why these should cover only one type of asset (i.e. real estate). This would simply distort the market, artificially driving those funds into alternatives like the stock market, overseas property or even artworks and luxury items. Besides, I simply don't see why I should be taxed on my house while those who are much richer are not taxed on their yachts, for example.

If we want to deal with a situation where a scarce resource is being misused then the key is to allow the market to squeeze out this inefficiency, and if anything to help it in this task, rather than to hinder it. To the extent that we need more properties, these should be built by utilizing existing urban land more efficiently, as is in fact being done with the conversion of terraced houses into apartment blocks. This will, in the medium term, lead to an easing of the upward pressure on prices. If the government further relaxes restrictions on building height in certain areas, this would accelerate and facilitate this process - leading to lower house prices for young families and easing the pressure on Malta's remaining countryside. The rent-laws and those concerning the joint inheritance of properties, are likewise more of a priority than the Government seems to think and probably not for the reasons that Harry Vassallo routinely mentions (that it would create a functioning rental market). The current system is simply preventing the more efficient use (in some cases meaning the redevelopment and sale) of those properties. The joint office and the government, rather than artificially slashing the prices of their land or continuing to build monstrosities on it, should sell it at commercial prices to the private sector which will make more efficient use of it for the simple reason that it would have paid dearly for it. If the church-state agreements do not allow for this, then they should be amended.

Nor should the Government continue to artificially fuel demand by providing subsidies to people with low incomes who wish to rent or buy a property. People in such situations should be assisted, of course (possibly via a negative income-tax rate, among other things) but that assistance should not be tied specifically to the purchase or rent of properties, otherwise it will simply be pocketed by those who are selling or renting out such properties, in the form of higher rents and prices.

Iran Learns about Reciprocity

2007-01-11T21:26:00.000+01:00

One thing I found somewhat amusing in today's news was the anger of the Iranian authorities at the takeover by the Americans of an Iranian 'consulate' in the north of Iraq and the arrest of the 'diplomats' manning it. The irony of the Iranians, of all people, defending the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises seems to have been lost on most commentators.

Having enjoyed their protection for most of my career, I have a healthy respect for the Vienna Convention and the related treaties and customs, and would normally object to any violations of them. However, the ultimate strength of international law, whether written or unwritten, derives from the principle of 'reciprocity'. States usually respect the obligations arising from the laws they are bound by for the simple reason that if they didn't they wouldn't be in a position to expect the other parties to respect those obligations in their own regard. Most international law students learn this on day one of their courses. Iran has just learned it today.

Those Smart Israelis ;-)

2007-01-11T00:06:00.000+01:00

A proposal for a negative income tax rate has been approved in the first reading by the Knesset. Last July, I had argued in favour of a similar system. I'll be following this closely ...

A Small Victory for Common Sense

2007-01-10T23:46:00.000+01:00

At least one of the many cases of the Maltese state seizing private property without due compensation has a happy ending. Most of the other victims have not been so fortunate.

Chavez Gets Serious

2007-01-10T22:04:00.000+01:00

Hugo Chavez has so far triumphed over all his adversaries. His domestic opposition has made one mistake after another and rendered itself almost irrelevant. The United States has failed completely in its attempts to isolate him and the high oil price has given him the resources with which to spread his influence far outside Venezuela's borders. The anti-american left worldwide reveres him.

Having just won his third presidential election in a row, Chavez now appears to have decided to go directly for a socialist state, which means that he may be facing his first truly formidable opponent - economic reality. Venezuela already has the dubious distinction of being below Cuba, Byelorus and Libya in the Heritage Foundation's economic freedom rankings. For all the country's oil wealth, it ranks 96th among the world's countries for GDP per capita at purchasing power parity, meaning that its citizens have a real annual income that is about a third of what a Maltese citizen can aspire to. This is not likely to improve during Chavez's third term in office, particularly if the pause in the rise of the oil price turns out to be something more serious than that.

Many questions but no answers

2007-01-09T11:01:00.000+01:00

Retired multilateral diplomat Michael Zammit Cutajar wrote a very stimulating article in yesterday's Times in reaction to a series of four articles by Martin Scicluna on illegal immigration and the Government's policy towards it. The article is stimulating because it consists mostly of (somewhat loaded) questions, the most important of which can be summarized as follows:

- What are the actual numbers of illegal immigrants in Malta?

- Has the present policy worked and has there, in fact, been a decline in public order as a result of the presence of these illegal immigrants?

- Are conditions in the centres adequate?

- 'What is the point of playing "tough" to the political gallery if an irregular immigrant who has served the full term and cannot be repatriated is allowed to stay anyway?'

I find these questions in their basic form to be very interesting and important. The last one, in particular, has always intrigued me. However, it does not take a genius, nor even a deconstructionist, to realize that the way Mr. Zammit Cutajar posts most of his 'questions' is a thinly veiled 'diplomatic' attack on the present policy. The 'intended' answers to his own questions are clear enough. Mr. Zammit Cutajar basically seems to feel that the threat is mostly imaginary and that we may dispense with most precautions. Maybe instead of being concerned about the future political implications of this phenomenon we should be grateful for its rather meagre and poorly distributed short-term economic benefits, as he seems to hint.

It is odd that Mr. Zammit Cutajar finds Mr. Scicluna's reference to 'threats to security, internal stability and public order' to be 'speculative and unconvincing' merely because they refer to possibilities which have not yet taken place. I assume that Mr. Zammit Cutajar is aware of the issues and problems arising in other European countries, where the phenomenon is in a more advanced stage. Does he believe that the situation in Malta is substantially different? If so, how?

I fear that very well-paid people who are trained to say 'the right thing' and achieve consensus are not always helpful where there are real problems to be understood and solved, rather than just resolutions to be passed.

A New History of the Mediterranean

2007-01-07T20:06:00.000+01:00

Today's Sunday Times reports on a Euro-Med Movement activity featuring former President and FM Guido de Marco, who was quoted as saying that:

The history of sharing and exchange that epitomises the Mediterranean as well as the proximity of nation states within it make the idea of a clash of civilisations not only outlandish but counterproductive.

If Prof. de Marco was referring to the Mediterranean world prior to the Muslim conquests of the 7th Century then this is not a completely misleading description. After that point, it simply does not fit what really took place, although trade did eventually recover and significant cultural exchanges did take place in certain areas and at certain points in time. The Mediterranean was in fact 'reunited' only in the 19th and early 20th centuries mainly as a result of the weakness of one side relative to the other. Relations are nevertheless not warm, and there is much truth in what Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington have written, although I'm personally more optimistic than they are.

Later on, he was described as saying that 'the conflict in the region is an abnormal state of affairs' and apparently he supported this by referring to the existence of Christian symbols (such as the Church of the Nativity) in the Holy Land. I would personally say that this is due to the simple fact that the Middle East and North Africa had been Christian prior to the Muslim conquest rather than to any specific history of cooperation between the two civilizations.

Needless to say, I sympathize with Prof. de Marco's intentions (and one must remember that he was speaking to very young people). There is, indeed, nothing I'd like more than to see the Mediterranean truly becoming an area of stability and prosperity. Nevertheless, it's difficult to imagine a prosperous and peaceful future being built on a misreading of the present and the past, however well-intentioned it may be. De Marco's interpretation of history might mislead people into thinking that creating peace and stability is going to be a piece of cake (after all, if our ancestors repeatedly got it right, why shouldn't we?). A new Mediterranean is indeed possible but it will be realists, not idealists, who will have to achieve it.

Harry, Nerik and the Single Transferable Vote

2007-01-05T21:51:00.000+01:00

One of my habitual reads on Fridays is Harry Vassallo's column in The Times. I must say that I am generally impressed neither by his attempts to belittle those who do not share his views nor by his grip on reality. It was the latter that was most clearly absent from his column today.

Apart from the rather pointless stuff about what Nerik Mizzi might say about his successors if he were to come back from the dead, there is also some rather questionable arithmetic and a good dose of wishful thinking. According to Harry Vassallo, around 2000 votes in one district would be enough for the Greens, or anyone else, to elect a candidate to Parliament (plus some lower preference votes from friends and family). I know of no candidate in recent elections that was elected with anything close to 2000 final count votes, although the fifth candidate to be elected is generally elected with less than a full quota. Dr. Vassallo should have pointed out that, in order for the candidate to be elected, over a thousand additional votes would have to be siphoned off the other parties in subsequent counts, net of any losses in the other direction. In past elections, the opposite has tended to happen, as Alternattiva's electorate tends to be much less 'disciplined' than that of the mainstream parties.

Harry Vassallo blames the electoral system for his party's stunted growth. I think the primary blame lies with the party's own failure to focus its energies on attainable and useful objectives. And, incidentally, I doubt whether Vassallo would welcome the election to Parliament of candidates from the right-wing movements, which have a potential electorate at least as large as that of Alternattiva and would probably also make it to Parliament with a system based on pure proportional representation. For all their defects, the two main parties are nowadays at least moderate and democratic and present the electorate with alternative management teams for the country. A pure PR system might result in a situation where a significant change in the people's vote is reflected not in a change of government but in a tweaking of the ruling coalition. This is what happens in quite a number of European countries.

The electoral system agreed between the main parties avoids two other pitfalls. It is much less arbitrary than the first-past-the-post system, which can lead to situations such as that of the UK, where the Conservative Party currently has to outdistance Labour by about 10% of the popular vote in order to be sure of a parliamentary majority. It is also much more democratic than the continental PR system, which substitutes 'party lists' for our own single transferable vote, thus depriving the electorate of any real say in choosing the deputies themselves.

One of the assets of our system that have not been as yet fully exploited by the electorate is the possibility of expressing extremely nuanced and sophisticated preferences that might not be limited to one party. A rational voter, for example, would continue expressing preferences even after his own party's list is exhausted and even when all that remain are candidates of the 'opposing' party. For example, in some districts, it is quite possible for voters of one party to decide races between candidates of the other party in the last count, overturning the result in favour of more moderate or better qualified candidates. In 2003, there were three districts (4th, 5th and 7th) where Nationalist voters had this opportunity (and did not take it) and two districts (8th and 13th) where Labour voters could have chosen between the remaining Nationalist candidates, after having finished electing their own, and likewise did not do so.

An Italian and European Dilemma

2007-01-05T15:42:00.000+01:00

Interesting news from Italy regarding the issue of foreign financing for the entrenchment, propogation and radicalization of Islam in Europe. Italy's Interior Minister (and former Prime Minister) Guliano Amato, has expressed his concern about this phenomenon and mentions some possible solutions. A worthwhile read.

Doing Something about Somalia

2007-01-04T14:34:00.000+01:00

The events unfolding far away in Somalia might, at first sight, seem to be of little importance to our own country. Unfortunately, with Somalia being our single largest 'supplier' of illegal immigrants, we are likely to pay our fair share of the price for that country's disasters.

I hope and pray that the Maltese authorities are analyzing the situation in detail and will do their utmost to push the EU into playing an active role in helping bring stability to that country and in helping Kenya take as many refugees as possible.

Any arrangement that brings about some stability and allows Somalis to build better lives at home would be sufficient from Malta's point of view. Our limited resources, and our very limited political capital in Europe should be spent on goals such as this one, along with the equally-important issue of sea patrols, where our Foreign Ministry and the Government in general seem to be doing a good job in difficult circumstances. Fuzzier and less realistic goals, such as that of singlehandedly bringing about peace in the Middle East should be quietly shelved.

Alternattiva and the Environmentalist Vote

2007-01-02T15:47:00.000+01:00

Every time I read anything remotely connected to our local hunters, I think to myself what a pity it is that some of our most committed local environmentalists have unwittingly taken the decision to effectively remove themselves from the political equation, leaving no specific counterweight to the hunters' lobby, which may not be as strong as some may think it is, but is nevertheless still a force that mainstream politicians have to take into account.

The main parties make little effort to win over diehard Alternattiva voters for the simple reason that not even the greenest manifesto that they could produce would outgreen Alternattiva. The most that they could win from such voters, as long as Alternattiva is contesting elections, is their second preference (or subsequent preferences), which are of limited value under the existing electoral system and will be completely worthless for this purpose once the agreed changes to the electoral system come into effect. Moreover, it makes more sense for the major parties to take votes from each other, as such votes effectively count double in a two-horse race.

Alternattiva's recent response to its own predicament has been to try and entrench itself in one or two districts and they have chosen Gozo, of all places, as one of their main targets. I have already expressed my views regarding this strategy in a previous post, and I will not comment any further here. However, having made this choice, they should at least desist from contesting those districts where they are not seriously trying to win a seat. It would not harm them and it would at least allow a greater part of the core environmentalist vote to make its presence felt in the strategies of the two major parties.

Happy New Year

2007-01-01T19:08:00.000+01:00

My best wishes to you all for 2007!

Illegal Immigration in 2006

2006-12-31T12:55:00.000+01:00

Today's Sunday Times carries a brief but interesting summary of the situation with regard to refugees and illegal immigrants over the past year, which I am reproducing in full:

Twenty-eight illegal immigrants were granted refugee status in 2006, while another 522 were given humanitarian protection, the Commission for Refugees' annual report shows.
A total of 637 requests for refugee status were turned down, however.
In a statement, the Refugee Commission said it had dealt with 4,477 cases since it started to operate in January 2002. Over 1,300 were Somalis.
The Refugee Office started off the year with 849 pending applications, and in the past 12 months determined the cases of 1,210 individuals from 39 countries. They include 887 individuals who arrived in Malta in 2005.
As of the end of this month, the office is still working on 211 cases and has 720 pending cases of foreigners who landed in Malta after June 20. This year a total of 23 people withdrew their application for refugee status.
The refugee office explained that the process of several individuals was prolonged because of complications - such as the lack of a passport or forged documentation. In other cases, the refugee office has to probe individuals to ascertain that they pertain to a particular country or creed.
Delays have also been caused by the shortage of interpreters for the diverse languages spoken by illegal immigrants.

The key figure here is '28'. That's the number of ascertained genuine refugees for 2006 (many of them would have arrived in 2005 or even earlier, while some of those who arrived in the Summer of 2006 are still being processed). These are the people to whom the Geneva Convention on refugees applies. The rest may be repatriated according to our own laws, but in reality they are staying anyway. The 522 granted 'humanitarian protection' have basically not qualified for refugee status under the Geneva Convention, although they come from certain difficult countries (it's probably Somalia for the vast majority of them). For these, and for the 637 whose cases were even weaker and who were refused outright, the only rational solution is humane but indefinite detention until they can be repatriated.

Detention is not meant to deter people from actually arriving in Malta or to punish them for doing so. It's merely part of the administrative process leading to repatriation. That it should be humane is important not just for moral reasons but also for our international image. That it should be indefinite is essential for its effectiveness. If people are in any case released after 18 months, as is happening now, then it all merely becomes a case of an 18-month quarantine period before being definitively admitted to live and work in Malta.

For anyone with any idea of Malta's demographics, it is evident that the annual addition of even around 500 immigrants predominantly from Muslim countries will lead to the creation of a substantial community in a single generation, with a demographic momentum that would be almost impossible to reverse in the long term. As the figure is in fact probably closer to 1000 per annum (as many of those whose application is refused outright are not in fact repatriated, and there are probably many others who arrive in Malta undetected and are not covered by the official statistics), the situation is probably even more dramatic than that. If it were to reach 2000 per annum, the figure assumed by Eurostat in its 2005 projections, the political independence of the Maltese people would be under threat in 2 generations, with Muslim immigrants and their descendants approaching a quarter of the population by 2050 and probably becoming a majority before the century is out.

and this . . .

2006-12-29T10:00:00.000+01:00

This one isn't that harmless though

So this is what happens to loony lefties when they grow up . . .

2006-12-29T09:30:00.000+01:00

At least he's harmless :)

Saddam's Fate

2006-12-28T09:40:00.000+01:00

It's looking increasingly likely that Saddam's death sentence will be carried out after all - something I was personally not expecting. I must admit that I have mixed feelings about it. Saddam's crimes are undeniable but will his execution help stabilize the situation in Iraq? I suspect that it will make it even more difficult than it is now to reconcile the Sunnis and keep Iraq together.

On the other hand, I can't say I have mixed feelings about the impending fall of Mogadishu to Government and Ethiopian forces. It appears that the establishment of yet another terrorist paradise has been avoided, and with little bloodshed. I just hope that the Ethiopians leave as soon as the job is done and that the Government manages to eventually establish some form of order in the south.

Our Eastern Brethren

2006-12-26T16:17:00.000+01:00

One of the news stories that I have been following in the past days has been the visit paid by the leaders of the three main Christian groupings in the UK to the Holy Land, and particularly the remarks made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which were widely reported in the British press. Essentially, Dr. Rowan Williams' main argument appears to be that Western and Israeli actions (Iraq and the Wall respectively) are primary reasons for the decline of Middle Eastern Christians.

About the Iraq war, of which I am no great fan, I will comment in other posts. What intrigued me most, however, is Dr. Williams' criticism of the West Bank Wall/Fence as a symbol of what is "deeply wrong in the human heart" and of a "fear of the other and the stranger which keeps all of us in one or another kind of prison". I find it very difficult to share Dr. Williams' views here. This barrier is not about some vague fear of the 'other'. It is about a very specific terrorist threat in a very specific political context. And the controversy that surrounds it (at least among those who accept that Israel needs to survive) is supposed to concern its route not its existence. Which brings me to my main subject, which is that Dr. Williams' intervention is probably meant to win brownie points with the local Muslims (which could be useful in gaining acceptance for local Christians) and possibly also to gain left-wing support for his Church back home. He is certainly not the only Christian leader to have adopted this approach, as Gardjola have recently pointed out. His Iraq article also supports this interpretation.

Now, I happen to think that the Western churches may be pretty much fighting for a lost cause in the Middle East. The chances of a general demographic revival of the Christian populations there seem to me to be rather remote at this stage. The only areas where this is conceivable (if still unlikely) are Mount Lebanon and the State of Israel. As far as the rest of the Middle East is concerned, emigration is probably not such a bad option, when the alternative is gradual assimilation and de-Christianization.

It appears, however, that our strategy has been to try and achieve the exact opposite. The territorial 'federalist approach' still promoted by some groups in Lebanon has been discouraged by the Vatican, which has preferred a less assertive political stance in Lebanon as a price for the community being granted a degree of religious freedom in the Middle East as a whole. Israel, the other safe haven, is barely tolerated by most Western churches (with the exception of American Evangelicals), partly for the same reason. All this in order to buy some more time for other Christian communities that have, for the most part, already disappeared. The Palestinian Christians are an example. Is it worthwhile for us to continue building our Middle Eastern policy around the survival of one church that at this stage has only a few tens of thousands of faithful (around 3% of the Palestinian population) left? So far, the strategy does not appear to have delivered strong results. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, one has to wait and see whether it will continue to apply the same approach after the personnel changes that the Pope has effected during the past year in the Secretariat of State (the replacement of Cardinal Sodano) and in the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (the replacement of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald).

The bottom line, I think, is that the less we meddle with the Middle Eastern Christians (either in the form of Iraq-style military intervention or in the form of Vatican-style political interference or even in the form of Archbishop of Canterbury-style moral posturing) the better it is for them. We may have already helped subvert their chances for independence in Lebanon. We are currently subverting the only state that offers them full religious freedom, which is Israel. Given the poor returns we have achieved so far, and given the obvious fact that governments are better suited to manage foreign policy than are churches, I would suggest that we let our Middle Eastern brothers run their own show politically, whether they get it right or not, and simply limit ourselves to providing plenty of material assistance and spiritual solidarity - plus a home to come to in the West should their position in the Middle East not turn out to be sustainable despite our 'best efforts'. It might also be a good idea to learn from their predicament and to do what we can to avoid ending up in the same situation, if it's not too late.

A Merry Christmas to all!

2006-12-24T23:33:00.000+01:00

May you all have a most wonderful and peaceful Christmas!

Expensive Idealism

2006-12-04T16:50:00.000+01:00

The UN has been in the news today, mainly due to Kofi Annan's controversial comments about Iraq (essentially to the effect that the Iraqis were better off in the days of the dictatorship) but also due to John Bolton's decision to quit his post.

Kofi Annan's personal views are not particularly surprising, as his political position is well-known. Likewise, the failure of the US to develop a coherent and effective policy with regard to the UN over the years, is nothing new. What never ceases to amaze me, however, is that an organization that gives such a poor return on investment in its political, security and development dimensions, continues to survive largely unquestioned by most of its members.

Tiny Malta, for example, spends something in the region of three million US Dollars per annum in membership fees and in order to maintain its three diplomatic missions to the UN and its agencies (New York, Geneva and Vienna). This does not include the resources spent on the UN and its agencies at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Head Office in Valletta (and in two other missions - in Strasbourg and Rome - that combine UN-related work with other bilateral or multilateral duties) or the additional costs of the annual participation in the UN General Assembly (involving visits to New York by the Minister and usually also the Prime Minister, together with their retinues), as well as expenditure by other Ministries, including the costs of participation in UN-related meetings by non-MFA officials. The above figure also excludes the fact that the Government has an unknown sum of money tied up in the (undoubtedly very expensive) properties it owns in New York and which house the Permanent Representation and the Permanent Representative himself (the rent on which would probably amount to something in the region of half a million dollars). All these are publicly known facts, and most of them can be found on the Foreign Ministry's budgetary estimates for 2007.

The returns we are getting on this annual investment are not very clear to me. Most of those involved in this process usually tend to argue that no tangible 'short-term' gains can be expected, but that the world is being made better for our children anyway. I personally fail to see how this is the case. The UN's record on improving security is virtually non-existent. Few wars have been stopped or prevented by the UN itself (as opposed to the great powers striking deals in the context of the Security Council or outside it, which is something that they have been doing since long before the UN came into existence). I do not see very impressive results in the field of development either. A big part of the UN's development budget is consumed by the administration itself. I know of no country that has received a significant boost to its development thanks to the UN. I also know of few countries that have been saved from dictatorship or genocide by the organization. On the contrary, a significant number of bloody dictators and 'genocidaires' have, over the years, participated in, and been legitimized by, the UN. The UN's idea of defending human rights is the Human Rights Council (little better than its predecessor, the notorious Commission on Human Rights), which is dominated by those countries that have most to fear from criticism on that subject and which obviously block any initiatives in their own regard, thus rendering it completely pointless.

I could imagine a more rational UN that actually works. One that refuses to accept participation by non-elected governments. One that expels members when they do not respect the human rights of their citizens. One that does not give a microstate like Malta exactly the same voting power as India, with its 1 billion plus citizens. Until this happens, I do not see how the organization can be of much use to the world. I can think of much better uses for our money.

Benador Associates

2006-12-03T23:38:00.000+01:00

As I know that most of those who visit this site, both those who know me personally and those whom I have never had the privilege to meet in the 'real world', are interested in the Middle East, I would like to share with them a useful website that I have started visiting regularly - that of Benador Associates, the PR company that represents Amir Taheri and a number of other 'neo-conservatives'. It has new articles almost on a daily basis, by Taheri or by other eminent writers like Charles Krauthammer. Needless to say, I don't always agree with every view they express, and they have had their fair share of controversy, but I almost never fail to find their material thought-provoking and interesting.

Our Raison d'Etre

2006-11-20T14:05:00.000+01:00

My blogging has been rather light lately, to put it very mildly, and I notice that I'm not the only one in the Maltese blogosphere to have slowed down. In my case, a rather busy three-week trip and its afermath disrupted my blogging habits, although I consider my blog to be still active.

Jacques and Fausto have, incidentally, raised the question of the Maltese political blogosphere's raison d'etre in recent posts. Fausto's advice is to 'keep blogging but keep on doing it for fun and not to change the world'. True enough, but I think that deep down we'd all like to think that we're contributing something as well.

There are big issues that, I feel, certainly deserve to be commented upon by local bloggers. Most of these are local but not necessarily day to day issues. I think that immigration, the separation between church and state and the general direction of the Government's economic policy, and its results, are good examples of such issues. International issues can be worth blogging about from a Maltese perspective too, but I personally prefer to focus on international issues which have strong local implications.

Can our local blogs make a difference locally? We mustn't be too ambitious but I do believe that if we use the tool intelligently, we can achieve some meaningful impact in these limited but important areas. In other countries blogs have had particular success in exerting pressure on that part of the mainstream media that chooses to define itself as being politically 'neutral' but doesn't always live up to that claim. In Malta, Gardjola in particular have done a good job in this regard, especially in relation to the Times. I think it's also possible to help form opinion. However, I consider it unlikely that a blog is ever going to win over people of a completely different political viewpoint. It just might be possible to influence those who are very close to one on the political spectrum and my own 'target readership', to the extent that there is one, has always been people who share my basic political assumptions.

Democracy 101

2006-09-14T23:53:00.000+02:00

Reading an entry by Wild Knight on Gardjola yesterday, I was somewhat surprised to read the statement of the Dutch Minister of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, that the state should not do anything to prohibit the imposition of laws that go against the fundamental principles of freedom and human rights. According to Minister Donner, should two thirds of the Dutch population one day want to impose a system that treats women and non-believers as second class citizens, imposes severe restrictions on freedom of thought and conscience and establishes the most brutal and inhuman punishments then so be it. "It would be a disgrace to say: 'That is not allowed!'."

Fortunately, Donner's rather odd understanding of what democracy is all about is not the mainstream view in Europe, at least at this time. However, his argument is dangerous enough to be worth refuting. Democracy is not about the imposition of the will of the majority on everyone else. Nor is it simply about passing laws by majority vote. The system is worth anything only if it can also guarantee the rights of minorities and of individuals. If it does not do so then it is not 'rule by the people for the people' but merely a dictatorship of the majority. There are clear situations where we must say 'That is not allowed!' and these include any attempt to impose any totalitarian system, whether it is purely political or, as is the case nowadays, politico-religious.

For those who have not yet had the opportunity to read it, I would recommend Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies and his other works on political philosophy. When they finish with it, I would recommend that they lend their copies to their local MPs, just to make sure that they are at least aware of the basic principles of democracy and freedom.

A Difficult Week

2006-09-10T16:10:00.000+02:00

For most observers of Malta's immigration problem, this must have been a somewhat disheartening week, with nearly a hundred illegal immigrants arriving on our shores these past three days, and with the news that plans for EU sea patrols have had to be put off. Libya's cooperation on this issue is also clearly not forthcoming at the moment, and Minister Tonio Borg seems to have been made a fool of, either by the Libyans or by Frattini, depending on whom you believe.

In this context, the silence of Finland, the EU's current president and the host of its borders agency, has been deafening. MEP David Casa's criticism of the Presidency's behaviour in today's Times is, I think, fully justified and should earn him support from all those who want future generations of Maltese to be able to enjoy the same Western freedoms that we enjoy today, without having to make any painful compromises in their own home with communities that do not share their Western values.

While the Council Presidency has shown no apparent interest in our plight, President Barroso has once again attempted to put the issue near the top of the EU's agenda. I have long admired Barroso's policies, both in the economic arena (with the Lisbon Strategy, which he originated as Portuguese Prime Minister and strongly promoted as EU Commission President) and in foreign relations (he is a committed Atlanticist as well as a believer in a new Europe). May the European project have many more such far-sighted politicians and may their efforts meet with success.

On the same day, Ranier Fsadni (whose articles are generally of high quality, and many of whose views I share) attempted his own analysis of the problem on the Times. According to him, opposition to immigration comes from the following groups:

- racists

- old-style nationalists

- those who belong to the indigenous population but are underprivileged

To be fair to him, he does not explicitly exlude the existence of other groups. However, it might have occurred to him that the vast majority of the cabinet and the shadow cabinet, all of whom view illegal immigration as a serious problem, do not fit very well into any of these categories. Nor, I would contend, does the President of the EU Commission. It would probably have been more useful for Mr. Fsadni to debate the issue rather than to limit himself to a pscychological and sociological analysis of those whom he believes hold a view different from his own. However, having decided to take that path, he would have been far more convincing had he attempted a proper analysis, as opposed to a caricature.

Where do they manage to find all that hate?

2006-09-04T21:57:00.000+02:00

An entry posted this evening by Deepdiver in Gardjola led me to this story on Haaretz. After reading the article I had a look at the talkbalk and was struck by the hatred (or, more accurately, what we Maltese would call 'ħdura') evident in most of the posts, apparently written by Europeans, and a few Americans.

I tend to view the far-left and the far-right as idiots more than anything else. Those talkbacks are a reminder that idiots with hate coming out of their ears are still a sickening sight.

More from the land of dreams

2006-09-02T13:16:00.000+02:00

While reading the Times today, I was intrigued by the latest letter from Alternattiva's Jurgen Balzan which, I think, offers another fine example of the left's muddled world view. According to Balzan, the fact that there are Muslim-majority states that do not fully apply Sha'riah is proof that Muslims do not have any intention of spreading Sha'riah to countries which do not currently have it as their legal system. A non sequitur if there ever was one.

Worse than Balzan's poor information and his shoddy logic, in my opinion, is his insistence on romanticising the 'other'. According to him, Hezbollah and Hamas are heroic 'freedom fighters'. He is not particularly interested in the facts of the case or in the effects that their actions and those of their state sponsors have had on prospects for peace in the region. Who cares about peace and prosperity when we can have a nice romantic story instead?

Incidentally, and on a different note, Alternattiva seem to have concluded that their best chances for the next elections lie in Gozo. I would imagine that they are basing this on Gozo's history as a relatively volatile district and on its tradition of supporting third parties. The problem is that Alternattiva is simply alien to Gozitan society. The small parties that were successful in Gozo in the past were mostly conservative, Catholic and Gozo-oriented. And the last time Gozo elected an MP from outside the two major parties was in 1962. In order for Alternattiva to stand a chance there it would probably have to transform itself into a very different party. It has done this before, of course. During the first ten years of its existence, it was primarily an 'alternative' to the two major parties plus an environmentalist and socially liberal movement. With the change of leadership in 1998, the party moved sharply to the left. The 'libertarian' agenda and the issue of hunting were put on the back-burner. In their place came a group of former Graffitti activists with all their baggage of anti-americanism and extreme-left ideology. I don't think that Alternattiva will ever get a quota in any district in Malta or Gozo with that package, even if they have the cuddliest and most harmless Arnold Cassolas in the world to present it. And if Alternattiva does change again, I'm not sure that the most natural option would be for it to become a new Gozo Party.

The Sophistication of the Ignorant

2006-08-30T21:38:00.000+02:00

Some weeks ago, over lunch, I was rather surprised to discover that one of my colleagues appears to believe that the US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Now, this is not some poorly educated or particularly gullible individual but a competent professional and a former political activist. And he is by no means the only such person to believe in one of the various 9/11 theories. It appears, for example, that Wikipedia's current entry on 9/11 conspiracy theories was written by someone who seems to believe some of them (although Wikipedia have added a disclaimer saying that the entry needs to be cleaned up). In any case, it is certainly not surprising that such theories are gaining ground among the less-well educated public if they have been able to make inroads even among relatively sophisticated people.

This came to mind again today while I was reading one of today's posts on Gardjola, which described a particularly hilarious example and one that is not likely to convince educated Westerners (although, to be honest, nothing would surprise me).

The reality seems to be that, whether they are sophisticated or not, many people go through life lacking adequate knowledge of certain areas that are fundamental for an understanding of public affairs. And what is true in the field of foreign relations is even more true in economics. I am no expert on the inner workings of the human mind but my guess would be that we may all suffer from some mild-paranoia which is triggered particularly by situations that are too complex for us to understand properly with the knowledge that we have available. A somewhat more reliable analysis of this fascinating phenomenon can be found in Daniel Pipes' work Conspiracy, How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From and in several articles on his website.

Incidentally, Mark Steyn has also just published a very good review of two books about 9/11 conspiracies.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt in my mind that education remains, as always, the antidote to ignorance and modern-day superstition. And the ability to provide clear and relevant bites of information in ways that can be understood by all is probably one of the contributions that moderate political blogs can make to this extremely important process.

Living in a Parallel Universe

2006-08-27T10:55:00.000+02:00

Anyone interested in a short trip to a reality other than the one that we all inhabit would do well to read this letter from a Mr. Sammy Bishtawi of Pembroke, published in today's Sunday Times. In Mr. Bishtawi's world, Lebanon is a stable country and Hezbollah a charitable organization that enjoys support from all Lebanese factions, including the Christians. In 1978 and1982 Israel invaded Lebanon just for the pure enjoyment of it (there was no Hezbollah but apparently, in Mr. Bishtawi's universe, there were no PLO bases either and no artillery attacks on Northern Israel). Throughout the recent conflict 'Israel [insisted] on targeting defenceless civilians first and foremost' whereas the gallant Hezbollah apparently did not fire all that many katyushas at random civilian targets but limited its activities to fighting Israeli troops. In Mr. Bishtawi's world, the Israelis, whose true homeland is the sea, have been brutally occupying the land that the rest of the world calls 'Israel' for the past 58 years.

In the meantime, in the real world, the Associated Press has reported on the reactions of non-Shi'a communities in the South of Lebanon to the cynical use that Hezbollah has just made of them in the interests of a foreign power.

Avoiding the Mistakes of Others

2006-08-26T20:07:00.000+02:00

Coming days after yet another attempt at a major terrorist attack, the statement made by the UK's Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly earlier this week, questioning the traditional British consensus on multiculturalism, comes as no surprise. Although our own situation is not identical to theirs, it may be useful for us to reflect on the successes and failures of those who have been facing a similar issue for far longer than we have. Of course, this issue deserves a far more detailed analysis than can be offered here, but I am nevertheless offering some brief notes on what I think could be the main conclusions.

As is well known, France and Britain have adopted two completely different approaches towards their large immigrant communities. France officially does not distinguish between Frenchmen on the basis of faith and ethnic background and does not even count its religious minorities. The UK, on the other hand, virtually allows them to live as separate culturally self-contained communities. Events during these past two years have shown that both approaches have very serious shortcomings, although France has probably made slightly less of a dog's dinner out of it than the British have (which isn't saying much).

Of course, the best approach would be to prevent this headache from occurring in the first place. Luxembourg, for example, has avoided the problem by recruiting its guest workers exclusively from the European continent (mainly Portugal and Italy). In order for us to do this (to the extent possible, given our location) the detention system and the policy of repatriation must be maintained and strengthened. As for those who remain, a combination of what has worked in the French and British system would probably be ideal, as long as it is combined with appropriate policies in other areas.

One thing that both France and Britain seem to have got wrong, for example, is the creation of government-sponsored ghettoes. On no account should we ever do this to ourelves in Malta. As for cultural integration, I would argue that the French policy of trying to make Frenchmen out of all comers works better than the British laissez-faire approach (French Muslims, although they are economically less integrated than their British counterparts, are nevertheless slightly better integrated culturally - in terms of decreasing birth rates and rising rates of intermarriage, for example).

Still, the UK's minorities are not only better off economically than their counterparts in France but also much better represented in the higher echelons of the corporate world (and to some extent in politics). This is for the most part due to the greater possibilities for social mobility in the UK. Needless to say, I think we should emulate the British model in this regard, not just for the sake of better integrating immigrants but also for the sake of getting our economy out of the rut it's been in for the past few years.

Moreover, in order not to exacerbate this problem by giving hope to Islamic triumphalists, we should give more priority than ever to the avoidance of a demographic collapse among the indigenous population. If necessary, we should supplement our numbers by actively encouraging part of our large diaspora to return and also by encouraging immigration from other parts of the world which share our cultural background. For this to happen, we will first need to fix our economy, which we are perfectly capable of doing if we're willing to get rid of the remaining socialist baggage and to invest in education.

With regard to our citizenship laws, we should make sure that they do not change. It is inevitable that the NGOs will move on to this target as soon a substantial community of illegal immigrants is established on the island. They must not be allowed to succeed, as it is essential that the indigenous community should retain control of the political process (while the integration of those who cannot be sent back should be sought in all other ways) and as the granting of citizenship could lead to the phenomenon of 'family reunions', which would make the problem spin out of control. Likewise, our electoral system must remain as it is, first of all in order to keep fringe movements like Alternattiva out of Parliament and secondly to prevent the setting up of Islamic parties in future.

All this might sound somewhat premature, but the best way to deal with potentially serious problems is to neutralize them as early as possible, before they even become problems. If we wait until the problem is already with us then it will probably already be too late.

Justice or Common Sense?

2006-08-22T18:34:00.000+02:00

Anyone who closely follows events in the Middle East (as I have done for several years) will know that the discourse of the two sides tends to be based on issues such as 'justice', 'morality' and 'honour'. Many Israelis view the West Bank as part of their inalienable heritage and view the Palestinians as people who blow themselves up among crowds of civilians. Most Arabs view Israelis as inherently evil and confirm this view whenever the Israelis undertake military action against them (whether meant to be offensive or defensive). Western observers of the conflict also tend to see it through similar lenses: civilization vs. barbarism (for those who support Israel) or the oppressed against their oppressors (for those who identify with the Arab cause).

This approach leaves little room for compromise. How can one possibly compromise with barbarism or with oppression? The debate between the two sides is mostly limited to attempts at reinforcing one paradigm at the expense of the other. The Palestinians (and their supporters) attempt to strengthen the idea that this is really a struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. The Israelis, on the other hand, attempt to to strengthen the perception that they are victims of a culture of death among their neighbours.

The two sides certainly believe that they have good reason to attempt to sell their own paradigm to the outside world. However, they are surely wrong in actually acting within those paradigms and promoting them within their own societies. Wrong not in a moral sense but simply because neither paradigm offers any feasible solutions. When you are dealing with oppression and injustice the only solution is their total reversal (i.e. the removal of Israel from the map). When you are dealing with barbarism, the only solution is to defeat it, as it only understands the language of force. Anyone with the slightest shred of common sense would probably know that neither of these two outcomes can ever occur. Israel will not disappear nor will the Arabs give up their claims, however many times Israel proves its military superiority.

There are essentially two feasible outcomes. A continuation of the status quo is one of them. The other is a two-state solution. However desirable the other two (maximalist) outcomes may be, they can exist only in the realm of fantasy. All the efforts in the world will not bring them about. No amount of public moaning or suicide bombings will make Israel disappear. No degree of Israeli military superiority will make the Palestinians give up.

The only question is when we will move from the present scenario to the one envisaged at Taba and Geneva. Those outsiders who wish to advance the interests of either of the two sides or of both can only aspire to do so by making this happen sooner rather than later. They can achieve this best by making the heartbreaking but necessary switch from a paradigm based on their own perceptions of justice to one based on plain unromantic common sense.

Naturalized Killers

2006-08-19T17:21:00.000+02:00

Leafing through today's Times I came across this extremely interesting article by Tzvetan Todorov (made available as part of the Project Syndicate, which is a rich source of serious and challenging material). The title was, no doubt, chosen for effect and the article is nowhere near as violent in tone as it suggests. Nevertheless, it deals frankly with the West's problems in facing up to the Islamist threat.

I suggest that anyone interested in a rational analysis of this threat and the best options available in dealing with it should read this article. Some of its conclusions, such as the following, might not appeal to traditional libertarians:

Police actions must be merciless, even if this means more controls and surveillance. It is precisely to prevent the development of a collective security fear that we need to alter the equilibrium between security and freedom.

I would point out, however, that it is precisely by altering this equilibrium that our freedoms and our rights can be preserved in the long term.

Others might not like Todorov's assessment of the Bush administration's Middle East policy. I personally share many of his views on this subject too, particularly Iraq. I find the left's criticism of the war in Iraq to be mostly insane. However, the fact remains that the West cannot continue to spend its human, material and political capital in a quixotic attempt at convincing Iraqis to live together in peace. As for the spread of democracy in the Middle East, we all know what it has led to. Democracy is a very strong medicine and care should be taken not to administer it to the wrong patient.

As for our own island, we have little say over what happens in the Middle East or anywhere else. And we have no guarantees that those who do decide will get it right. But we can at least make sure that no foreign communities are established in Malta that could, in the near or distant future, threaten our liberties from within. Fortunately this requires little sophistication and even the mediocre politicians that we have and deserve could manage it if they feel sufficient pressure to do so.

Moving the Movers of History

2006-08-17T15:17:00.000+02:00

With all the fighting and dead bodies on our tv screens, particularly during the past few weeks, it is easy to forget that history's most powerful forces rarely make it into the tv news bulletins or the newspaper headlines. They operate silently and over extremely long periods of time and most people are unaware of their existence. I am not referring to some conspiracy theory but merely to those demographic, economic and social changes that are usually invisible to the naked eye but whose importance in deciding the fate of nations and civilizations cannot be overestimated. To give an example, the rise of the West can be attributed to no single battle or political decision but to a powerful accumulation of human and technological resources, made possible by the continent's economic structures, which in their turn were brought into being by its particular geographical, social and cultural environment.

This, of course, is hardly an original thought. However, it is important to keep in mind that the most important occurrence in our lifetimes may turn out to be not the fall of the Berlin Wall or 9/11 or the Iraq War or any other such earth-shaking event. It may simply be the basic inability of our current socio-economic model to support a constant population. The BBC has been following this in a series of interesting articles, the latest of which was put online last Tuesday and concerns the particular case of Germany. It is at this stage quite clear that there must be basic structural reasons why this is happening, most of which concern the fact that in our societies women get married later than they used to and have to juggle family and career. The obvious result is that populations are beginning to fall and are predicted to do so in a much more dramatic fashion over the coming decades. Of course, this is being partly compensated for by mass immigration, which is, however, likely to have a long-term and possibly irreversible political and cultural impact on the host societies.

Right wing politicians occasionally berate Europeans for their 'selfishness' and 'lack of patriotism' and insist that we need more babies. However, expecting people to do things out of a sense of patriotism is not likely to get us very far. Our society is built around the individual and, as a libertarian, I believe that this should not change. Individuals cannot be expected to make too many sacrifices in order to achieve objectives that do not belong to them alone but to society as a whole (what economists call 'externalities'). The developed societies that have come closest to solving this structural problem (the Scandinavian countries) are those that have a social system that has transferred the economic burdens of child-birth and child-rearing as much as possible from the individuals concerned onto society as a whole. This was achieved not simply through financial contributions for every child, a la Mussolini, but also by making sure that women's careers do not suffer as a result of their helping to raise a family.

The only way in which we can have a true say in what our future will look like is by directing our policies at the real underlying forces that are quietly shaping that future. Those who want Malta to remain Maltese will contribute much more effectively to their goal by calling for a more family-friendly socio-economic system than by any other means, however important these may be.

Was it worth it?

2006-08-14T18:52:00.000+02:00

With the fighting apparently over in Lebanon, at least for the time being, it is time to ask whether the Middle East is better off today than it was a month ago. Of course, it will take months if not years for the dust to settle and for a full answer to be available but, as usual, I will give my two-cents' worth on how things look right now, which is not all that different from my view on 2nd August.

First of all, is a serious conflict more likely to occur now than it was on 11th July? Assuming that the ceasefire holds until the international force is deployed, the answer would probably be 'no'. The fact that Hezbollah were in direct contact with the Israeli army on the border between the two countries was an accident waiting to happen. And it did. Whatever else the war may have achieved or failed to achieve, this state of affairs will no longer exist under the new arrangement. The fact that Lebanon has paid such a high price for Hezbollah's actions could also ensure that it will become politically more costly in future for Hezbollah to use its rocket capabalities against Israel.

Hezbollah has certainly achieved a great psychological victory. Many Arabs are now under the impression that Israel can be defeated. If Hezbollah, with the equivalent of two infantry brigades, could hold the Israelis for a month then Israel is weak and would be unable to defeat a proper army. This fallacy is not one that Arab leaders are likely to fall for. So I think that a war with Syria (the only obvious candidate) remains as unlikely as it was on 11th July. Iran is also unlikely to attack Israel directly in the short term for the simple reason that Israel is a nuclear state and could view an Iranian attack as one that threatens its existence.

Nevertheless, while war is probably somewhat less likely now than it was then, I don't see that the prospects for real peace have improved much either. Hezbollah will continue to exist and, through it, Iran and Syria will be able to veto any possibily of a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. Unfortunately, peace between Israel and Syria does not appear to be on the horizon either. Peace between Israel and Iran is probably impossible as long as the Mullahs are in power.

Israel's plans for disengagement from the West Bank may have been damaged, although probably more so as a result of the Gaza experience than as a result of Lebanon. Still, I believe that it might occur anyway, simply because the alternative is more costly. I would not exclude either that a modus vivendi might be found with Hamas, although this is not particularly likely.

So, I would say that we now have a Middle East that is slightly less explosive than it was a month ago but not by much. As I've pointed out in my 2nd August post, the only strategic breakthrough I can imagine would be peace between Israel and Syria but the tragedy is that the political will is not there for this to happen.

Responsibility

2006-08-12T15:49:00.000+02:00

The editorial of today's Times is a useful reminder of the obvious: that society should protect the weak and vulnerable rather than those who abuse them. The article refers specifically to paedophilia, but our society's tendency to cut the link between one's actions and the necessary consequences extends far beyond this particular example. Our courts are notorious for their ridiculously light sentencing and for occasionally granting bail even to those accused of the most brutal murders. Companies with government participation continue to exist and compete with the private sector for employees and customers even when they are losing money. People who are not fleeing persecution but simply want higher paid jobs can enter our territory illegally without any consequences and, if they are patient enough to wait for a maximum of 18 months in detention, will have their presence in Malta effectively regularized.

In recent days it has also become apparent that the culture of 'no consequences' also extends to our interpretation of events beyond our shores. The past weeks have seen countless letters and articles in our newspapers, some of them by important public personalities, all seeking to grant Lebanon immunity from any consequences for military actions launched from its territory by a private army which it allows to operate.

It might at first sight appear that sparing people the cost of their own folly is a generous and noble thing to do. Unfortunately, until we manage to change the laws of nature, evil or foolish acts will continue to have a cost. The only choice we have is between letting this cost be carried by those who commit such acts or else shifting it on to the shoulders of the innocent.

Israel's biggest dilemma

2006-08-10T16:08:00.000+02:00

Today's Haaretz carries an extremely interesting article by Riad Ali, an Israeli Druze journalist, which discusses, among other things, the attitude of Israel's Arabs during the present conflict.

Most Israelis lose little sleep over what their Muslim compatriots may be thinking. They would probably be well-advised to start doing so. Israel's Arabs don't have much weight in the Knesset but they still make up over 20% of its population. If only citizens are counted (and the Arab residents of East Jerusalem are therefore excluded) they still make up approximately 16%. A quarter of the children born in Israel today are Arabs. This proportion will continue to grow as the birth rate of Israeli Muslims in particular is among the highest of all groups in the world, while that of Jews is declining. Wikipedia's article on Israeli Arabs quotes Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid, the editor of Al-Ahram's "Arab Strategic Report" as predicting that "...The Arabs of 1948 (i.e. Israeli Arabs) may become a majority in Israel in 2035, and they will certainly be the majority in 2048." If he is right, it would mean that the Jewish State would have existed for less than 100 years.

With such a demographic timebomb ticking, one might be forgiven for writing Israel off altogether. Yet, demographic trends are not destiny. If it starts early enough, Israel can contain the threat by making greater efforts at assimilating its Arab Israeli population (including the Bedouins, with their astronomically high birthrates) while stepping up the immigration of non-Jews (Eastern Europeans, Asians etc) into Israel and integrating them into Israeli, if not Jewish society. As a last resort, it could always grant Israeli passports to the approximately 10 million non-Israeli Jews complete with the right to vote. Yisrael Beiteinu's leader, Avigdor Liberman, has proposed the exchange of Arab Israeli areas such as Umm Al-Fahm with the West Bank settlement blocks in a deal with the Palestinians. This would reduce the number of Israel's Arab citizens by about half but most Israeli politicians reject it either on the grounds that it discriminates against the Arabs concerned or that it involves giving up part of Eretz Israel.

This demographic and political drama will play out during the lifetimes of many of us alive today. We would be well advised to observe it very closely and not to ignore its lessons as our countries too may, in the longer term, be heading towards a similar fate.

A Modest Performance

2006-08-09T15:03:00.000+02:00

The government certainly does not enjoy very high popularity ratings at this moment and, unless a miracle were to happen, it looks headed for a defeat in the next general elections. I don't know to what extent this has anything to do with its actual performance, as opposed to the fact that the opposition has done what is necessary to make itself electable again. It may well be that the next general election was decided three years ago, right after the last one, when Labour finally accepted Malta's EU membership as a fact.

That said, I am not particularly impressed by this government's performance - particularly its pathetically weak stance on immigration and its half-hearted economic reforms (Fausto points out a depressing example here). By Maltese (and European) standards, its achievements have certainly not been negligible in every field. The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom shows that Malta has been steadily freeing its economy over the past eight years, moving from a score of 3.15 in 1998 to 2.16 this year (and from 75th place to 24th). Unfortunately this masks a poor performance in one crucial area - the fiscal burden - where we now actually score slightly worse than we did in 1998 (4.1 as opposed to 4). The government has clearly not treated this as a priority, and this has been reflected in mediocre GDP growth over the period (although this is due to other factors also, including the fact that our economy is having trouble making the switch from one that competes on prices - in both industry and tourism - to one that delivers high added-value). This year's pre-budget document offers little hope that there will be a serious change of direction in the fiscal field.

The greatest disappointment so far has, however, probably been with regard to illegal immigration. One of the most important, and little noticed, decisions taken by this government over the past few years has been to establish a de facto 18-month limit on detention for illegal immigrants, giving them an obvious incentive not to cooperate with the authorities in their repatriation. It is impossible to estimate exactly the price we may eventually have to pay for this (failed) attempt to appease foreign and local left-wing NGOs. Its consequences are so open-ended that it may well outweigh the government's modest achievements in other areas. Were the MLP to promise to reverse it even Pietru Caxaru might be tempted to do the unthinkable.

Mintoff's Legacy

2006-08-07T14:49:00.000+02:00

As Fausto has pointed out, yesterday was former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff's 90th birthday. As the man is still alive, it may be too early to say anything definitive about his political legacy. However, I will attempt a very short and rough first draft.

What is certain is that not much of what Mintoff actually did while in power remains. He did greatly beef up the welfare state (at immense economic cost). That will remain, although not in the form that he envisaged it. His economic legacy is more dubious. He had an extremely shaky understanding of economics and this was mostly based on ideas that even his Fabian mentors were in the process of rejecting when he was implementing them in Malta. His foreign policy has likewise been rejected even by his own party. As in economics, he misread the signs of the times and created policies that could not survive in the long term. Neutrality is still there but is now little more than a legal obstacle to Malta's participation in the CFSP. The dream of Malta as a broker between East and West faded a long time ago.

Mintoff may ironically be remembered as the guardian angel of the Nationalist Party and the father of the island's present two-party system. He 'inherited' from Sir Paul Boffa a Labour Party that enjoyed the support of around 60% of the electorate, more than three times that of its closest challenger, the discredited PN. With such support the Labour Party could have governed the island for two or three decades before experiencing any serious challenge. It might even have established a Scandinavian-style situation where the centre-right is almost permanently excluded from government. Thanks mainly to Mintoff, this did not come about. Two battles with the Catholic Church and two equally bitter internal splits during Mintoff's early years meant that the party's support declined dramatically and consistently while that of its closest (but still very distant) challenger grew. By 1971, when Mintoff finally took power for an extended period, the Nationalist Party had virtually caught up with its rival, and overtook it a few years into Mintoff's turbulent premiership, enjoying a 'natural majority' for the remainder of the century and beyond. When Mintoff formally retired as Prime Minister, he appointed as his successor an unelectable politician (who was even more extremist than himself) and when the Labour Party finally returned narrowly to power in 1996, he brought this government down, ending his career as he had begun it and allowing the Nationalists to govern for another decade, during which Malta finally became a member of what he had once called 'the Europe of Cain'.

As with many other extremists before and since, his main legacy may have been to have unwittingly contributed (and in no small way) to the realization of his adversaries' long-term vision at the expense of his own. Surely this is a lesson that should not be lost on those active in the political scene today, particularly those on the two extremes of the political spectrum.

End of an era?

2006-08-06T11:47:00.000+02:00

Fidel Castro may or may not survive his current illness but, either way, he will not rule Cuba forever. The time for history to judge his half-century in power will come soon. I doubt that it will be kinder to him than it will be to the twentieth century's other dictators. He reduced a prosperous (if corrupt and crime-ridden) country where the poor were very poor to one in which everyone is very poor (and which is just as corrupt). Almost all of the country's middle class now resides in Florida. Most of its dissidents reside in the country's jails.

One of the Castro regime's very few achievements has been to maintain the excellent health and education systems that it inherited from its predecessors. Over the years it has even managed to sell these to the world as its own creation. Indeed, this is a regime that has managed to maintain an amazing degree of international support, and probably a greater degree of internal support than its disastrous rule would warrant (although this is mostly because millions of its opponents have simply made their way out of the country).

What will the future look like? I doubt if the regime will fall immediately after Castro's departure. Democracy and freedom would no doubt be the best options for the country but the system is probably solid enough to resist any moves in that direction for the time being. I think the most that Cubans can hope for in the short term is normalization and possibly a more pragmatic style of government. Nevertheless, being an optimist, I would like to think that Cuba's worst years may be behind it.

A Children's Crusade

2006-08-04T16:52:00.000+02:00

News from the Middle East may be bleak, but we have good reason to hope! A 'peace vigil' is being organized by left-wing NGOs and political youth groups this evening at Għar id-Dud. Second-rate poetry will be read by the (very serious-looking) poets themselves, propaganda films will be shown, kefiyyehs will be proudly worn and Israel will be roundly condemned. Everyone will feel united and morally superior to the rest of the world (that is too corrupt and too stupid to understand them).

Well, ok kids, have fun! Just try not to get stuck in that rut for too long. It looks cute when you're doing that stuff in your teens but a bit less so when you're over 30 :)

A Flawed Analysis

2006-08-04T10:27:00.000+02:00

Today's Times carries an interesting article by Dr Christoph Bertram, the former director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. His basic argument is that the international force for Lebanon that is being spoken about is not an answer to the current problem unless the root cause is addressed and this, in his view, is 'Israeli unilateralism'.

Few would doubt that a bilateral approach is better than a unilateral one in establishing peaceful relations with one's neighbours. And, as I have stated before, I do believe that peace between Israel and Syria (which I consider achievable) would be a crucial strategic breakthrough for the Middle East.

However, Dr. Bertram does not explain how this bilateral approach could work with Hamas or with Hezbollah. Where there can be no bilateral approach in the short term, the next best alternative is prudent and non-belligerent unilateralism. I think that Israel's withdrawal from its 'security zone' in Lebanon and from Gaza was preferable to its continued occupation of those territories. It gave Lebanon and the Palestinians the opportunity to at least achieve some stability. Unfortunately, the moderates there did not make it (although in Lebanon they came close). However, it was a good try and Israel now is defending its own borders, which has given it at least internal legitimacy.

The same objection applies to Dr. Bertram's apparent lack of enthusiasm for an international force in South Lebanon prior to a comprehensive peace agreement. As a peace agreement is not an immediate prospect, the choice we have is not between that ideal scenario and the one that is being debated by the great powers. It is rather between open warfare on the Israeli-Lebanese border with the probable restoration of an Israeli security zone in South Lebanon on the one hand and, on the other, a more stable, if not completely satisfactory situation with the two sides being separated by international forces. It makes little sense to reject an acceptable solution just because it is less attractive than an ideal but unattainable alternative.

What future for Iraq?

2006-08-03T14:52:00.000+02:00

William Patey, the outgoing British Ambassador in Iraq is reported to have painted a very dire picture of the situation in Iraq in a confidential memo to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Amb. Patey apparently views civil war as a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy and has said that Iraq may split up into its component parts.

My only question is 'so what?'. If Iraq is so fragile that it cannot survive without the help of a brutal dictator or a foreign army then it would probably make more sense to allow more stable and sustainable political realities to take its place. I don't think that a civil war is the best way to do this but this is up to the Iraqis really. If they want to kill each other then why should the West send its children to stand between them?

A False Analogy

2006-08-03T11:19:00.000+02:00

One of the more popular arguments with those who argue that Israel's military actions in Lebanon are disproportionate is that the United Kingdom, facing a similar threat from the IRA, did not engage in any military actions at all neither against the Republic of Ireland nor against the Catholic areas of Northern Ireland.

On the face of it, this argument appears to make some sense. Wasn't the IRA after all one of the most feared and best-armed terrorist groups in the world? Didn't it bomb civilian targets in Northern Ireland and in mainland Britain? Wasn't the problem finally resolved through diplomacy rather than through British military retaliation?

Even the most superficial analysis of the two situations will quickly show that this is a false analogy. Unlike Hezbollah, the IRA did not control any part of the Republic of Ireland's territory and was not therefore in a position to rain rockets on British towns. Nor was the Republic of Ireland in a state of war with the United Kingdom. Nor was the IRA committed to the destruction of the United Kingdom. Nor was the UK a country of 6 million people surrounded by actual and potential enemies.

The UK treated the IRA mostly as a domestic law and order problem because, for all its seriousness, it was mainly that. The majority of Northern Ireland's population wanted to be part of the UK, a minority did not and carried out terrorist attacks. The police, supported by troops, contained the problem until both sides were ready for an arrangement that continued to respect the principle of self-determination for the people of Northern Ireland and did not substantially alter the constitutional status of the territory.

Can Israel win?

2006-08-02T15:57:00.000+02:00

There has, in the past days, been no shortage of experts telling us that it is enough for Hezbollah to stand up to Israel and survive in order for it to achieve victory. This is based on the assumption that a victory lies in the eyes of the beholder and that the relevant beholder is the Arab street. An Associated Press article published today carries a quote from retired Lebanese General Elias Hanna that sums it up: "Hezbollah wins if it doesn't lose. And Israel loses if it doesn't win".

My definition of an Israeli victory in this conflict, and I think that this is also the definition of the Israeli government, would be for the Lebanese front to go permanently quiet. Whether Hezbollah is destroyed or not is, in itself, of little interest to Israel, although it is certainly important for Lebanon’s internal balance. Of course, if they survive as a military force, Hezbollah might be able to sell the whole episode to the Arab public as a victory. At the end of the day, however, what the Arab street thinks is probably not as important as some journalists and observers seem to think. Arab leaders are not known for being particularly democratic and are for the most part fairly rational (where their own survival is concerned). None of them will rush into a guaranteed military disaster simply because the Arab street gets the false impression that Israel is weak and that it can be defeated.

The question remains, will Israel actually manage to achieve long-term quiet on the Northern Front? This blogger is of the humble opinion that it will. If Hezbollah ends up having to accept a demilitarized zone in Southern Lebanon it will lose the most important means it has of keeping the front open – cross-border raids. The rockets, which it would still be able to fire from anywhere in Lebanon, have in fact proven to be quite a flop. Two weeks of daily Katyusha barrages have led to the death of less than 20 Israeli civilians (not much more than a single suicide bombing would have achieved) and no appreciable softening of Israeli public opinion. The rest of Lebanon has paid a high-enough price for this meagre result that they will probably make it extremely difficult for Hezbollah to use its rockets to provoke further conflict in future.

Still, I would maintain that the achievement of long-term quiet in the North should be but an intermediate goal. As long as full peace is not achieved with Syria, the potential for mischief in the North and on the Palestinian front will remain. Peace between Israel and Syria would terminate Hezbollah, end the maximalist dreams of Hamas and deal a severe blow to Iran's growing power in the region. That is why I think that it is a great pity that Syrian-Israeli peace talks remain off the agenda for the foreseeable future.

More wisdom from our NGOs

2006-08-01T10:24:00.000+02:00

Rudolf Ragonesi is a well-known figure in Malta's environmental NGO circles. A non-practising lawyer, he founded the GAIA Foundation and is active in Friends of the Earth. Although I do not know him personally, I have nothing but respect for his work in the environemntal field.

Unfortunately, however, Dr. Ragonesi shares with many of his colleagues in the local NGO movement a tendency to accept group dogma and to think with the heart rather than with the mind. An article he wrote in today's Times is a typical example of this suspension of the intellect. Ragonesi insists for example on repeating the usual far-left claim that Israel is an apartheid state because it does not grant the right to Palestinians (in the West Bank and Gaza) to vote in Israeli elections. Now, as everyone knows, the West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel at all and they do have the right to vote for their own parliament and president. The whole point of the peace process is that the West Bank and Gaza should become a sovereign (Palestinian) state not that they should be given the right to elect representatives in the parliament of another country. As for Israeli Arabs, who now constitute around 20% of the Israeli population, they of course do have the right to vote in Israel.

In an ironic twist, Dr. Ragonesi then suggests that Israel should withdraw to its internationally-recognized borders and defend itself from there, 'with its vast arsenal'. Well, if I'm not living on a different planet from that of Dr. Ragonesi, that is exactly what Israel has done with regard to Lebanon. Its complete withdrawal from Lebanese territory was certified by the UN in 2000.

The only thing Dr. Ragonesi is undoubtedly right about is that Ehud Gol probably won few new friends for his country in Malta (or in Italy, for that matter). I have never really understood why a rather undiplomatic diplomat like Ehud Gol was chosen as Israel's spokesman in Italy, a country where Israel is already rather short of friends.

Welfare to Work

2006-07-31T14:29:00.000+02:00

Check out this Economist article about the considerable success of the Clinton administration's welfare reforms. I'm not sure why some people are surprised that they worked. People are, after all, more or less rational beings. If you offer them clear and good incentives to work rather than stay on the dole, then they will probably work.

I would argue for going a little bit further than simple welfare-reform, however. I think a small negative tax rate for low earners (not a negative income tax, which is a different concept and one I strongly disagree with), together with a removal of the minimum wage, would be a much better way to help the unemployed than simply providing them with unemployment benefits. For example, the state might top up the first Lm100 you earn at a 30% rate, the next Lm100 at 20% and so on up to an established ceiling. This would have the added benefit of motivating some people to move from the black economy into the formal one.

Maybe instead of preventing people who are relatively unproductive from working for lower wages (and then paying them unemployment benefits) we should motivate them to earn as much as they can on their own steam and then reward them for that, while offering them the possibility of paid training if they want to invest in raising their productivity. I think it would be a little bit more dignified than living on the dole.

I don't seriously expect any of this to happen in the foreseeable future, least of all in Malta. But the nice thing about blogging is that even ideas whose time has not come, and that one would not dare express in 'real life', may be freely aired.

less human, more primitively animal, more Lords of the Flies

2006-07-30T11:03:00.000+02:00

The above is a quote from a true gem of an opinon piece by Dr. Mario Tabone Vassallo, published in today's Sunday Times. It initially caught my attention due to its rather intriguing title, 'Scrap the UN?', but it turned out not to be about that at all. It is in fact a rather run of the mill, if factually inaccurate and logically unsound, critique of the West's relations with the rest of the world. What is interesting about it, apart from the atrocious prose, is the fact that it provides a glimpse of how a Maltese professional with a superficial knowledge of international relations, international law, history etc. might view the world.

In one memorable paragraph, Tabone Vassallo asks:

How can we reminisce with pride on the Churchillian boast that we shall fight on the beaches and everywhere else to reclaim our country and forget that the recruits of Hezbollah are dispossessed and exiled Palestinians that are doing just that? How can we ignore that ever since it was democratically elected, Hamas offered a truce of sixty years if Israel withdrew to the 1967 boundaries (exactly in line with UN resolution 242) and held hope of a permanent Israel-Palestinian peace agreement in the long term?

I think that the best answer to ignorance is education and, if this is so, then we are fortunate that Vince Caruana of Kopin is about to take our political education in hand (see previous post). For that, at least, we have reason to be thankful!

Funds for propaganda...

2006-07-29T15:22:00.000+02:00

Today's Times reports that one of Malta's NGOs, Kopin, will be collecting 'funds for Lebanese civilians suffering as a result of the Middle East crisis'. The article adds that, however, 5% of the funds collected 'will go towards local education programmes with regard to the development and humanitarian situation in the Middle East'. This sounds very much like Kopin is going to use these donations to fund propaganda, particularly as Vince Caruana (Kopin's founder) is not known to be particularly balanced where the Middle East is concerned.

Caxaru Returns...

2006-07-29T14:52:00.000+02:00

Thanks to the encouragement of my friends at Gardjola I've finally decided to revive my old blog. During these 5 months I had occasionally posted comments (sometimes rather longish ones) on Gardjola under this pseudonym, and I will eventually either reproduce those on this site or establish links to them. Of course, the link to Gardjola's homepage has been available on this site since February.

So many things have happened since February both in my own life and career and, more importantly, in the wider world. The Danish cartoons crisis, which was all the rage then, has since been almost forgotten. In the meantime, the Middle East is once again in flames and Malta is struggling to deal with what is likely to be one of the highest yearly influxes of illegal immigants ever. There is certainly no shortage of issues begging for comment...

Neither Fish nor Flesh

2006-02-22T17:28:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-21T15:04:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-18T16:19:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-16T00:29:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-14T00:46:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-13T23:43:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-13T23:01:00.000+01:00

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

2006-02-09T00:20:00.000+01:00

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 ...

2006-02-07T22:36:00.000+01:00

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.