Many will be familiar with the saying – originating from a television advert – that ‘a dog (or pet) is not just for Christmas’.
Just as adopting a pet means taking responsibility for the long-term, the same principle can be applied to any other responsibility, even promises made by political parties.
The ongoing campaign is no exception. Consider, for instance, the government’s recent flip-flops on two environmental issues: the proposed yacht marina in Marsaskala; and plans to build the Marsaxlokk local council offices, in a school garden.
This indicates that Prime Minister Robert Abela’s condition is being dictated by civil society on environmental issues. But only when an election occurs.
The news is welcome on one level. This shows that public pressure can pay off in these circumstances. However, as with all payments, there is an additional cost.
For even if the government’s newfound environmentalist drive is yielding desirable results: it is still contingent on government’s own, short-term needs.
Specifically in the case of Marsaskala, the Prime Minister said that “it was his government’s duty to listen to the concerns raised.”
But this only raises the question of why his government had flatly refused to listen to those concerns for so long: with Transport Minister Ian Borg even describing the popular protests as a ‘Nationalist Party strategy’.
It is therefore clear that, if Abela is now conditioned by environmental pressure – mounted mostly by NGOs like Graffitti: a central protagonist in coordinating residents’ anger and action – it is largely thanks to his own desire to obtain a ‘super-majority’, by not conceding a single vote to Opposition over unpopular causes.
As such, the election has cynically brought about gains for the environmental movement, reminiscent of Lawrence Gonzi’s Majjistral golf course U-turn of 2008. But this comes with a price. Residents are constantly frustrated and exhausted because they have to express their opposition to projects serving only moneyed interests. Only to see their demands fulfilled on the eve for an election.
This is clearly not a long-term, responsible commitment to the preservation of the environment.
Nonetheless, Robert Abela should have ample opportunity, in the years to come, to demonstrate that these U-turns are not merely a case of ‘environmentalism, just for elections’.
PN manifesto: More ‘carrot’ than ‘stick’
With no fewer than 500 proposals, the National Party’s electoral manifesto certainly cannot be described as a hatchet-job.
In the words of author MP Claudio Grech (who penned it shortly before announcing his own sudden departure last week), the PN’s goal is that of creating “a fairer society which rewards good behaviour.”
There is no shortage of proposals in that direction: mostly taking the form of a ‘carrot and stick’ approach, designed to incentivise good practices, and disincentivise the bad.
But while the manifesto does identify the correct challenges, and also provide some good ideas, many of its actual proposals are somewhat bland and technical; and some – especially, concerning the ‘living income’ – do not go far enough, to meet their own targets.
As such, the manifesto reads more like a handbook for ‘techno-fixes’, concerning highly specific issues; while seeming to overlook the ‘bread-and-butter’ concerns of ordinary people in the street.
For example, the PN recognizes that the country cannot depend on low wages and that the current minimum wage is insufficient. However, its electoral programme fails to propose a mandatory increase in minimum wage or a mandatory living allowance (as requested anti-poverty activists).
It’s also unfortunate that Opposition leader Bernard Grech is making other proposals that seem to contradict the goals of his manifesto. For instance, his proposal to waive traffic contraventions “after a six-month period, if no further infractions are committed by motorists.”
One cannot ‘reward good behaviour’, whilst also encouraging leniency for those who flout the rules and regulations. Otherwise, it will be a case of ‘too much carrot, and too little stick’.
We stand with Ukraine
As all peace-loving, rational people everywhere, this newspaper witnessed the unfolding events this week in Ukraine with alarm, distress, as well as a general sense o helplessness.
This is a normal reaction to the despicable act by brute military force. Nonetheless, such events call for more than mere ‘solidarity’ with the victims of Vladimir Putin’s aggression. ‘Helpless’ though we may feel, there are still ways in which even small, peripheral countries such as Malta can contribute in more meaningful ways.
Malta’s neutrality status may remain a paramount consideration; but it must not prevent us from taking decisive action, in any non-military area where we actually can.
This includes our practice to sell passports to Russian citizens. This is simply indefensible.
Likewise, Malta must add its voice to the pressure for harsher sanctions against Vladimir Putin’s regime. Now is the time to stand foursquare with Europe, in a firm response to Russian aggression; as well as by supporting all efforts for peace, and for Ukraine’s defence of its territorial integrity.
