watersbroken

The uncooling of a ruling party.

Posted in 1 by Editor on December 22, 2008

 watersbroken4

Intellectually, watersbroken, is the heir of Labour-in-labour[http://labourinlabour.wordpress.com], the unauthorised blog that accompanied the Labour Party’s travailed quest for a new leader after its latest electoral defeat in March of this (2008) year. watersbroken inherits Labour-in-labour’s irreverence towards ossified official party structures (and, let’s face it, structures tends to become rigid and to ossify as soon as they become official).

watersbroken also inherits its predecessor’s conviction that, slowly but surely, the day draws near when the majority of even moderately intelligent and moderately creative persons in this country will think twice before identifying themselves unreservedly with the ruling Nationalist Party.

Amongst the first beginning to take distance (a modest arms-length to begin with) from the Nationalist Party are those who can no longer stand its institutionalised hypocrisy, those that are repelled by the widening chasm between its holier-than-thou rhetoric (you’d think some of its irjus kbar walk on water and levitate ecstatically) and the sordidness of the business and power deals that this rhetoric helps to hide. Let’s call this category of emergent dissenters, the ‘ethical objectors’.

Then there is the category of ‘aesthetic objectors’. These are the ones whose standards of style and good taste are high enough for them to be increasingly put off by the ruling party’s free-falling aesthetic standards – whereby ‘ruling party’ is to be understood as not only the official PN structures but its social networks across civil society, its clikek. The loudest and the most visible elements of the ruling party are simply too loud, too strident, too shrill in both a visual and acoustic sense.

The vulgar element has hijacked the ruling party. Let’s be clear: when we refer to the PN’s ‘vulgar element’, we are not thinking primarily of the tough guys, the picciotti, the tough guys that swarm around some ministers, members of parliament and candidates. We are thinking mainly of those whose vulgarity is derived from the arrogance of power, power not derived from merit but from family and other connections. We are thinking of those who make distinctions between the Nationalists who matter (and who get what they want, always, at any cost) and the Nationalists that do not matter.

To many bona fide Nationalists, this state of affairs is not only unfair but also ugly. It is aesthetically revolting. Amongst those who have had enough of this state of affairs are conscientious individuals of all ages. There are senior citizens directly descended from the gruppo dirigente Mizziano of the old party of notables as it emerged from the Second World War, gentlemen and ladies of the old school, reserved and thoughtful, cosmopolitan and culturally ‘continental’, and mindful of the severe lessons that history meted out to their lineage. It also includes elderly, well-educated and open-minded former Stricklandjani pushed by circumstances into an unpalatable alliance with their former antagonists.

And what about the thousands of frugal white collar public and private sector employees and their children who for some reason or other – whether that reason was ‘reasonable’ or otherwise is, for the purposes of this argument, irrelevant – felt they could not vote for Mintoff, Mifsud Bonnici or Sant?  These are people who work hard to put their children through private schools they can hardly afford, to pay for their private lessons and put enough money in their kids’ pockets so that these can dress and drink whatever their richer (and better connected) peers dictate is the cool thing.

 

Advertisements

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Renzo Galea said, on December 22, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    “Deinde quid opus est ira, cum idem proficiat ratio?” exclaims the stoic Seneca. But why do we need wrath, when reason achieves the same results? Seneca argues that not anger but self-control and intelligence are necessary to defeat an enemy. That is why, he argues, the barbarians, although physically stronger than civilised adversaries, tend to be defeated by them. It is ire that weakens them. If Labour is to defeat GonziPN, it must shed its reputation as the party of the perpetually inkazzati. Watersbroken points in the right direction. Taking the PN apart, analysing its component parts, its internal contradictions…that is the first step to defeating it.

  2. Rebecca Matthews Micallef said, on December 23, 2008 at 8:33 am

    Renzo Galea’s learned point is taken and appreciated but he must admit that it is not easy not to be angered by the antics of the bunch of pretentious ignoramuses that is currently running din l-art morra.

  3. Malcolm Borg said, on December 24, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    The uncooling of the ruling party is not enough. Unless the opposition party is perceived as cool, all we will get is a political vacuum that will be soon filled in by – at best – apathy, familism and a distrust of politics generally, or – and this is the worse scenario – loony parties of all sorts (think of hunters goose-stepping down Republic Street, skin-heads torching refugee camps and supporters of a DCG party barbecueing stray poodles on the wider Ghadira beach made possible by Austin’s highway to Cirkewwa). The opposition party finally has a cool leader, Joseph Muscat, but the Partit Laburista itself is still light years behind him. Only when PL adopts Muscat’s mentality will it bulldoze over GonziPN.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: