Editorial
The gagging of five leadership contenders
Missing the bus usually means a delay of a few minutes. But deliberately forcing others to miss Xarabank (bus in Maltese and the title of a weekly TV chat show) means much more. Such a decision by the electoral commission of the Malta Labour Party betrays a mentality that does not tally at all with the attitude of openness to the media expected today of any political party. It reflects an attitude more consonant with countries where democracy is a scarce commodity than with a country or party where democracy should be alive and vibrant.
The electoral commission's decision is tantamount to censorship especially when seen in the light of the commission's media-hostile attitude. It had at first ordered the leadership contestants to refrain from giving interviews. This appalling decision was resisted and the commission was forced to eat humble pie. More recently, it directed the newsroom of One TV to censor the presence and comments of Martin Shultz, head of the Socialist Parliamentary Group at the European Parliament, during a joint press conference held with Joe Muscat.
The cherry on the cake is the decision concerning Xarabank. The commission said that the contestants should not be allowed to take part in a debate with each other. The Nationalist Party had made the same restriction on the candidates running for leadership after the resignation of Eddie Fenech Adami. A compromise was reached and there was a debate between representatives of the candidates. It seems that this was not acceptable to the MLP and Xarabank offered to have one-on-one interviews with the candidates instead of a debate. The commission then insisted such interviews should not be held during a live audience. They should be recorded and the commission would view the programme and have the right to censor what the candidates said.
What a shameful and undemocratic attitude! The attitude of the commission shows a lot of distrust in the contestants and party followers. Does the commission believe they are not up to holding a civil debate between them? What is really worrying the commission? Does the commission have such a dim view of the contestants that it thinks they cannot face a group of people?
The candidates will, in a few years' time, face the electorate and ask for its trust and vote so that they lead the country. Are we to understand that those who want to lead the country are not mature enough for public debate? One would like to think that all the contestants would have handled the occasion well and that the contrast created would have helped the delegates to make the right choice.
The Labour Party is in a very painful but important moment in its history. It wants to show the country that it has learned its lessons from the recent defeat and that it is ready to change and face the future. So long as the Labour Party keeps on giving positions of trust to persons such as those sitting on the electoral commission it will be sending the message that it is not the party of change but stagnation, not the party of dialogue but diktat. The electoral commission's decisions have done untold damage to the new image that the Labour Party wants and needs to project.
Popular Stories
Labour Party resorts to political...
Why calling an election now makes sense
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Top businessman touches some raw nerves
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
Smoke signals of the very worrying kind
Stemming the tide of migrants
Did justice prevail in the Lockerbie...
Frustration over fuel price increases
In Discussion
Stamp out racism or suffer the...
Stemming the tide of migrants
Labour Party resorts to political...
Does it really pay to use public...
Roadworks, traffic chaos and...
If Libya is to accede to Refugee...
This country must remain competitive
Frustration over fuel price increases
Shameful case of lack of accountability
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Martinelli
Jun 1st 2008, 00:15
@ Joseph Farrugia
Boycotts are like an on-off switch to be manipulated as it suits the MLP. So if the new leader is invited and accepts sometime in the future, the MLP will say that a boycott never existed?
@ Joseph Agius
Why did the five disagree with the electoral commission and are only abiding with the ruling because they were threatened with disqualification?
@ Emmanuel Mazzitelli
The MLP is biting the hand that feeds them. Any political party needs the press and if the press turns on a party, its influence may make the difference. The last election is a classical case when the MLP tried to deliver their message which was judged to be half baked and ended up with all the media (except the usual MLP machine) criticizing it .
The MLP is imposing the restriction on itself so don't blame Xarabank or the Editor of The Times if their reporting on this issue do not coincide with your views.
You are mixing up Freedom of the Press with Freedom of Speech which, by the way does not include libel or slander against another person. Lying about another person is never justifiable freedom of speech or not!
Joe Vella
May 31st 2008, 22:27
@ Emmanuel Mazzitelli
Perhaps The Freedom of the Press was not directly attacked by the MLP Electoral Commission. However by banning the five leadership canditates from attending Xarabank , denied the Maltese Electorate the opportunity to listen from all 5 of them at the same time. Thus , the freedon of the press was restricted in this regard.
You indicated that we already have listened enough from the leadership candidates and that Xarabank's programme would be just a repeat of what we had already heard. As indicated, if the MLPO Commission concern was one of equality and fairness to the leadership candidates, then it should have taken it upon itself to organise such a debate on the MLP media outlets. I suggest that it didn't do so because it was not in the best interest of the chosen one by the KLIKKA. Where is the fairness and equality on the MLP Electoral Commission part?
On the issue of the Libel legislation, I am in agreement with you that it needs an overhaul, The sooner the better. Perhaps then we can have a decent debate based on ideas and inspirations rather on mud slinging.
Frans Sammut
May 31st 2008, 20:49
If Mr Vella can't get a name right, how can we expect him to understand the manipulative skills of the media and their debilitating effects on party politics that are at the core of democracy?
Emmanuel Mazzitelli
May 31st 2008, 20:25
@ Joe Vella
What has Freedom of the Press to do with yesterday's circumstances? Or with my argument to that matter? Make no mistake, Freedom of the Press is restricted in Malta. Have a look at the pending libel cases and you will have a quick answer. Our libels legislation needs a very good overhaul.
Joseph Agius
May 31st 2008, 18:33
It seems to me that on this issue you, Mr Editor, and the usual suspects do protest too much; and since this time it s not about something the MLP has done but about something it did not do, namely dance to your tune, I might be excused if I suspect that this time round the MLP has indeed got it right. .
JOseph Farrugia
May 31st 2008, 18:06
If everyone give a sincere reason why the MLP electoral commission took that decision it will be far from a boycott on Xarabank program. The fact that the delegates are going to elect the new leader and considering the fact that every delegate had the opportunity to meet with all the candidates in different occasions, in my opinion there was no need to make a debate on a program who's main intention is to make profit. After the 6th of June I am convinced that Peppi Azzopardi will have all the time to invite the MLP leader and for sure it will be proved that the boycott doesn't exist.
David Wain
May 31st 2008, 17:55
Peter Muscat says that time will surely justify the Commission's decision!! Like it justified the previous Xarabank boycott?
The MLP defeat report states that the party must shed its paranioa and a couple of weeks later the commission comes out with this rubbish. You really, really never learn!! MLP in 5 years time will be the same as it is today
Joseph Mizzi
May 31st 2008, 16:52
I agree with bloggers who believe that the MLP Election Commission made a wise decision not to allow the five leadership contenders to take part in the last Xarabank before the Leadership election.
I agree because Xarabank is the local equivalent of the Jerry Springer Show. This is why Xarabank is the most popular TV show on the island - it provides light entertainment as it tends to treat all topics discussed as if they were entertaining circus acts. This is why I watch Xarabank, and yesterday's was no exception.
I agree that the Surveys commissioned by WE are scientifically conducted, even though the questions submitted to the sample respondents tend to be piloted towards the not-so-hidden agenda of the show's producers.
However, I would like to know how the "self-described political orientation" of "Floating Voter" is determined. In my opinion, the "surveyor " can take the respondent's word for the question of which Party got his vote in the last election, but he cannot accept the mere declaration "I'm a floater" to determine this category. I think that a floater is a respondent who voted for different parties during his/her voting life, and this should be made clear.
Joe Vella
May 31st 2008, 16:42
@ Charles Sammut and Frans DeMicoli
Both of you are very naive. the answer to your perception of things documented in the MLP Commission report itself. All you have to do look under the Media Section of the report.
Simply put it, the MLP Electoral Office could have easily arranged under its auspices a debate between the 5 leadership candidates on Super One If it concern was that the candidates would not be treated equally by appearing on Xarabank.
The MLP owes the Maltese Electorate the right to hear who is inspiring to lead them in the future.
the MLP have failed the Country once more, Shame.
R. Caruana
May 31st 2008, 16:34
And everyone thought that following another humble defeat the MLP was going to change its ways. No chance whatsoever. It would seem it got used to the opposition benches.
Albert Hall
May 31st 2008, 15:14
If the Maltese Labour Party is anything remotely like the UK version, then it deserves many years in opposition, to be frank, never to be elected again.
Frans Sammut
May 31st 2008, 14:16
Xarabank? Bah! At least Jerry Springer has the decency (!) to keep away from national politics. What is rather frustrating (though, thankfully, there is Corrida by way of compensation) is that we have to pay that debatable license which in turn funds these silly programmes. I was thinking of calling such programmes (with the exception of the tongue-in-cheek Corrida) tacky. But that would not be exact. Perhaps, kitsch would be more appropriate?
Charles DeMicoli
May 31st 2008, 13:40
Imagine if Jerry Springer insisted with the Democratic Party to have Clinton, Obama and the rest of the contenders for nomination on his show. This is practically what was being asked of the MLP. The Xarabank episode would have devolved into a circus, with the presenter looking for a sensational scoop and rowdy reactions from the audience. The leadership race and the publication of the electoral defeat analysis are more than enough proof of the openness of the MLP. The "tikketta" of MLP's hostility to the media is overused and passe. I'm certain that if there was a better venue suited for a balanced, dignified debate or presentation, the candidates would have participated.
Joe Vella
May 31st 2008, 11:36
@ Emmanuel Mazzittelli
One of the most crucial and fundamantal issue in an any Democracy is that of the Freedom of the Press. If you do not have freedom of the press and/or Political parties mozzle individuals from expressing themselves in a free and open debate, then all other issues are meaningless.
If the Electoral Commission of the MLP didn't believe that Xarabank sould not be fair to all the Canditates, it had at its' disposal a very practical solution. That is to organise a debate among the five leadership contestant on Super One.
Peter Muscat
May 31st 2008, 11:22
The hostility of a good portion of the local media towards the MLP is a fact no one can run from. An action demands a re-action.
I confess I rarely ever watch Xarabank though I am more then aware of its most biased position towards the MLP. I am sure as the majority of the public, that there is always a ‘hidden agenda’ on most of Xarabank’s Political Debate or whatever. Of course, the MLP’s electoral commission is like the rest of us aware of this.
The MLP Electoral commission acted intelligently and practically to safeguard the interests of the MLP in general and the five contestants in particular. It is not a question of ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom of expression’. It was a brave and wise decision. This paper chose to call it ‘shameful’. I did not expect anything better from my daily paper.
The electoral commission’s first responsibility was to set ‘rules of the game’ to safeguard the interests of the party and the contestants themselves. That is imperative in a democracy to survive.
Time would surely justify the electoral commission.
WELL DONE
Emmanuel Mazzitelli
May 31st 2008, 10:34
WE have heard the 5 contestants ad nauseam so a further invitation on Xarabank would have been a repetition of what has been said in numerous TV interviews on PBS, NET, ONE TV and Smash. We have had enough of interviews, the 5 contestants have said what they had to say and I believe the sooner we get done with the 5th June election of the MLP leader the better, so finally government and opposition can get down to proper business.
After next week this country needs a deep reflection and a serious SWOT analysis to come out with a carefully thought plan of how we intend to tackle our future, taking into consideration the creeping oil and food prices and how these will effect our economy, wages and salaries, jobs, cost of living, standard of living, our trade balance etc, etc. These are the crucial issues that are really worrying. Your editorials would do us greater service to harp on and analyse issues that have a direct bearing on our daily bread and butter.