Tuesday, 21st July 2009
Do truth and politics mix?
Truth is not an easy virtue. In our post-modern culture, it is even very difficult to define it. Some believe that everyone has his or her own truth. Descartes' famous dictum: "I think therefore I am" has been changed to "I think this is so, therefore it must be so."
We find it difficulty to be always truthful (as we find it difficult to be chaste, obedient, altruistic) because our human nature is gravely wounded by sin. On the other hand, I think that most are conscious that without the assumption of truth as the basis of our relationships society falls to pieces. Imagine what would happen to society if we live by the assumption that people never (or very rarely) tell us the truth!
Although we see its usefulness, we are not always too eager to recognise it. Pilate asked Christ "What is the truth?" However, Pilate did not wait for the answer. We do this all the time. Many a time we are not ready to face the truth or to witness it. White lies are a stratagem used by many to avoid potentially embarrassing situations. In Catholic moral theology, a whole corpus about mental restriction has been built along the years. The system devised lets you avoid saying the truth without being guilty of saying a lie.
Some people believe that politics and truth do not mix; just as some also believe that advertising, or shall we say journalism, and the truth do not mix. However, let us consider politics only for this piece, otherwise, things would become too complex.
I do not share this cynical approach to politics. Politicians are not more or less truthful than the rest of us, though I concede that the temptation of being untruthful is more common in politics and that people fall into it.
Truth, law abiding and elections
Within this context, I discuss the issue about the post-electoral sworn declaration that candidates have to present. In this declaration, they state how much they, or their agent or any other person, spent on their campaign or in their interest. There are two widespread perceptions: that the amount that can be spent is unrealistically small compared to the task at hand and that many make the declaration even though they spend more than the amount stipulated.
I wrote about this subject in my blog "I want to be Prime Minister" (December 18, 2007). I appealed for the law to be changed not fiddled with. I wrote again about the issue on January 30, 2008. I was reacting to the article penned by Georg Sapiano in The Times of January 24th. He contested the general election for the first time and was facing this dilemma: not communicating well with his constituents or breaking the law.
He chose the first option; did not communicate well with his constituents but put himself away from the temptation of presenting a declaration sworn falsely. I do not remember writing about the subject since then. On the other hand, Georg kept on writing about this subject before and after the election for the European Parliament. The Times and The Sunday Times took up the issue and turned it into a campaign. This helped the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition come real. Last Saturday, they wrote to the Speaker asking him to get the Select Committee of Parliament cracking and propose changes to the law. This, though, is not the end of the story.
Your truth! My truth!
Your compliance. My compliance.
What were the reactions among the public and the politicians while the controversy was going on?
I think that most of the public did not really care. Either they had other issues to worry about or they expect politicians to play with the truth, or both, or they thought that this was a mountain out of a mole hole. Some, on the other hand, considered this to be a matter of principles. They did not want the candidates to file, or be seen as filing, a false declaration.
Some candidates stated publicly the amounts they spent. Most were first time candidates and there declarations were generally held to be credible. One could feel a touch of disappointment in their statement. They felt that they were at an unfair advantage when compared to other stronger candidates.
Dr Frank Portelli and Mr Edward Demicoli, who contested on the PN ticket, took a courageous step. They swore that they broke the law. They said that they did not exceed the limit out of their personal funds but that the limit was exceeded when one considered what was spent in their interest by others.
The cynic could say that Portelli and Demicoli did what they did because the penalty they would have to pay (if found guilty) was moderate (not to say miserable) while on the other hand they reaped the advantage given to those who seem to occupy the high moral ground. It is true that their action must have won them the admiration of many, I included, but this does not justify the cynical attitude just referred too.
Their principled action, I suspect, contributed towards pushing the situation in the direction of a crisis, and thus facilitated the search for a remedy.
Dr Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas took a legalistic position. She said that a candidate, under the law, becomes a candidate when he or she is officially approved. She swore that her spending during that period did not exceed the legal limit. She also said that she would be publishing what she spent before that period. I have no problem with her position. I think that it is an accepted principle that whenever a law is restrictive it should be given the narrowest interpretation possible.
Dr Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas used this principle in her favour. Besides, as she wrote, when the law is an ass it should be treated as an ass. Her action is also courageous as she opened herself to possible prosecution if the relevant authorities give a different interpretation to the law.
It is interesting to note that all those who publicly challenged the law or publicly interpreted it in a different but credible way - Georg, Frank Portelli and Edward Demicoli, Tedesco Triccas - came from the PN. Why was there no similar reaction from the Partit Laburista? Was this not considered to be an issue important enough for public debate?
All candidates, including our MEPs, as required by law now made their declarations. These will eventually be made public. However, I am disappointed that our MEPs did not feel that it would have been politically more correct had they explained to us voters the rationale behind their position when presenting their sworn declaration. I think we are owned an explanation.
Now the ball is in the court of the relevant institutions that have to verify all the declarations made and confirm their truthfulness or otherwise. I do not jump to conclusion and suggest that these declarations are not truthful. Who am I to make such a presumptuous judgement? However, I expect that in the interest of the candidates, (whose honesty is rashly held suspect by some), in the interest of the law and in the interest of truth these institutions will rise up to the occasion and fulfil their duty, as they never fulfilled it before.
Please do not let us all down. Truth and politics do mix and should be seen mixing.
RSS
Comments
The TV therefore is responsible to forward what the elite/media/"new world order-gang" wants them to hear. So crystal clear to me, but so difficult for the people who believe only the TV. I can almost determine "a priori" your thoughts about political views, upon the percentage of time spent on which channel!
It is usually (not 100%) the case whereby the media forwards an agenda to promote an idea. For example it is forwarding a fear of the swine flu, in great disproportion to its danger. It does not ad nauseum state the 36,000 deaths of the common flu in the US, but the 600 for example already dead worldwide with the swine flu.
This promotes the tamiflu capsules and the vaccines, and the government buys them, as they fear the worst. Fear is Satan's greatest weapon, and uses it to a great effect. I do not buy the virus mutation story, but if you do, why do we need a vaccine, if the virus mutates, hence no real "immunization"!
The only vaccine shot, so that truth and polictics mix, is only when people adopt God's laws, when justice is real, and when "False witnesses" (A Commandment) is not broken!
So where is the catch here? The US people hearing Ron Paul, stating that he wants the US military out of Middle East, to abolish the Federal Reserve (thereby the gov can borrow with NO interest!), medicare with no Big Brother influence and with a choice, etc, won hands down on policy.
The issue is that the Major TV stations simply shunned him out. The free internet is one market media, but it is still not like TV.
Continued...
Not only is the level of campagning money too low, but almost ridiculous.
The main issue is not just the pamphets, although one can determine some base-line minimum expenses, just by the printing.
The main advertising is always on the TV and secondary the radio. Without it, exposure is quite limited. Hence the parties themselves "promote" what they want on thier respective stations and depending on the level of exposure on the media, including newspapers, get a better push.
This media-related political candidate push is not trivial and it is difficult to establish a monetary value on it, but critical if one wants to be elected.
Ask yourself how much air-time each candidate has on behald of the major political parties, and how much have the independants. You can sum up the conclusions very quickly.
No rocket science here!
It seems that your difficulty in understanding my meaning lies in the fact that my English is Canadian.
Dr. Metsola appears to have landed herself in deep trouble. Admitting that she broke the law is naive, to say the least. Compounding it by attempting to justify it because the law is, in this particular case, an ass, is dumb as dumb can be. She, of all people, knows or should know that, no matter how asinine a law is, we have to abide by it.
And then along comes your defence of her stand ... by imputing to the LP candidates her misdeed and relying on your insinuation to exonerate her.
In the court of public opinion of which this blog is a small part, casting aspersions, innuendo, mud-slinging, personal attacks, character-assassination are the norm. Truth is usually the first casualty. Sophistry reigns supreme.
In a Court of Law, however, only facts are considered.
BTW, have you heard about what Mrs. McLooney, of County Donegal, Ireland, told her sons, Sean and Ryan, before they boarded a flight to Malta? "Attend Mass, but stay away from priests." I wonder why!
I don't think a 10 year old is a perfect sinless person ta. No such thing anywhere. Sure there was the first person who sinned, first person who killed, first person who stole.. why not?
"because our human nature is gravely wounded by sin"
Kindly elaborate this statement. Whose sin? Does a newly born, a 5 year old or a ten year old fall into this parameter?
Why are we still being fed Adam and Eve story? Can’t we accept that human nature has an instinct to survive inherited from our ancestors?
"It is interesting to note that all those who publicly challenged the law or publicly interpreted it in a different but credible way - Georg, Frank Portelli and Edward Demicoli, Tedesco Triccas - came from the PN."
And asked:
"Why was there no similar reaction from the Partit Laburista? Was this not considered to be an issue important enough for public debate?"
Is Fr. Borg hiding partisanship while displaying impartiality?
It begs the question:
If my neighbour, across the street, declares that he has been unfaithful to his wife, am I morally bound to declare that I have been faithful to my spouse? ... or be deemed to be unfaithful?
Or,
Should every priest declare that he is not a pedophile each time a pedophile-priest is caught?
Assigning moral equivalency seems to be the silver bullet in the PR's arsenal of chicanery. It's the sugar-coating that makes political bull palatable.
Do truth and politics mix? Not on this planet. And most certainly, not in Malta.
Definitely and the shame of it is that very often such booklets are picked up from the letter box and promptly deposited in the trash bin without a cursory glance. Imagine the waste!!!
The constituents are hardly swayed by such literature. Their minds, very often, are already made up. The familiar faces are committed to their memories and will be considered in due time.
Unfortunately it is the newcomers, especially the ones with a surname far down in the alphabetical ladder who will suffer. If the law is to be re-considered, these last mentioned points should be taken into consideration.
If the amount stipulated by law is ridiculously low, it should be raised, but the newcomers should be allowed more than the average exposure in the media to make it worthwhile for them to invest in a campaign where they do not take off disadvantaged from the word “Go!”
..which is the most serious type of "election", would they bother with the funding at candidate level?
Ask any quote from a publisher, say for example so many pages in colour and you will be amazed at how much it costs. Certain campagining booklets must have cost a bomb.
What is politics? Poli means many and tics are bloodsuckers, so this definition means bloodsuckers. Jokes or truth apart, I am sure that many people think of politicians as corrupt. I have a old Maltese newspaper cutting, having a policeman declaring that ALL politicians are corrupt. That is quite a powerful statement.
It is topical today that news on political candidate spending, but not much word was spent on the EU referendum. Had the labour or other persons have the financial backing of then Malta EU information Centre or other entities, besides the right delivery, I am sure that Malta would not be part of the EU.
Remember that the EU referendum margin victory was quite slim.
When referring to the EU - Malta Referendum, are EU organisations or foreign funders not bound by the law when it comes to fund Maltese politics? This exceedingly important step of Malta.
Luke; 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
So if politicians did not bother with the EU Referendum funding...