Politics or "Gang" Warfare and Personalisation

I referred to politics in Gibraltar having been reduced to "gang" warfare in a reply to comments made under my last blog. I was referring to the existence of such a war between the two dominant "gangs" of politicians.  I also made reference to the general tendency that exists to personalise issues. There is an interrelationship between both observations. It is important, in my mind, to make a sustained effort to elevate politics out of this mire. It is this consideration that drives, in part, my desire and campaign to reform our electoral and parliamentary systems. I fear and predict that, if nothing is done or nothing intervenes to avoid it happening, this next general election will descend to levels of cross-party sniping and insults that will surpass those reached in the recent past.

At one time I described politics in Gibraltar as "tribal". I am now of the view that this description applies more to diehard party adherents than to politicians themselves. Politicians seem to have formed two "gangs". These "gangs" fight each other. However, they maintain their respective dominance of politics by both "gangs" following vague and unwritten rules. These rules are selfish and not aimed at enhancing democracy or the rights of individuals. One "gang" is called the GSD. The other is called the GSLP/Liberal Alliance. I leave the PDP out of the equation because they are also victims of the two dominant "gangs". I do not exonerate its leader Kieth Azopardi, however. He was one of the architects of the 2006 Constitution that laid the foundations for the "gang" mentality that I suggest dominates politics in Gibraltar.

Let me explain my theory briefly, the Westminster Style of government, which Gibraltar has adopted, has three basic (but non-exclusive) principles. One is that Parliament has sovereign law making powers. Another is that the Executive can only govern under the Rule of Law, which is much ignored in Gibraltar. Yet another is that Parliament has the supreme right and duty to oversee, question and criticise the exercise of power by the Executive arm of government. The Chief Minister and all Ministers should be answerable to Parliament, which should be supreme.

Unfortunately, as I argued in my last blog, this ability of Parliament to oversee the Chief Minister and Ministers has been turned on its head. One reason is that where and when Parliament meets is exclusively in the discretion of the Chief Minister. The only rule that binds him is that under the 2006 Constitution he must hold at least 3 meetings in any year. Without set times for more frequent meetings of Parliament, it is the Chief Minister and so the Executive that retains supremacy rather than Parliament. This fact when it is conjoined with a lack of the separation of powers conspires to undermine Parliament's supremacy and its oversight of the executive arm of government.

The reason I refer above to "certain vague and unwritten rules" between the two dominant parties is because the 2006 Constitution was conceived and given birth to by a Select Committee of the House of  Assembly. Both dominating parties or 'gangs" reached agreement on the 2006 Constitution. You will recall that the GSLP/Liberal Alliance endorsed the acceptance of the 2006 Constitution at the referendum. Therefore, intentionally or unintentionally, it does not matter which, both the GSD and the GSLP/Liberal Alliance cooperated to develop a constitutional system that has resulted in the supremacy of Parliament being undermined. Consequently, so has the Rule of Law been undermined. Then effect of these two deficiencies is that once in power the Chief Minister or "gang" leader and his Minister's or "gang" members rule supreme. The other "gang" then has to do its level best to gain that power, whilst the "gang" in power uses all methods to hand to retain that power.

What is odd, in the extreme, is that the public had no participation in crafting the 2006 Constitution, other than it had the right to make representations to the Select Committee.  This was not the case for the 1969 Constitution. Prior to that Constitution, a conference of all representative bodies was involved in the process. The absence of direct public representation in the process that led to the 2006 Constitution has meant that only those who had an interest in the outcome, namely the two dominating parties, were involved in the process. An example of a greater conflict of interests would be difficult to find anywhere. The 2006 Constitution in its democratic aspects was crafted by politicians to suit politicians and not democracy.

One can only assume that there was a reason for the GSLP/Liberal Alliance's endorsement of the 2006 Constitution. That reason may be that, together with the stilted electoral system, there was a certainty in the minds of the GSLP/Liberal Alliance that at some stage they would be elected into Government. Once in Government those very same aspects that disadvantaged them in Opposition would be converted to their own advantage, to be used against the party which had previously formed the Government. The latter would then simply have to wait for their own turn to come around again, whilst simultaneously resorting to "gang" warfare tactics to recover its lost power. It is all a very convenient arrangement with little thought given to constituents. The disadvantages of the system fall entirely on the electorate. The electorate would have been the net beneficiary of enhanced democracy, if a better constitutional and electoral system had emerged in 2006. The benefit and advantage to constituents has been ignored by the two dominant parties, perhaps on purpose and perhaps arising from the conflict of interests that led to the the 2006 Constitution being devised as it was.

This "gang" warfare that I have described is a game played at a high level, in blissful disregard of constituents, between the two dominant parties. It is fought by exchanges of press releases and in infrequent (ate the behest of the Chief Minister) meetings of Parliament. These releases and meetings are, on the whole, only understandable by the politicians or "gang" members of both dominating parties. This general lack of understanding in the main arise from general boredom which results in few persons or no one reading these press releases or following debates and other events in Parliament. This boredom comes about because of the irrelevance of what "gang"members are doing and the introversion and length of those press releases and reports of events in Parliament, both being, on the whole, about inter-"gang" conflicts and issues, which interests no one else. Press release and parliamentary interventions also become exchanges of insults and personalised attacks, in part due to the constant desire to remain in government or take over government. None of this behaviour by our politicians or "gang" members advances or enhances democracy, quite the opposite. It is simply  a war as between two "gangs" the aim of one is to cling to power the objective of the other is to wrest power from the first. 

The electorate for most of the time are ignored and disregarded. People and democracy are forgotten. In the meantime this "gang" warfare continues. The people are only remembered every 4 years just at the time that the election campaign comes around. At this juncture both dominant parties need votes, so both promise the earth whilst ignoring whether these promises are actually good for the commonweal. Responsibility is forgotten and promises of lavish expenditure and electoral gifts are offered in return for votes. Responsibility and real politics fly out of the window. The prize that is sought is power. After the results of the election are announced the "gang" war starts again without regard for constituents. The forgotten people, until the next election, are the voters, despite that democracy is designed for the benefit of precisely the people as a collective and irrespective of what "tribe" or party each may belong to. It may be that in part the present economic crisis in the Western World has been caused by the consequences of overgenerous electoral promises financed by borrowings. Borrowings that now there is difficulty in repaying. This behaviour, in my book, is not what democracy and government are or were ever about, both require responsible conduct and actions from all politicians, whichever party they belong to. Democracy should never be an excuse for bad governance and bad management of public finances.