There is often a lot of press about the political repercussions of the grant of public contracts to the private sector. Often the criticism is political criticism of the government about who has obtained a tender or how it has or has not been performed.
It is odd to the extreme that such criticism is made at that level. Any political criticism should surely be directed at the process and not at the detail. If criticism at the detail has to be levelled it can only be because there is too direct an involvement by the political government in the selection process. It is this that needs to be criticised not mistakes made and resultant disasters.
What seems to have been forgotten is all the criticism made by the GSD of the GSLP government for direct allocations of public contracts whilst the GSLP was in power. What seems to have been forgotten is the promises made by the GSD that all this would end when they got into power. The promises of transparency and independence of such matters from interference by the political government.
Why is there so little comment about these things? Why do politicians not criticise this system over and over again? Is it that this is the system that is preferred by all politicians in case they are elected into government? Well that should not be the primary consideration. The primary consideration should be what is good for Gibraltar and its people.
Remember the money that is being spent belongs to all of us ... it is not money belonging to the government. They are entrusted to use it properly for all of us.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Complaisance, Complacence or a Struggle for Improvement?
There is often much comment in Gibraltar that in the GSD we have the better of two bad choices for government. The theory goes why elect the GSLP/Libs (the only alternative under the present electoral system), if the GSD has done overall much better than the GSLP/Libs ever did or could do. In this way the GSD is forgiven its ever increasing failings and failures and electors caste their votes in favour of the GSD.
This argument has historically justified dictatorship, totalitarianism and consequently evil. Many a regime that has committed atrocities, not least the Franco regime in Spain, has had their existence justified on such opportunistic, expedient and cowardly argument. It is a fundamentally flawed argument born of lazy indifference and usually made by those benefiting financially from the system that it seeks to justify and support. A system must not be justified or forgiven because it delivers second best.
It is an argument that favours mediocrity. If there are failings and failures the demand should be for reform of the system. Reform that will deliver excellence by correcting that which is wrong. The reform that is crying out to be made in Gibraltar is a reform to the electoral system such as will deliver two things. First encouragement for more people to stand for election and give the electorate a greater choice. Secondly a backbench to counteract the power of the executive.
If evil and wrongdoing is to be avoided there is a need to separate the executive and the legislature. This will allow the rule of law to operate as it should. The executive can only act under powers given to it in laws passed by the legislature. This allows the legislature to act as an overseer of the executive and prevent what can be a quick descent into rule by virtual diktat. A fanciful thought? It has happened in what were previously British colonies, not least in Malta under Mintoff and not so long ago. Thankfully the ultimate check and balance in a democratic system, elections, usually make any such descent short lived but prevention is invariably better than cure.
This argument has historically justified dictatorship, totalitarianism and consequently evil. Many a regime that has committed atrocities, not least the Franco regime in Spain, has had their existence justified on such opportunistic, expedient and cowardly argument. It is a fundamentally flawed argument born of lazy indifference and usually made by those benefiting financially from the system that it seeks to justify and support. A system must not be justified or forgiven because it delivers second best.
It is an argument that favours mediocrity. If there are failings and failures the demand should be for reform of the system. Reform that will deliver excellence by correcting that which is wrong. The reform that is crying out to be made in Gibraltar is a reform to the electoral system such as will deliver two things. First encouragement for more people to stand for election and give the electorate a greater choice. Secondly a backbench to counteract the power of the executive.
If evil and wrongdoing is to be avoided there is a need to separate the executive and the legislature. This will allow the rule of law to operate as it should. The executive can only act under powers given to it in laws passed by the legislature. This allows the legislature to act as an overseer of the executive and prevent what can be a quick descent into rule by virtual diktat. A fanciful thought? It has happened in what were previously British colonies, not least in Malta under Mintoff and not so long ago. Thankfully the ultimate check and balance in a democratic system, elections, usually make any such descent short lived but prevention is invariably better than cure.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
GSLP/Libs Continued Folly on the Airport.
Why are the GSLP/Libs undermining Gibraltar's case on sovereignty? In an attempt to make local political capital in their quest for votes and power they give to Spain arguments that they could and would not use against Gibraltar. This a a bad addiction that they do not seem able to overcome.
Why do they say “It would be totally unacceptable to have a building on the Spanish side which is called the “north terminal” or worse still “La Linea airport” and in the same breath, by restating the obvious, bring into doubt that the airport is ‘Gibraltar airport’ and built on British soil. Even worse that “It is obvious that Spanish politicians are under the impression that what has been described here as expanded use of Gibraltar airport is actually some form of joint use."
In the same way as anything built on Gibraltar can and will be called whatever Gibraltar decides, cannot Spain call whatever they build on their own sovereign territory anything that they want? The only answer to this is of course they can. Whatever semantics Spain uses to describe their building cannot affect the sovereignty arguments that Gibraltar has. What the GSLP/Libs do by raising the issue is to cast into doubt that which is undoubted. This is emphatically made worse by even suggesting that anything that has or is being done can be "joint use" of the airport.
The GSLP/Libs should be more mature than to cast doubt on matters upon which there is no doubt. Gibraltar's position on the airport and, indeed, on all the territory that is Gibraltar is quite clear. What Spain does on its own sovereign territory can and does not have any effect or impact on Gibraltar's position.
The GSLP/Libs should be less selfish in their quest for electoral success and seek to defend and not undermine Gibraltar for their own and no one else's benefit. Mr Bossano opportunism has got you nowhere. It is only real politics and policies that will get you somewhere. You have been in politics long enough to know this.
Why do they say “It would be totally unacceptable to have a building on the Spanish side which is called the “north terminal” or worse still “La Linea airport” and in the same breath, by restating the obvious, bring into doubt that the airport is ‘Gibraltar airport’ and built on British soil. Even worse that “It is obvious that Spanish politicians are under the impression that what has been described here as expanded use of Gibraltar airport is actually some form of joint use."
In the same way as anything built on Gibraltar can and will be called whatever Gibraltar decides, cannot Spain call whatever they build on their own sovereign territory anything that they want? The only answer to this is of course they can. Whatever semantics Spain uses to describe their building cannot affect the sovereignty arguments that Gibraltar has. What the GSLP/Libs do by raising the issue is to cast into doubt that which is undoubted. This is emphatically made worse by even suggesting that anything that has or is being done can be "joint use" of the airport.
The GSLP/Libs should be more mature than to cast doubt on matters upon which there is no doubt. Gibraltar's position on the airport and, indeed, on all the territory that is Gibraltar is quite clear. What Spain does on its own sovereign territory can and does not have any effect or impact on Gibraltar's position.
The GSLP/Libs should be less selfish in their quest for electoral success and seek to defend and not undermine Gibraltar for their own and no one else's benefit. Mr Bossano opportunism has got you nowhere. It is only real politics and policies that will get you somewhere. You have been in politics long enough to know this.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Electoral Reform - Some Further Arguments
How often have people commented that what Gibraltar needs is a government of the best brains? This is undoubtedly over-ambitious and impossible to achieve. Additionally there is no absolute measure of who would fit that description.
Those who say it are not so much meaning it literally, rather they are expressing frustration because they know that a few additional suitable persons might be encouraged to stand for election if the electoral system were to be changed. A change that would get away from the strict two party system delivered by the existing first past the post system.
Opponents to change argue that, absent a system that results in a clear governing majority, the consequence is weak and unstable government. This is shown, in practice, to be untrue. It is not what occurs in large countries that use proportional representation electoral systems already. What does happen is that it results in governments that are more representative and have greater consensus.
In Gibraltar where ideological political differences blur into insignificant and, on major issues, there is a large measure of agreement, the chances of weak and unstable government would be insignificant.
The reality is that an appropriate system of proportional representation would mean better and more diverse governance. More importantly it would improve democracy that additionally and, as argued in the blog immediately preceding this one, would enhance the sovereignty vested in the people of Gibraltar.
Those who say it are not so much meaning it literally, rather they are expressing frustration because they know that a few additional suitable persons might be encouraged to stand for election if the electoral system were to be changed. A change that would get away from the strict two party system delivered by the existing first past the post system.
Opponents to change argue that, absent a system that results in a clear governing majority, the consequence is weak and unstable government. This is shown, in practice, to be untrue. It is not what occurs in large countries that use proportional representation electoral systems already. What does happen is that it results in governments that are more representative and have greater consensus.
In Gibraltar where ideological political differences blur into insignificant and, on major issues, there is a large measure of agreement, the chances of weak and unstable government would be insignificant.
The reality is that an appropriate system of proportional representation would mean better and more diverse governance. More importantly it would improve democracy that additionally and, as argued in the blog immediately preceding this one, would enhance the sovereignty vested in the people of Gibraltar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)