Yesterday, I posted here an image of promotional material for a Labour Party candidate that had attached to it a voucher to get free fuel from a petrol station. Newsbook chased the candidate, one Edward Cassar Delia (no relation), who said he didn’t do it. Someone else must have stapled the voucher to the advert.
It’s a bit like Michelle Muscat saying that she didn’t park her car on spaces reserved for disabled people. One of her chauffeurs did it. Which must be the closest Michelle Muscat has ever been to the obtuseness of a cartoon Marie Antoinette laconically suggesting that ‘let them eat cake’ would solve a scarcity of bread.
This sophistry may be good enough for a court desperately looking for reasons to acquit.
But there’s a political responsibility here because this is a political candidate looking to obtain the people’s vote. Times of Malta report Edward Cassar Delia (no relation) confirmed the leaflet was his but denied any knowledge of the fuel vouchers attached to them.
Not good enough, is it? Like Michelle Muscat and the conduct of her chauffer, this Edward Cassar Delia (no relation) did not think to express regret at what happened. He didn’t acknowledge that this is unlawful and just plain wrong. He couldn’t think of reasons why people should vote for him beyond gratitude for 10-euro worth of petrol.
This highlights the layers of issues involved in this.
First layer is our laws are weak. “My friend (who is not a candidate) did this,” should not be a valid excuse given that his “friend” is not the one soliciting a vote in the mailshot. We should consider burdening candidates with vicarious responsibility for what their canvassers do in their name. I rather suspect friends would be more careful after that.
Second layer is our laws are not enforced. Why was it just Times of Malta who spoke to Edward Cassar Delia after I put up that post yesterday? Why didn’t the police, since after all they’re in a better position to question his protestation that he knew nothing about a criminal act of which he’s the only possible beneficiary?
Third layer is our political class (or members of it such as the candidate in question, because not everyone is like this) is ignorant of the law that governs their behaviour, or indifferent to it, or in wilful breach of it. They’re not as ignorant of the law as they might claim. After all Edward Cassar Delia would not have had a story up his sleeve about the signature on the vouchers belonging to someone else. He’d have signed the vouchers himself.
They don’t take risks. They disobey the spirit of the law by dancing around its letter. They understand they’re not meant to do this, which means they understand it’s wrong. They find ways of doing it anyway in a way that would not get them punished.
They set the standard for the country on how to cheat on taxes, how to pay a kickback to a government official fixing something for you, how to lie on a planning application, how to park on a disabled space and let the poor sods fend for themselves, or how to swindle customers with defective products. They promote themselves true representatives of the people, amoral, egocentric people, indifferent to the consequence of their malfeasance. They are contemptuous of the law behaving as if laws were there to prevent other people from doing what they can and they will.
And they solicit your vote.
For the avoidance of doubt this piece is not intended to solicit your vote one way or the other. The law gives you the opportunity to reflect in peace today without the noise of solicitation. Calling for the enforcement of existing laws or the adoption of new ones is not a solicitation to vote one way or the other. There’s no pause in the desire for things to be done properly and to be properly done.