How to beat the far right

There are elections which can define the course of history. The second round of the French election on Sunday is one of these.

Faced with the prospect of a far right government in France, the logical choice for all democratic forces is to withdraw third placed candidates which could stand in the way of a victory over the far right.

In the short term this is the only possible way to stop the far right from winning. The 'popular front' including Melenchon have already declared that they are withdrawing in constituencies where centrists are in a better place to beat the far right. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, who distinguishes between the enemy (RN) and the adversary (the left ) has hinted doing in those constituencies where the left is in a better place to beat the far right. But regrettably some in the president's camp take exception with France Insoumise candidates in a false equivalence which betrays the legacy of the second world war.

Even during the cold war centre right republicans used to vote for communists (and vice versa) when facing Jean Marie Le Pen's FN.

But while commendable this strategy worked in a context where the far right was more of a nuisance than a real threat.

To beat the far right as a project of government, the centre and the left have to converge around a synthesis which remains elusive but has become a necessity not just in France but even in the US.

The reality is that as things stand neither the centre nor the left can beat the far right on their own. But a sheer sum of the parts is also likely to be dismissed as a marriage of convenience by voters (this reminds me of Prodi's alliance in Italy which stretched from the centre-right to the far left but which imploded after a few months in power). Moreover voters across the world tend to vote for something they can believe in and not simply to block the path of others.

One mistake committed by the centrists is that they can keep on embracing the same policies while hoping that left wing voters have no alternative but to back them against the far right. Macron failed miserably in this with the Popular Front emerging as the main contender against the far right. In next Sunday's election the first line of defence against the far right is the left.

But the left often makes the mistaken assumption that by going back to its roots (whatever that means) it can become the natural choice of those who vote fascists cause they have been left behind. In reality it was under Jeremy Corbyn that Labour lost the so-called 'red wall' in its northern heartlands.

It is time to take a look back at history. Cause what is happening now comes with a sense of deja vu.

Some dismiss the urgency of stopping the far right simply because it bears little resemblance to the brown or black shirts.

But while expecting the Nazi zombies to creep back from their sordid graves is far fetched and unrealistic, let's not forget that it was moderate voters and mainstream conservatives who put in Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet in power. The Nazis were not alien predators who descended on the planet. They were crafty politicians who plotted alliances with conservative forces to win power, often by respecting (and bending) the constitutional rules. Mussolini retained the monarchy and Hitler won power in coalition with conservative parties while serving under President Hindenburg. They also kept power through mixture of fear and consent. Secondly they did so incrementally moving the goalposts as they consolidated their power.

Neither i am not comparing Bardella, Le Pen or Trump to Hitler. None of them advocate the elimination of entire ethnic groups and in a reflection of our times they are more islamophobic than anti semitic. Today you can be fascist who supports Israel for all the wrong reasons. But they have also invested a lot in a climate against immigrants and have contributed to a climate of intolerance.

Moreover talk of about ' the national preference', a roll back of climate policies and taking away citizenship rights of children represent a real threat to our way of life and our existence.

Another mistake committed by some analysts is to view the modern far right as some kind of populist anti elitist movement legitimised by democratic elections.  The reality is that Nazism and fascism were also an expression of a similar sentiment. The railed against jewish elites and ranted against intellectuals.  Of course in power they not only eliminated inconvenient trade unions but provided capitalism with slave labour. But right to the end they projected themselves as tribunes of the masses.  And just as today, their rise in the 1920s and 1930s seemed unstoppable.  They managed to shape popular common sense.  The far right project today is also incremental, weakening Europe and democratic institutions from within.

Yet they were stopped and beaten.  And we also owe that to the rise of mass democratic movements (namely christian democracy, social democracy and euro-communism).  Our Europe was born out of a compromise which saw most of the left accepting liberal democratic norms and the centre endorsing active state intervention and the welfare state.  It was an imperfect compromise but one which emancipated millions of people.

The historic lesson is that the far right can be beaten by popular mobilisation and a counter hegemony which shifts the political centre to the left.

So to get serious about the far right threat, the left has to push the centre to ditch its love affair with neo-liberalism and austerity. But to get there the left must ditch its hobby of denigrating the 'west' even when facing authoritarian powers like Russia, China and Iran... The left also has to reclaim the sort of civic patriotism rooted in the jacobin tradition and the partisan resistance. It must reclaim its historic role in the front lines of defending the legacy of 1789 and 1848.

It is time for an inclusive and assertive republicanism which takes pride in the conquests of the past but is ready to address the challenges of the future. A bold left which does not shun public ownership in the energy and transport sectors, which aggressively demands a global tax on corporations and crucially embark on a project of renewal which offers a better and more prosperous life by investing in job creation and saving the planet. It should also stand for the defence of democracy from its detractors, including aggressive imperialists like Putin.

It has to offer hope in a future where people have greater control over their daily existence, where poverty is abolished and where technology and AI are socialised with the aim of shortening the working week. But ultimately all this depends on protecting humanity from the ravages of climate catastrophe. It would be simply irresponsible for democratic forces to wage war against each other while the planet is burning. The stakes have never been higher.

In between times: From dissonance to hubris

The brutal war in Gaza carried out with impunity has exposed the limits of humanitarian interventionism, often a pretext for empire building (remember the Iraq war and the chaos it unleashed) but also a discourse based on the idea that human rights are universal.  This was never the case but the dissonance has reached epic proportions in the killing fields of Gaza.  For while initially the west's poster boys and girls could invoke this discourse against Hamas, it was clear from before October 7 that the forceful displacement of Palestinians was and remains the objective of Israel's far right.  What is happening in Gaza is a repeat of Srebrenica and Gorazde carried out with US made ammunition.  And while a lot can be said about the role of the west in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia,  the intervention in Kosovo and to some extent Bosnia, at least sent a sign that war criminals can be held accountable for acts of genocide. This affront to any pretension of universal values has definitively weakened the edifice of the western liberal establishment.   The contradiction between supporting Ukraine with weapons to resist invasion  and occupation (as it should be) and supporting Israel with weapons to bombard, kill, maim and occupy has become so gargantuan, that  if Biden does not have an epiphany we could be assisting to a veritable melt down. The risk now is that the west itself will be taken over by an assortment of  ethno nationalists who unashamedly support allies on the basis of race, religion and national interest without bothering for any pretext based on international law and justice.  And while Biden is ideologically bankrupt and his administration is fast imploding (with staffers resigning en masse) , this is no reason to celebrate the hubris of a neo-fascist taking over the White House by next year. Ironically in this bizarre brave new world the Houthis have emerged as the last standard bearers of  humanitarian interventionism and Putin, the Iranian mullahs and Erdogan the advocates a (hypocritical) rule based world.  In this sense the South African legal case against Israel, is one of the few glimmers of hope.  For if the world highest judicial authority recognises that what is happening in Gaza amounts to genocide (as the massacre of 23,000 people suggests) , the west will have to choose between supporting genocide and opposing it.  Moreover it will be a reminder that multilateral global institutions can deliver justice and even hold western allies accountable for their actions.  But the consequences of hubris could be even more catastrophic especially  if it derails global commitments on climate change and if it emboldens all regional (and global) bullies to do the same as Israel. 

Palestine and our moral bankruptcy

The tragedy in the 'siege of the hospitals' in Gaza is that the Israeli state is proving by its own actions  that it is structurally racist, thus legitimising claims by the likes of Hamas and Hizbollah.

Moreover, the conduct of the EU and the US lends credibility to those like Putin, who question the west's double standards and hypocrisy. 

The reality is that oppressed people deserve the consolation of being internationally vindicated.  The question facing the 'west' (which includes me and us) is why is Netanyahu not treated in the same way as  Milosevic and Putin?  The tragedy is that the only ones doing so (Turkey Hizbollah and Iran) are also of the same ilk.  Erdogan's treatment of the Kurds and Hizbollah's support for the murderous Assad regime come to mind immediately when sultan Erdogan and nasrallah  lambast Israel and hail Hamas as freedom fighters.  

I do not detest the west.  I am part of it. It is also shaped by our struggles for equality, democracy and freedom.  But it is also shaped by a legacy of colonialism, brutality and nationalisms, those zombies which never die and animate an assertive far right.   That is why this moral failure hurts.  

But there is another disturbing aspect of our moral bankruptcy.  We expect Palestinians to warm up to our hallow promises of a two state solution and our calls for restrain on Israel, while they are being butchered.  Our governments expect Palestinians to accept their humiliation and to distance themselves from those resisting the occupation. Since October 7, the world (myself included) had been throwing the burden of moral correctness on a vanquished and brutalised people, thus giving their oppressor a license to maim and kill. Some did worse by literally offering their unconditional support.

And while i recoil at anti semitism, even posting this comment would probably be shot down as anti semitism by some.

The burden of history

This bloody conflict in Palestine and Israel is deeply distressing, a constant rollercoaster of emotions, with events unfolding rapidly, leaving little time for reflection and processing. For me, it's not a matter of lacking understanding; in fact, it's painful because there's an overwhelming amount of information to process, which can cloud clear thinking. 

The scale and nature of Hamas's actions hit a personal chord, considering the historical context of blood libels, pogroms and the Holocaust.   No one should be targeted based solely on their identity.

I'm repulsed by an organization whose charter still references the Protocols of Zion, a 19th-century anti-Semitic forgery. However, I remind myself that there's a complex context of colonial occupation, humiliation, and dehumanization. The subsequent days characterised by the medieval siege of Gaza served as a stark reminder of this complex and terrible reality. It is also reminded me about the brutality of a rationalised bureaucratic machine.  The kind of brutality which starves, humiliates and kills while still presenting itself as civilised, democratic and sane.  

I recoil at those who simply side with Israelis because they look and live like them, while they perceive Palestinians in their reality as less than human.  There is an underlying racism among those who identify with Israel on the basis of this premise.  They are exactly the kind of people who would have hated the dirty starving jew in the ghettoes.  No wonder some on the far right feel so comfortable supporting Israel. 

As the days go by, I'm becoming increasingly exhausted by the weight of history, both past and present. History can serve as a tool for understanding, but it can also become a heavy burden, even a justification for violence and genocide.

For instance, one can argue that Israel's formation is linked to colonialism and an ethnocentric ideology, marginalizing Palestinians as a 'people without history,' similar to the treatment of other indigenous groups worldwide. Yet, many years after the Nakba, there are Israelis living in a society they created, who should not be under the constant threat of elimination and genocide. Israel is here to stay, and part of its identity is that of a 'homeland for the Jews', but hopefully not at the exclusion of Israeli Arabs and surely not as an occupying power.   

But while Israelis have their reasons to be be scared, their government's policies have turned Gaza into a  prison camp, where an entire society is confined and regularly subjected to punishment. In this sense, Gaza evokes memories of the Warsaw Ghetto. And the forced evacuation of Palestinians evokes older memories not just of the nakba but of jews expelled from their homeland in Spain. We must remember and never forget. Yes history can be odious. Yet it can serve as both an antidote and a lesson, helping us remain sensitive to the darkness that can affect both the oppressed and the oppressor.

Heinous crimes happen in a context not in your favourite narrative

The death of Pelin Kaya is a reminder of the risks posed by recklessness and machismo on our roads, something with which i am very familiar as a pedestrian who walks on a daily basis. The behaviour of the driver after hitting his victim (throwing stones at her and people in the vicinity) also comes across as another case of toxic masculinity. But while few focused on these aspects many conveniently tried to fit this case in their favourited narrative. 

For example some have blamed the driver's actions on the legalisation of weed, even if media reports suggested that he was under the influence of cocaine which is a harder and much more dangerous drug. Still it would be non sensical to blame this behaviour on cocaine, a substance which is used by thousands of recreational users who pose no risk to others. In fact the legalisation of both weed and cocaine would facilitate  information campaigns against driving under influence.  Moreover driving under the influence is symptomatic of  recklessness and complete disregard for others by a significant amount of drivers.  But the point made by those blaming weed is  political and reactionary.  It is both an attempt to blame the permissive Labour government for anything going wrong in society and to frame such events in to a discourse of conservative moral panic in the face of demands for bodily autonomy. Clerics making such arguments should be reminded that although domestic violence is often associated with alcohol abuse, wine is still a central motif of Catholic rituals.  What is wrong here is not the substance but the context and the actions of the person abusing it. 

Inevitably although the accused was brought up in Malta and has a Maltese surname, some latched at his French Arab descent. This mostly suggests a sense of frustration felt by the usual suspects who could not blame this crime on foreigners. In fact this case simply shows that heinous crimes are often committed by Maltese against foreigners. 

Even on the left some cannot resist the temptation of blaming such incident on rampant cut throat individualism characteristic of capitalist societies. In this aspect some leftists seem to share the romantic notion of a lost innocence with conservative counterparts. But socialists should be the first to recognise that we live in much more humane societies than ever before. Traditional societies were far more brutal, cruel and intolerant than the society in which we live nowadays. I am happy to live in a western liberal democratic society where there is greater equality, sexual freedom and autonomy than ever before. Socialism for me is all about ensuring that everyone can enjoy and afford these freedoms. 

But while too many people are busy using cases like this to prove preconceived prejudices,  there is always a social context in which random crimes happen. And while sheer coincidence, existential factors and irrationalities play a major part in explaining crime, even irrational thoughts and actions are grounded in wider social norms. For example our society does have a problem with a growing number of troubled and insecure males whose bullish actions pose a threat to others.  But rather than being understood as the embodiment of permissive liberalism their aggression may well be a reaction against it. In this sense toxic masculinity should be seen as being more of an attempt to reassert traditional authority than as a challenge to it.  Pornographers and pimps like Andrew Tate are perfect examples of this phenomenon.   In such a culture cars like guns are often perceived as an extension of the penis.  One may say that I am also falling in to the same trap of fitting this case in to a narrative. But this  is just one observation which probably does not explain the dynamics of the case in question.  Moreover, tradition, modernity and liberalism are also abstractions full of contradictions. So let's talk about context and possible causes but avoid fitting everything in our favourite narrative.

That first drag

There is something about the drag from a factory made cigarette. It is like sucking life from something which gives you death. But that first drag with the morning espresso gives you a shot of life albeit a contaminated one. Still it is only that first one which gives you that sensation, the rest may have their own value when matched to the moment, some insight, a view, pleasure or even an apathetic moment need to be accompanied with a drag... sort of it always accenuates feelings be they of awe or pain...still on those rare occasions when i surpass the 10 cigs limit, they start to taste just as they really are: toxic and unpleasant especially with too much booze. Probably at that stage you start smelling like an ash tray. And worse after years of smoking you could end up smelling like one of those old bars which have absorbed decades of tobacco smoke. Still they form part of the chain which makes that singular sensation of each morning's drag possible. It is that drag which makes it so difficult to stop the habit which gets in to a routine. Surely there are other ingredients which add to the allure. The smoke itself envelopes you in a kind of intimacy and a smoke filled room is always pregnant with great ideas and hopes. It is hard to imagine a revolution being planned in a smoke free room. Yet you don't need a cig for that...vaping was a good substitute in that sense except for that damn first drag and the hard texture of the thing. Guess it is always a good time to quit. But what can substitute the feeling of that first drag? Perhaps it is just one thing one has to simply give up.

dimech u l-medjokrita

Biex tifhem u tispjega kultant tispicca tirrazzjonalizza aspetti tal-hajja socjali u politika li haqqhom biss tnejjik u satira. Speci li ghad hawn min iqum filghodu u l-ewwel haga li jaghmel hi li jidhol fuq facebook biex jghid prosit lil xi Ministru f'pajjiz li l-ebda Ministru ma jhossux hazin b'dan, hi sinjal ta medjokrita li probabli ghanda gheruq socjali u storici imma tibqa li hi...pajjiz li qatt ma produca rivoluzzjonijiet. Pajjiz li qatt m ghada mil-passatur tal-vjolenza tal-istorja. Pajjiz li anki s-sekularizmu gie fih f pakkett medjokri u grottesk. Biex ma nsemmux partitarji li baqu jiddefendu l-indifensibli li l-anqas il-partit taghhom m ghadu komdu jiddefendi. U l-iktar li ninharaq hi meta attitudni li m'hi xejn injoranza tigi kwazi glorifikata bhala xi espressjoni tal-klassi tal-haddiema u min jitnejjek bija jigi labelled elitist. Manwel Dimech nahseb kien jirremetti u Gwann Mamo kien jikteb novella iktar brutali minn ulied in nanna venut. Kieku ghex Dimech illum hafna kienu jikkundanawh bhala elitist ghax ma tanx kellu xi apprezzament kbir tal-kultura popolari anzi... Ir-realta hi li Dimech u Mamo iktar minnu kienu unforgiving quddiem l-injoranza tal-masses...bi kwalifika importanti; dik li riedu l-emancipazzjoni...imma anki hawn wiehed ma jistghax ma jinnotax il-mod grottesk kif tigi l-bidla f'Malta. Forsi hemm raguni storika...dik li ma kellnix 1789, 1848 u 1968...assenza shiha tal-borgezija rivoluzzjonarja, rwol li kellhom jidhlu ghalih intelletwali organici bhal dimech li hareg mil-habs u wara politici imperfetti imma egemonici bhal mintoff...imma fl-ahhar mil-ahhar l-hsieb qatt ma kien rispettat. Wara dimech hadd ma ta wisq kaz l-emancipazzjoni mentali tal-haddiema u issa naqra too late ghax l-unika aspirazzjoni ta klassi li baqa hi dik li nsiru sinjuri zghar (ovvjament sinjuri fil-but mhux fil-mohh). Imma issa waqet il-maskra u l-haddiem darrewh ifahhar lil mafjuz, lil korrott u lis-sinjur (dejjem jekk fuq in-naha t-taghna) Forsi mhux Malta biss. Speci l-lemin populista/faxxista kullumkien jiccelebra il-poplu (bhala rapprezentazzjoni tal-injoranza) waqt li jattakaw l-elites (li jinkludu wkoll l-NGOs, il-gurnalisti imma mhux dawk li stinkaw fil-hajja biex jifthu xi kumpanija offshore) imma Malta ghandna inqas immunita ghal dan it-tip ta hsieb...Dimech kien izolat meta gie eziljat, minghajr hadd ma rrezista jew lissen kelma... Fl-istess hin minkejja il-bizarriji kollha ghalinqas illum hemm min jirrezisti u f' xi aspetti ikolli nghid qed nghixu ahjar (bizejjed insemmu l-fatt li sa ftit zmien ilu lanqas divorzu ma kellna)...Pero hemm xi haga hazina hafna f'pajjiz fejn ir-riformi liberali isehhu fi sfont mhux biss neoliberali (argument iehor imma relatat) imma fi sfont illiberali, ta servilizmu u laqghizmu. Ghalhekk ikolli nghid li l-iktar haga li ghanda bzonn Malta hi satira vjolenti u irriverenti...(sfortunatament jien se nibqa nirrazzjonalizza u nanalizza ghax ghalhekk ninqala). Kelli nigi hawn biex nizvoga ghalkemm kelli f' mohhi nikteb xi haga differenti fuq ir-ritwali u kif dawn jikbru madwarek u ssib rifugju u serhan fihom... Forsi ghal darba ohra.