The riots in London and other UK cities have given rise to at least two contradictory narratives.
According to one narrative this is purely a law and order problem, where a bunch of thugs are terrorizing their own communities. The fact that their only motivation was to loot upmarket consumer goods is presented as proof that the young rioters are simply trying to steal what they cannot buy.
According to another narrative the riots are a symptom of a social injustice and poverty aggravated by Tory cuts and follows the traditional account of riots as an expression of class warfare in deeply unequal societies triggered by police brutality.
I find both accounts simplistic which ignore another aspect; some rioters could be simply taking what they perceive as their fair share of the consumer bounty.
Some could be doing it for the thrill of feeling in control and they do this without any ideological discipline or solidarity with others like them. In this sense the revolt is post racial and post socialist as it does not seek a redistribution of goods but simply provides an occasion for mayhem and private appropriation of goods.
The rioters simply used the indignation against a police blunder to grab an opportunity to loot.
Relative poverty is surely one of the factors leading people to loot but the link with tuition fees is tenuous considering that university was always out of reach for most of these people. But still snobbing the rioters for looting handbags instead of food stores ignores the fact that yearning for these goods is an integral part of the fabric of capitalist societies. And lets admit it; the bounty of goods (despite its ecological problems) is one of the most appealing aspects of life in capitalist societies.
And surely one of the most appealing aspects of late capitalism is the widespread availability of tools of communications. Media commentators damning twitter and blackberry for fanning the flames of revolt exposes an inherent classism. Surely inciting violence through any means is bad but underlying some of the commentaries is a sense of revulsion at the fact that balckberries are being used by wretched youth. Is it this such a scandal that these people are participating (in their own misguided ways) in what has been loaded as a revolution in communication?
Ultimately the thugs will not gain any sympathy even within their communities. They may well strengthen calls for draconian law and order thus reversing the few liberal gains in the past year. But probably the rioters do not care about this. For a few die hards more repression will give more opportunities to riot. Most will simply return to their dreary normal lives after the carnival ends. What we are seeing is a celebration of gangsterism in place of community solidarity.
The silver lining of all this could be a realisation that a degree of social cohesion and inclusion is necessary not just for the well being of those living at the fringes but also for the majority which for the past decade felt insulated from what happened in the ghettos.
When people wake up to this realisation they might be more willing to understand the value of public services and community services which cost money but are necessary to offer a prospect to people to have legitimate aspirations. Surely the rioters themselves do not seem to care a fig about all this and some will still aspire to live a snoopy dog life irrespective of all the money invested in their education.
Still more social inequality through cuts (some of which necessary) unaccompanied by social investment in mobility funded by taxation will make things worse.
A deeper reflection on the riots deals with the way both rioters and the looted seem to have lost a sense of power over their own lives.
Ultimately in an increasingly globalised word where even nation states have very limited power, the arbitrary lawless exercise of power gains a new appeal. Obviously this does not make the riots anymore legitimate. In many ways the riots were simply an attack on conviviality which made life hell for fellow citizens. Most of the victims are poor hard working immigrant communities who had to keep watch of their few possessions threatened by this orgy of violence.
Since there is no turning the clock back, the only long term way forward is a new definition of global and more educated citizenship which is more willing to comprehend the complexities of the world but also more empowered to feel a part of a change it can understand and influence by thinking globally and acting locally ... surely a lot of gibberish for the handbag grabbing mob but a wake up call for political engagement.

In the early 21st century western societies anger is increasingly being harnessed by right wing commentators and parties, a way to exploit base emotions, do away with critical thinking which needs a degree of silence and reflection and to delegitimize institutions (the so-called establishment) to create the conditions for an authoritarian drift.
This is symptomatic of movements like the tea party in the US, significant parts of the European right and in some cases even the left especially in politically illiterate countries.
The alternative to manipulative raw populist anger is a rebellious,creative and future driven realism which celebrates the post war european social model while reinvigorating it with an emphasis on sustainability (both ecological and fiscal), internationalism (through an affirmation of the federalist project in Europe) and radical democracy based on reflexivity, democratic mobilisation and engagement rather than slogans and gut feelings; a rebellion based on an interplay of intellect and positive caring emotions rather than raw aggression.

I was not shocked by Cyrus Engerer's decision to resign from the PN. The confessional drift makes it hard for liberal minded people to remain on board. What shocked me was the ease with which Cyrus Engerer jumped ship to join the PL. There was not even a process of intellectual engagement, discussion of economic, political and social policies and an attempt to enter labour as part of a wider movement rather than as a trophy... The message he sent is that apart from differences on divorce and gay rights both parties are basically the same. It makes no difference that one day you were addressing the national council of the PN and a few days later being paraded like a trophy on One radio.
And by ditching one party for the other, he conformed to the maxim of tribal Maltese politics; jew mal-blu jew mal-ahmar. Perhaps he would have been more credible had he pushed his agenda by forming a current in the PN. Neither i expected him to join the greens if just a few days ago he was addressing the PN general council.
As someone with green and left-liberal inclinations I should be closer to the PL than Cyrus Engerer has ever been.
But my understanding of politics is different. When i hear labour talk about the economy I cringe at the lack of substance and myopia. When I hear labour talk about immigration I cringe at the emotions being stirred. When I look at some of labour's new candidates I cringe at their ties to the same old networks. When I talk to labourites on electoral reform they do not even look remotely interested. I do not see labour as my natural home.
That said i would like to see an honest dialogue between progressives, modernizers and liberals of all shades including who militate in Labour.
But any such honest dialogue must start on the premise that there is a category of people which is liberal, somewhat left wing but not ready to get assimilated in a tradition in which they never felt a part of or intend to be a part of. After all this is the european way of doing politics; coalitions are based on respect for diversity. This segment of the population might not have a critical mass today and is conveniently ignored. But tomorrow will be a different story as Malta is bound to catch up with the rest of Europe.

Malta joined the EU in 2004, right at the end of a cycle of optimism triggered by the end of the cold war which finally put to an end Europe’s 1500 years of bloody wars and 50 years of nuclear tension.
Since than we have seen the rise of right wing populist parties formerly held at bay by a social democratic consensus which was fatally crippled by the fragmentation and of European societies which left individuals more exposed to the risks created by globalisation.
This left the room open for populists who promised to cut expenditure and decrease tax revenue without bringing social havoc.
Unable to keep these promises when elected to power these leaders started to manufacture consent by internally targeting immigrant as well as was the case in Sarkozy’s France against a native gypsy populations.
In so doing they have opened the flood gates for the more primitive hordes whose mythology harks back to the Frankish or Lombard war lords of the middle ages.
One wonders what Alcide De Gasperi or Altiero Spinelli would have said about the hordes assembled in Pontida last week to dictate conditions to a government they hold at ransom.
Since the European Commission is a reflection of national governments, its reaction to the current crisis in Greece has been at best ambivalent and at worse suicidal.
Surely economic good sense dictated a bail-out coupled with a plan to restore the Greek financial mess partly caused by unsustainable fiscal policies of successive Greek governments but also by banks who profited from the situation. Political good sense also dictated that Greece must remain in the Euro zone.
But imposing austerity as a way of life on an entire country without even expecting the private banking sector to pay a part of the cost, was the price national governments had to pay to increasingly bullish electorates and irresponsible bankers.
Greek blood had to be spilled.
The consequences of this are obvious; Greek confidence in Europe has been fatally wounded.
In Greece reactionary forces of the left and the right will probably exploit a widespread sense of national humiliation and victimhood which would imperil long term structural reforms.
The ultimate losers in all this could well be sober Greeks who accept the need to reform but question the a kind of shock therapy which could leave the patient in bad shape.
As Ulrick Beck prophetically warned on the onset of the financial crisis:
“Those who harm the union harm themselves. If the members renounce their European responsibility and solidarity in a frenzy of national reflexes, everyone loses. Each nation on its own is condemned to global insignificance”.
Ironically the greatest threat to Europe is now coming from within.

The latest news that Italy and the Libyan transitional government have signed a "push back" agreement is bad news as it once again shows a European country encouraging a former colony to renege on international human rights commitments.
It surely sends the wrong message to those who want to replace one of the most brutal dictators in history. For instead of pressing them to be different by signing the geneva convention, Berlusconi is once again asking them to assume the role of Italy's gatekeeper. And what better than farm out the task to those who are not bound by human rights obligations?
But considering the situation on the ground the agreement is meaningless. For the rebels have little control over the coastline around Tripoli from where migrants are presently leaving.
The spectacle of shame is directed towards internal consumption.
As clearly demonstrated in last sunday's gathering in Pontida the racist lega nord simply wants italy to stop its UN commitment in Libya. This would simply mean Gaddafi back in power and in a position to commit his long promised genocide (cause lets face it in the absence of nato bombs gaddafi would be solidly in power).
Berlusconi has to offer the xenophobes something as he can't simply tell NATO to fuck off without losing face with the civilized world...therefore he gets a commitment from the rebels who are scared shitless of italy leaving the alliance and thus deny nato of its military bases...which would mean a Gaddafi victory....
A long term solution to the immigration problem would be a new libya bound by international commitments which fights illegal smugglers instead of assisting them as it has done in the past. This would facilitate the processing of applications in Libya itself thus avoiding the dangerous crossings in the Mediterranean. But that can never mean endorsing a push back policy. Nobody should be denied the right to seek asylum. Pushing back boats full of migrants means denying the rights of potential asylum seekers.

The word liberal has become common parlance lately being associated with the divorce issue.
Surely the word liberal is a very vague word and as the divorce campaign showed that economic liberals are often at odds with social liberals.
For the sake of clarity am only referring to social liberals in this post.
Surely the weekend's referendum was a liberal victory but not everyone who supported divorce turns out to be a liberal.
Neither is secularism necessarily a liberal concept. Mintoff was probably the most secular Prim Minister in Maltese history but he was hardly the most liberal.
Social liberalism denotes a frame of mind based on a respect for freedom and individual rights which defies not just confessional politics but also political tribalism as well as xenophobia and nationalism.
Surely for social liberals, divorce is just one of many social freedoms which must include full equality between gay and straight couples i.e. gay marriages.
In the European context it also denotes an inclination to rise above national boundaries and to favour the social inclusion of migrants.
It also denotes a tendency to favour political pluralism based on truly representative electoral systems...The liberal agenda is much longer than divorce....In its wider sense liberalism is frame of mind alien to both major parties in Malta. In fact the very two party system militates against political liberalism which seeks to limit majority rule.