Listening to Konrad Mizzi always causes considerable stress to my digestive system. I cannot stomach all the code-switching, the inability to simply start an answer in one language and finish it in that very same language, the penchant for peppering anything he says in Maltese with redundant English words. And yet I think that this Comedy Knights-like way of communicating can sway opinions. It’s high time for us to  analyse the scam.

Konrad Mizzi, the code-switcher

Because a linguistic scam it is. In larger countries, linguists study the language patterns used by politicians to draw conclusions on the sincerity or otherwise of their discourse. For instance, linguists have noted that Donald Trump seems to have dumbed down his language since taking to politics. It seems that he now uses a rudimentary kind of speech – repetitions and bad, incoherent sentence structure and all – as a means of getting closer to the core of his electorate. This does not mean that President Trump is stupid or uncouth; it simply means that he has chosen to bond with his electorate through that kind of language. It is actually an astute marketing ploy.

Dom Mintoff’s speeches have also been analysed but, as far as I know, only for the imagery and metaphors used and not for the language itself. However, it is known that it was a certain kind of language meant to appeal to a certain kind of electorate. One need only listen to the cassettes issued by the Labour Party in the 1980s (the Sensiela Kassett Soċjalisti) or to recordings found on YouTube, to analyse the linguistic techniques skilfully used by Mr Mintoff to explain complex political situations and ideas to an electorate unprepared for such complexity but that could cast a vote.

Is Konrad Mizzi using a similar ploy? Why can’t Dr Mizzi stick to one language? Why does he need to switch from Maltese to English, to use redundant (pseudo-) technical terms in English? Is it because he studied abroad? So many other politicians have studied abroad, and yet they do not resort to such tactics.

To my mind, Dr Mizzi is resorting to a reverse strategy when compared to President Trump and Mr Mintoff. He ‘dumbs up’ his language, and he does it for two reasons: to confound the smart and impress the sub-literate.

The smart

By constantly switching from one language to another, he attempts to stupefy the smart members of the public, particularly when he is trying to cajole us into accepting his discourse through logical distortions and verbal contortions. Just analyse the contortions in his short Facebook video clip and the short exchange he had with the press, when – despite the crystal-clear conclusions of the NAO report on the power station deal – he still insisted, with headstrong pigheadedness, that that very same report absolved him of all wrongdoing.

The sub-literate

The sub-literate (and not only) he impresses with the pretence that he’s an expert, a whizz-kid. The message he indirectly tries to convey is that if he can use technical terms – or what could sound as technical terms – in English, then surely he must know what he is talking about.

In both instances, it clearly boils down to pulling wool over people’s eyes. The underlying messages are twofold: “I’m one of you (and I made it)” and “I’m an expert”. This is the public image Dr Mizzi created of himself through skilful misuse of language and double-tongued linguistic devices.

The switchers

Every time you switch on the lights, remember that Konrad Mizzi code-switches to beguile and befuddle you, trying to make you forget that electricity originating from the interconnector would have been cheaper.

The ecstasy of gold

The truth is that code-switching and the implied messages it tries to convey do nothing to conceal the absolute, unadulterated greed which fuelled the efforts to create secret structures in secretive jurisdictions known for money laundering. Let us not forget that these secret structures were created only a few days after the elections of 2013. No amount of linguistic detergent can remove that stain.

This part of the NAO report is enough to morally convince anybody that the secret structures had not been set up for nothing: “the NAO maintains serious reservations regarding the risk that Government was exposed to when the guarantees were in effect. The Office is of the opinion that such a situation could have been avoided through appropriate planning, with referral to the European Commission undertaken at the earliest, possibly prior to the issuance of the Expression of Interest and Capability and the Request for Proposals. It is in view of the serious repercussions that could have materialised had the guarantees been called that the NAO advocates that any measure that could have mitigated the issuance of the Government Guarantees and the duration within which they were in effect, should have been considered.”

The language of bureaucracy

Let us keep in mind that bureaucracy speaks bureaucratese. What is the NAO report saying here? It is saying that the fact that the State took on itself the bank guarantee burden at that stage of the process meant that not all bidders were treated in the same way. In other words, other bidders would have behaved differently, had it been known from the beginning that the State would intervene to make a bank loan possible! Only those who have either switched off their brains or are sub-literate can keep stubbornly repeating that there is no wrongdoing here!

It’s the economy...

Somebody advised me to stop writing about this topic because, all said and done, people know what Dr Mizzi did, but could not care less. The economy is doing fine and that is what matters at the end of the day.

I must say that that is a very powerful argument. But it is also short-sighted. Degradation – whether moral or physical – is a long-term story. It’s like having a medical condition and not caring about it because things are going well for the moment... when it becomes chronic, it might well be too late. Degradation, like high blood pressure, is a silent killer.

But let us not flatter ourselves that the inability to see the common good and its long-term trajectory is a monopoly of the Maltese. It’s a human, and tragic, trait. And has been like this since time immemorial. I think it’s one of the lessons the Old Testament tries to teach. But the Jewish tradition also teaches that prophets are usually not appreciated at home. Such is the folly of humanity, such is its tragedy.

Fired for shooting his mouth off?

In the meantime, while we are witnessing these shenanigans, it would seem that a solider has been fired for shooting his mouth off. Was this soldier – from what I have been told, a valid man of action – really summarily dismissed? Was his behaviour so extreme that it warranted such a drastic measure?

We are talking about soldiers here. One does not expect soldiers to talk like sissies. True, they belong to a disciplined force, but they are men of action nonetheless, trained to kill if need be, and a little over-the-top talk is almost expected of them! I want brave men and women who talk rough and act tough, not sissies who talk and act like namby-pamby milksops, for the security needs of the country.

If, indeed, Godwin Schembri was fired in this way, I express my full solidarity.

I think the public should be given more background information on this case.

My Personal Library (31)

Sometimes I find myself wondering how certain words I’ve never used in my life come to my mind while I’m writing. Words like ‘double-tongued’ and ‘milksop’, which I didn’t even know I knew, float by themselves out of the deep recesses of my mind and present themselves, almost with a smile on their face, as if to announce their suitability to whatever I am writing. Since I don’t know I know them, I need the dictionary to verify their suitability, to make sure that they can really deliver what they promise. It almost always turns out to be the case, and I’m always humbled by the mysterious linguistic games played by the unconscious mind.

 

This time it dawned on me that there was a time, some 25 years ago or more, when I used to read The Economist from cover to cover, religiously, week in, week out. Until I realised that it was taking up all of my time and had reluctantly to give it up.

 

However, I do not regret all those hours spent soaking up every word in it, despite the magazine’s liberal agenda. Indeed, I met the English language on its pages.

 

One benefit I certainly do not regret is that I kept abreast with the latest publications of a certain calibre. One such book was Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion, by A. Pratkanis and E. Aronson (1991). A few snippets from the Table of Contents will give you an idea of what a goldmine the book is: The Psychology of Factoids, The Credible Communicator, The Manufacture of Credibility, Self-Sell, Why Do They Keep Repeating the Same Ads?, If You Have Nothing to Say – Distract Them, How To Become a Cult Leader’...

 

The book is replete with examples. One of them is the 1968 US presidential election and Richard Nixon’s campaign in particular. When you watch Konrad Mizzi, or even his boss, on TV or elsewhere, keep these words in mind (written about Nixon’s campaign): “television is a powerful means of seducing voters to vote for images of candidates rather than the candidates themselves. Or, as one Nixon staffer put it: ‘This is the beginning of a whole new concept... This is the way they’ll be elected forevermore. The next guys up will have to be performers’” (p. 101).