Is there enough evidence that Maltese society is beginning to respond with sensitivity to the imperatives of the third Millennium? Has the advent of national independence and

accession to the European Union liberated the Maltese intellectual outlook? Or are we merely experiencing a breakdown of our traditional way of life as the accelerating rush of “progress” breaks the dams that contributed to our isolation or provincialism, call it what you will?

These questions arise from what appears to be an emerging phenomenon, namely an increasing number of challenging, sometimes inquisitive, sometimes defiant, voices in the local media and elsewhere.

These voices belong to journalists and others who look at the established order in the eye and dispute the validity of old assumptions, very often cogently and potently and at times, even irreverently.

These “defiant” voices do not come exclusively from the young, although it is the young critics who predominate. Being new, the views exposed by the “new wave” are bound to attract attention, not only because they are novel, but also because they are often valid enough to deserve consideration.

Chains of the status quo

In many ways, this amounts to a manifestation that Maltese public opinion is becoming more inquisitive and intellectually prepared to face and find solutions to the problems that have held it back for so long. The urge to break the chains of the status quo is slowly catching on. The beat of the nation’s pulse sometimes seems to be quickening. Is this the break of a new dawn? I have already had occasion to ask this question. What’s the answer?

Arbitrary government, bureaucratic inefficiency, partitocracy, official secrecy and lack of transparency, as well as all sorts of hypocrisy, have to be exposed and rooted out. It is not merely a question of highlighting the depredations or irresponsibility of wayward officials and politicians. Progress demands their being moved out of harm’s way to be substituted by more worthy successors. Malta’s new generation is aggressively aspiring for “results”, rather than concentrating on arguments and on debates about “principles”.

There is no way of coming to terms with the 21st century unless we proceed from words to some fundamental changes.

Paradoxes and contradictions

Columnists and critics must have the knack of being in tune with the times. Their powers of articulation, their experience and common sense, ought to make them a cut above their audience. Insofar as they express opinions, theirs are as good as that of their readers. In a democracy, each opinion deserves the respect due to it.

Democratic regimes inevitably find themselves faced by certain paradoxes or contradictions. The ensuing tensions are not easy to reconcile. Every democratic community must find its own solutions.

Democracy is a system of institutionalised competition for power. Without conflict and competition, there could be no democracy. Opinions have, therefore, to be deployed in the public forum, and this is how democratic opinion is moulded.

Democracy means “rule by the people” or rule with the consent of the governed.

This is the libertarian inspiration of people everywhere who resent the repression and corruption of authoritarian ruling elites. People across the globe aspire to be ruled with their consent, and to the right to turn their rulers out of office if a given situation so demands.

Democratic governments everywhere – in the industrialised world and in developing countries alike – are constantly tempted to trim their policies with an eye on their electoral prospects. But the ultimate objective of democracies is good governance and not the pursuit of power by politicians.

Vital role

It is in this context that journalists and critics have a vital role to play. Their real role is that of watchdogs in the public interest, operating in close support of the media.

Their responsibility is to maintain supervision over the public domain, and to communicate their observations and view to public opinion at large. Their role is complementary to that of politicians and, when the situation so demands, they may be called to stand up to politicians.

Situations may arise when the State threatens to become dominant or is inclined to protect inefficient economic actors, whether capital or labour. The State may impede economic growth by misdirecting the flow of capital and resources and by distorting investment decisions.

Where the prospect of ill-gotten gains is a motive for the pursuit of office, the democratic process becomes a power struggle, rather than a contest over policies.

The same applies when the pursuit of ill-gotten gains becomes the objective of elites subordinate to politicians. The State may be soft in maintaining law and order and may have the wrong social policy priorities.

In all these circumstances, and in so many others, politicians and bureaucrats might be out of tune with public opinion and its perceptions of the national interest. They have to be challenged, if necessary, and given the necessary support when circumstances so demand.

Accountability

Opportunities for corruption are perennial features of public

life when democracy goes out of focus. The only remedy is accountability, which requires a free press, willing and able

to monitor the democratic process and the conduct of public

officers.

Accountability serves governability by limiting the power of the State, and especially the Executive, with a view to preventing abuses and maladministration.

Representative democracies need politicians, but it is a sign of good health when democracies refuse to have blind trust in politicians. They need the countervailing forces of the media – of the Fourth Estate – to enlighten and beef up public opinion.

In Malta, it seems, public opinion is beginning to show that it has a mind of its own. If so, this is a sure sign of a new, if belated, dawn.

[email protected]