Years ago, as president of BirdLife Malta, I, together with many of my committee colleagues, used to meet regularly with Dr Francis Zammit Dimech, the minister then responsible for the environment. We would present our case earnestly and advocate various measures during consultation meetings that were always cordial and fruitful. However, just after – or just before – meeting the minister, hunters’ representatives would also hold talks with the minister and present their own case as passionately as BirdLife had done, except that, of course, they would be expressing a totally different opinion.
So what was happening was that two NGOs, on opposing sides of the hunting divide, were being consulted at the same time and both were urging the government to take decisions diametrically opposite to each other. When a hunters’ request was acceded to, we would complain bitterly, while hunters would do the same when it was a BirdLife proposal that was accepted.
This period provided an important lesson for my friends and me because we were forced to accept the fact that ours was only one of at least two strongly held opinions and we couldn’t just walk up to the minister and expect him to grant our wishes. We were in competition and had to strive to be more persuasive than the other side. Sometimes we managed it, other times we didn’t.
This experience came to mind when reading the letters by Prof. Edward Mallia and Dr George Debono about government consultations (TMIS, 18 April). A consultation process should never be judged subjectively because this implies that no other opinions were voiced, which is rarely true. We live, after all, in the competitive world of advocacy: all sorts of individuals and organisations vie to influence decision-makers and sway public opinion.
Stephen Calleja was very right in saying that “if the government takes a decision that is not consonant with your opinion, it does not mean that there was no public
consultation” (TMIS, 11 April). I believe one of the most significant psychological achievements for lobbyists is the acknowledgement that their beloved cause is not the only one there is and that decision-makers do consult other people with different, often opposing, ideas. For a variety of reasons, some of those consulted manage to be more persuasive than others.
In the case of the Valletta Regeneration Project, FAA has perhaps fallen victim to its own propaganda and believes that its opinion is the only one that counts. Those who disagree are given labels such as “GonziPN apologists”, “government hacks”, “boo boo strategists” and similar; I too will receive some titles because of this letter. These insults are particularly inappropriate, however, when the person disagreeing with FAA happens to be the Chairperson of Alternattiva Demokratika. Since they can hardly call Michael Briguglio a PN sycophant, they find themselves flabbergasted and speechless.
It is disingenuous to claim that no public discussions were held about the project, and I’m not referring to the six decades of endless debate and controversy but to the last couple of years. Long before Piano had unveiled his proposals, there were people airing their views all over the printed and electronic media. As I have never heard of the Prime Minister refusing to meet anyone, I must assume that opinions were also expressed personally to him. Those who are against the Piano proposal committed a fundamental mistake right at the beginning of the debate. They launched a fierce campaign attacking the very concept of parliament: it should not be built in a prominent position, they ranted, because it only serves the 65 MPs and, anyway, politicians do not deserve our respect. How on earth did they expect to persuade the government with such an argument: that politicians are not respectable? Even now, while still clamouring for a change of plans, FAA are publicly comparing the Prime Minister to Stalin and calling him Ceausescu. Do they really think these are good lobbying tactics? There are ways and ways of disagreeing and protesting – some effective, others plain stupid. Ultimately, it depends on what one hopes to achieve.
Speaking from experience (mine and that of Maltese and foreign friends), I believe that the lobbying methods used by FAA – at least on this occasion – were basically unsound and could never have
succeeded.
Antoine Vella
BALZAN