Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare, in their book ‘Snakes in Suits’, warn against those who “just want money, or power, or fame, or simply a nice car,” particularly those who seek “political command and control, and executive succession, all while hiding within the corporate culture.” Or hiding, we could add, behind the language of corporate culture, making what they’re up to seem like cutting-edge executive decision-making, when they’re really just old-fashioned macho bullies.

It is one thing to expect anyone who enters politics to grow a thick skin. Of course criticism and sharp debate come with the territory. A politician should be able to take the heat. Otherwise, she or he should get out of the kitchen.

This counts especially on those occasions when the politician is getting flak from members of the public or the press. Those who wield power should be able to show that they are still the servants and the general public is their master.

It’s another thing altogether when the flak comes from those who wield the power against those who have less. Then the criticism, unless it’s calibrated carefully, is likely to become intimidation and bullying. It suddenly means: “Watch it! Remember your place. I have the power to break you.”

Unfortunately, this is what Labour in government sounds like. I have no doubt that it’s intentional. The veiled threats are part of its weaponry. Sometimes, they’re not so veiled, either. We have had more than one occasion when a minister, if not the Prime Minister himself, declared in Parliament that this or that PN MP’s turn “was coming soon.”

Political bullying doesn’t just come as veiled threats. Often, it takes the form of character assassination, involving doublespeak, spreading of rumours and innuendos, and the manipulation of information.

The effect of a character assassination propagated by an individual is not equal to that of a state-driven campaign. The state-sponsored destruction of reputations, fostered by political propaganda and cultural mechanisms, can have more far-reaching consequences.

It cannot happen without society’s tacit compliance. One of the earliest signs of a society’s compliance with creeping authoritarianism is when a government favours or directly encourages a campaign aimed at destroying the dignity and reputation of its adversaries, and the public accepts its allegations without question.

In our country, the tactic used by our government has become a predictable cliché. As soon as the Leader of the Opposition, or a shadow minister, makes a telling point or exposes a serious government failing, then precise orders are issued, and press releases are orchestrated to destroy the Leader of the Opposition and those members of the Opposition who are simply doing their job, or better still, their duty.

Yes, the Opposition has a duty to criticise the government. Otherwise, we would end up living in an authoritarian state, like China or Azerbaijan. Don’t think it cannot happen here because we have actually been there before.

Malta, too, can end up with journalists like Khadija Ismayilova, a journalist from Azerbaijan, well-known in her country, and who made life difficult for the power-hungry rulers. She has been jailed for seven and a half years simply for criticising the government.

Then there are Azeri humanrights activists, like Leyla Yunus and her husband Arif. Of course they were not accused of criticising the government, but rather of tax evasion, embezzlement and other similar charges. Eight and a half years on charges widely regarded as dubious.

Our country cannot afford to continue to be run secretively by a group of money-hungry people who will go to any length to line their pockets in the shortest possible time. The Opposition has a duty to reveal relevant secret information: that is the national interest. It’s a travesty to accuse the Opposition of hurting the national interest if it is exposing how our country is being pillaged.

We have a fundamental choice before us. We can all stick our heads in the sand and pretend we are living in Neverland. Or we can look at our current reality and demand better governance, less arrogance and more transparency. Years from now, we should be able look back and proudly say, “I did not look away!”