What I found surprising during the last weeks, was the hysterical style adopted by the Nationalist Opposition. True, they were making extremely serious allegations against the government. But surely for this reason, these should have been presented in a cool, precise and clear manner.

The language used ended up devaluing the message. It led the Leader of the Opposition to open fire against all those who crossed his path and did not seem willing to dance to his tune. Many times, his behaviour left one with the impression that he was making statements without having at hand, or without having directly examined, all the evidence that had led him to make the statements he made.

This does not augur well for the future political development of this country. It opens the doors wide for the modern vices that are polluting statecraft in our democracies: fake news spread through the social media that are then used to trigger totally fake political controversies. A sustained hysterical style beckons towards a stalemate where lies and half truths, garbled together, end up subverting democracy and all sense of fair play.

***

Evidence

When allegations are being made, it is crucial to ensure that the evidence being presented has been evaluated in depth before one comes to some conclusion. The more serious the allegation, the more robust must the evidence be. Which should mean that at least, alleged facts can be confirmed through consistent cross-checks that do not depend always on the same source.

In past weeks, all this has been forgotten. We were fed sensational stories without it being considered necessary to bring along strong supporting evidence.

In the past, I dealt with quite a number of scandals and abuses. I cannot deny that sometimes I hurried to make allegations without yet having at hand all the bits and pieces of the evidence.

But till quite recently, I never saw such a rush to take as accepted truths, some very serious allegations, and this simply on the grounds that they were being made.

***

Joe Cassar

More than once or twice, we argued about politics but not at all often. We would do so with half a smile for we knew our dispute could not take too long; both knew we had made different choices in politics and for the rest, that hardly mattered. With me he would prefer to discuss literature, which greatly interested him; as well memories of the years we spent at the Hamrun Lyceum.

He was a gentle person, endowed with an intelligence which he was not afraid to hide. I think the political life must have caused him pain, perhaps sorrow. I was not too surprised on learning he was quitting.

Occasionally later, we would have extended conversations on the phone. Again mostly on literature and its insights on life. I continued to follow his carefully written book review page in “In-Nazzjon”.

I was surprised and much saddened by news of his death. I send my profound condolences to all his family.