Joseph Muscat’s skill at synthesising a situation never fails to amaze me. He does it with ease and precision, having probably honed the skill during his years as a journalist. The latest example has been his synthesis of Daphne Caruana Galizia as “consistent in her inconsistencies”.

Dr Muscat has a point. Had Daphne not indulged for so many years in invective, personal insults, ad hominem attacks, and abuse aimed at individuals and their families, things might have been different. But I think she spent a long time as an ugly caterpillar until she became the butterfly that is now being celebrated as an international phenomenon: the persona of a fearless investigative journalist that many admired rather than the pitiless pusher of a poisonous pen that so many others despised.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can now say that Daphne would have profited from an organisation to back her up. She could not realistically be a one-(wo)man show. Had there been an editorial board for her blog, things might have been different. Instead, it has been like a Greek tragedy. She launched her blog to avoid the shackles of an editorial board, and had those shackles been in place, things might have been different. At least this is what I can conclude about belonging to an organisation, after reading the book on the Panama Papers leaks written by Obermayer and Obermaier, the two German journalists who spearheaded the international uncovering of that scandal.

One cannot help but ask what the role of the State should have been in this imbroglio. It seems that Daphne detested the shackles of an editorial board as much as she detested those of police protection.

However, I strongly believe that the State has an objective duty to protect the lives of all human beings on its territory, and it does not depend on the subjective wishes of the individual(s) involved. There are many reasons for this. One is the founding notion of a civilised society that we all cede our freedom to protect ourselves by our own means in return for an ordered society. For that social order to be attained, the State has to enjoy a monopoly on violence, with the implicit obligation of using that monopoly also to protect all human beings in its territory. When the State uses violence thus motivated, it becomes an act of sovereignty.

What about the argument that there are those who do not wish to be protected?

I think that that is a lame argument, for the simple reason that no man is an island; we are all members of a community and the elimination of one of us is of concern to all of us.

This is the logic behind the imposition of the seatbelt. We are coerced into wearing seatbelts not because the State paternalistically wants to protect our lives, but also because the State wants to avoid the expenses related to traffic accidents.

We are punished if we don’t send our children to school, not so much because the State wants our children to succeed in life (assuming it is true that education is the key to success), but because the State needs future generations to keep the system running, and for this literacy and numeracy are indispensable.

Similarly, the State has to act independently of the wishes of the individual and find ways to protect the lives of all human beings on its territory. Daphne’s assassination was not just a loss for her family, friends, and fans. It was a serious attack on journalism everywhere. Above all, it is a national tragedy, a tragedy for the entire community of the Maltese nation. Her death has cast a shadow on us all, on our country, on our State and our society. We are all paying the price for the State’s inability to protect Daphne and, I would add, others whose life might be in danger because of their profession.

That such people might not wish to be protected is a hollow excuse. Usually, the average citizen is not a security expert and is therefore ill equipped to gauge the degree of danger they might be in. Equally weak is the argument that the private citizen, if threatened, should seek private means of protection, such as hiring a bodyguard. One logical consequence of this second argument would be that as long as the State abdicates from its responsibilities, we should stop paying taxes. Another would be that if the State abdicates, people will resort to private violence, because life is indeed the most precious of belongings and they have a natural right to safeguard and protect it.

A number of years ago, I was invited to a book launch in Rome. The panel included the post-Fascist Gianfranco Fini, the Radical Emma Bonino, and one representative each from Forza Italia and the Democrats of the Left. During the drinks which followed the discussion, I joined a conversation with two gentlemen, one of whom was narrating the story of an Italian tourist who had landed in trouble in some unstable country in the 1970s. The Italian embassy did not react immediately, the argument having been raised that in his youth, that tourist had occupied some office in the Republic of Salò and, as a filthy Fascist, he surely deserved what he got. But then common sense and decency prevailed, and the embassy intervened, saving the life of the man who must have resented being rescued by descendants of anti-Mussolini partisans. My two interlocutors then stopped and eyed intently an old gentleman across the hall, who sported a beautiful silver goatee and was absorbed in deep conversation with Gianfranco Fini. I could hear them think, “Even a filthy Fascist deserves reaching old age.”

If even a “filthy Fascist” deserves reaching old age, we all deserve reaching old age.

This is why Adrian Delia is right when he speaks about the absence of the rule of law in Malta. The need is clearly felt to build a decent State which upholds the rule of law and works through well-oiled, effective and impartial institutions, not for itself but for the ultimate benefit of all human beings on its territory. Ultimately, humans do not exist for the State. It is the State which exists for humans.

Let me quote from two veteran politicians.

In his semi-literate book Saying It As It is (even the title is an idiomatic mess), Saviour Balzan quotes Eddie Fenech Adami introducing him to some foreign dignitary as one of his harshest critics. Mr Balzan (rightly for once) commends EFA for this, with the clear implication that that is the right democratic attitude, namely that even your harshest critic has to be acknowledged. One might say that EFA embraced this approach because of his Demo-Christian beliefs. I would disagree. It is a principle of decency shared by decent politicians.

If you followed Alfred Sant’s interview on French TV a couple of days ago, he said much the same thing. Dr Sant, who bore the brunt of Daphne’s invective for years on end, ignored the personal attacks and summed up her anti-corruption crusade: “She criticised harshly and somebody had to do that.” Dr Sant, who is endowed with an acute sense of State (presumably because he studied at the École nationale d’administration), clearly underlined Daphne’s role in the creation of an anti-corruption culture.

Simon Busuttil put all of this in context with his impassioned speech in Parliament on the blow dealt to our democracy by what happened on Monday.

Paraphrasing Dr Delia’s message, we need the rule of law and proper State institutions functioning independently of the government of the day.

Had these existed in our country, many an injustice would have been avoided. And Daphne Caruana Galizia would probably still be alive.