The Opposition in a democracy has two roles, which it has to play with care and a clear strategy. One, it has to be a Loyal Opposition. It has to oppose the government not for the sake of opposing but genuinely to help the government govern the country in the best possible fashion. For some, this is difficult to come to terms with, as they might see it like the lamb helping with the preparations for Easter lunch.
Two, the Opposition must present itself as the country’s alternative government. Not only must it oppose in such an intelligent fashion that it convinces the electorate that if it were in government it would govern better, but it must also come up with new ideas or new approaches to implement once elected.
Some people say that Governments lose elections; Oppositions don’t win them. I disagree. I think that it’s a two-way traffic system. For there to be a change in administration, the Government has to alienate chunks of the electorate and the Opposition has to win them over.
So the twin questions on everybody’s mind are: is the current Government alienating chunks of the electorate with scandals blossoming on an everyday basis in the garden of corruption? Is the Opposition attracting chunks of the electorate with its proposals for a better country?
Everybody and his dog has their opinion. And goings-on in politics are measured against a standard that is not a common ideal but changes from person to person. The reasons for this are plenty. First and foremost, there is no political education in the school curriculum (whereas there are “more important” issues, such as preparing the new generations to embrace abortion – I have already written about this and was castigated by the man behind the school curriculum; I still hold my ground, that man will have human lives on his conscience).
The schooling system doesn’t teach students how to judge the administration of the country. It’s a taboo that, paradoxically, the electorate in a democracy seems unable to overcome. Schoolchildren are taught about (the “vastly important” Liberal fixations on) sexuality and sexualities but not about (“mundane”) politics. So children grow up knowing nothing about politics, economics, public administration, and the rest. Yes, there are a few who study these subjects at a higher level, but – obviously – I’m not talking about the specialists; I’m referring to the average man-in-the-street who, despite knowing next to nothing on politics, economics, public administration, is repeatedly asked to deliver a verdict once every four/five years, and whose judgment serves to determine the political and economic direction of the country and how it’s administered.
So the electorate tries to get its education – because people want to be educated – from newspapers. Most of those who write in newspapers know as much as the rest of the electorate. Take Saviour Balzan as the typical know-it-all pundit, he who first defended Muscat and Schembri and now claims he was taken for a ride.
(As an aside, when I published my book on the Panama Papers, Saviour Balzan’s reaction was, “I have not read the book, but will do everything humanly possible not to touch a copy”. Had he read my book when it was published, he would have understood even way back in 2016 that he shouldn’t defend the crooks. I’m being obviously disingenuous here, mind you. John Bundy’s testimony of a year ago, if true, casts a lot of light on Balzan’s true motivations.)
Why does all this matter? Because the insistence on corruption and all that, while necessary for the good of the nation, won’t necessarily resonate with the electorate. The electorate wants to know what an alternative government has to offer if it were granted the privilege of administering the country.
Enter Bernard Grech
Which is exactly what Bernard Grech’s doing. He has set in motion his party’s structures to put on display what it’s ready to give the country if elected to government. In tourism, for instance, the Nationalists plan a veritable revolution. I invite all those involved in this sector to study the PN document in detail – the vision they’re offering is something to behold.
But I’ll leave the discussion on the proposal in the tourism sector to people who know more than I do on the subject. Instead, I want to focus on Bernard Grech himself who is, slowly but surely, uncovering a vision that is both fascinating and invigorating. In comparison, Robert Abela pales into insignificance. It seems that Dr Abela has no ideas or vision of his own, that he’s not his own man. Bernard Grech, on the other hand, oozes a sense of direction and a powerful vision. If he’s going to convince the electorate – that depends on many factors, many of which are independent of his will and vision.
I recently listened to Dr Grech during a Question-and-Answer session. He expounded on a number of ideas that cannot fail to attract attention. I was impressed by his burning desire to do away with social prejudice. What a breath of fresh air! It matters little whether you’re from the South or from elsewhere, he said. What matters is that you’re a citizen like everybody else!
He then delivered a line that should demolish the slums of ignorance, bigotry, and prejudice: “We’re all human beings who only want to give and receive love!” If Bernard Grech truly means these words, he could be one of our best prime ministers if given the chance.
Then he spoke of the decentralisation of services – a brilliant novelty I shall be writing about in the coming weeks. And, dulcis in fundo, he spoke about his love for beauty, sharing with his listeners that he practises calligraphy (the art of beautiful writing) and loves singing (which we already knew, and appreciate). He argued that aesthetics for him are of paramount importance, and he wants to see the preservation of our natural and urban heritage. The State should incentivise people financially by assisting with restoration and upkeep. If the community wants to preserve the idyllic beauty of our towns and villages, then it has to help the individual to attain this objective.
Bernard Grech is offering the chance to the country to become a self-respecting nation.
Godfrey Baldacchino’s “nation-less” state
In one of his papers, Professor Godfrey Baldacchino asks whether the Maltese have a “nation-less” State. He answers yes to that question. I’ll be frank. My gut reaction was to disagree.
But then, upon further reflection I came round to Professor Baldacchino’s thesis which this year – the 100th anniversary of Self-Government – acquires particular relevance.
The question is whether 1921 represents Malta’s first step toward nationhood or statehood. Was 1921 a step toward a return to statehood, give that arguably in the 17th and 18th centuries, Hospitaller Malta was a State? Did the Maltese want autonomous nationhood under the protection of a Great Power? Did the Maltese really know what they wanted?
In 1921, we were given a Constitution that granted Self-Government, something the Maltese had been requesting from the Colonial master for a long time. The grant’s importance wasn’t only political; it was also symbolical – so much so that Antonio Sciotino’s Great Siege Monument in Valletta (which is now used as the Daphne Caruana Galizia Memorial) was quickly linked to self-government. All nascent nations need to create myths, to transform meaningless political or military events from the past into meaningful moments in the present narrative on the natural progress leading to the birth of the nation.
(In a way, the dominant ideology of the 19th and early 20th centuries was that the State was “the will of God”. The Great Siege of 1565 was thus transformed from an important battle in the long-drawn-out war between Christendom and the Ottoman invader into a defining moment for the nascent Maltese nation.)
Then again, was there a nascent Maltese nation? Did all Maltese classes adhere to this narrative? Was this the dominant Maltese ideology? Did “being Maltese” mean fighting for Christendom against the Ottoman invader?
These questions had a political significance then and a historical significance now. But I think that the more important question today is whether the Maltese identified with the bourgeois nation myth or with a myth that was not related to the nation.
This is what I believe Godfrey Baldacchino is trying to say: the attachment to political parties instead of to the myth of the nation.
I would add to Professor Baldacchino’s intuition that, apart from the bourgeois and the nobility, the Maltese people were more or less still living in a medieval mindset. I use this term to mean a political mindset that viewed the world in terms of the Cross v. the Crescent Moon. After all, this was the world-view that the Order of St John had bequeathed the Maltese, and the British did very little by way of educating the masses, except for inculcating the practical notion that if somebody wanted a job with the public service, they had to have a working knowledge of English.
In the politico-religious medieval worldview, substituting Christianity with Mintoffianism was natural. At one moment in time, Mintoff even threatened the Church he would found his own Christian Church!
It can be argued that European nationalism was a sort of religion, substituting God with the Nation-State. But in Malta, there being no Nation-State, partisan identity became the identity; it fulfilled the function that “national sentiment” did in other, independent European countries.
Our colonial status stunted the growth of a healthy, European nationalism.
This is compounded by the medieval mindset, in which religion was the identity.
So, yes, I’m ready to accept that Malta is a “nation-less” State as partisan identity replaced religious identity in the absence of a Nation-State that could bestow national identity.
What’s the practical use of all this speculation? This would explain the irrational defence of Muscat and his crooked cronies. The sickly legacy of the Messiah of Liberal Modernism is ironically defended by a staunch legacy of medievalism.
And this is why the insistence on corruption will convince the educated but not the others.
My Personal Video Library (11)
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the Labour Government wanting to turn prostitution into a “normal” career path. Bad Girls is a 1994 Western about a group of four, extraordinarily attractive young ladies who ply the oldest profession. They get in trouble and want to redeem themselves, but only when circumstances turn against them. The implication seems to be that otherwise they would have stayed on, pleasing customers and getting paid for it.
Despite the beauty of the actresses and the good shooting (in both senses of the word), the movie was a flop.
Renowned film critic Robert Ebert wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times: “What a good idea, to make a Western about four tough women. And what a sad movie.” Perhaps Mr Ebert was right: a woman has to be tough if, being a prostitute, she tries to abandon her condition and turn over a new page. Perhaps that should be the attitude of a country’s government: helping prostitutes find a new life.
A government’s attitude shouldn’t be devising ways how to normalise a “profession” built on exploitation, humiliation, and, all said and done, self-destruction.