One of the most often used phrases in the political discourse as of late is basically the government describing whatever happens to be the hot topic at the time as a ‘ballun politiku’ – a political football.

We saw this, for example, in how the government handled the backlash against it when it failed – for months – to open a public inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia.  There were suggestions by some on the government side of the House that the campaign for a public inquiry had – rather than being a fight for the truth and for justice – become something of a political football.

Likewise, when the island was recently hit by several days of power cuts, the government’s response to criticism was that the issue shouldn’t be turned into a political football match.

The same mantra has been used time and time again.  Culture Minister Owen Bonnici had even used the argument to deflect criticism when the government passed a law allowing loud music to be played in some streets in Valletta at 1am.  We’ve also heard it on debates about migration, about minority groups, about the shortage of nurses, about ODZ land, about taxes, about salaries, and about pretty much everything else you can think of.

It seems like the go-to defensive strategy when the government is making a conscious political choice – or when something happens which affects the whole country – is to cry foul and insist that the matter, even though it can be affecting the whole country, isn’t political.

Politics may be a dirty word for many, but the foundation of a functioning democracy is discussion, evaluation, and – yes – accepting and bowing your head to criticism where it is both warranted and valid.

But instead we have a government which – save for very rare instances, like when Prime Minister Robert Abela apologised to the Sofia family and to anyone who may have been hurt by the way the government had handled the public inquiry fiasco – prefers to bat away genuine criticism by just saying that the argument has been turned into a political football and, therefore, isn’t really valid anymore.

Instead the government – probably knowing that the criticism is valid, but not wanting to outwardly accept that it is lest it look weak – stealthily tries to find ways to address those points, which are usually then promoted by its own media house, or by its supporting arm the national broadcaster TVM.

Criticism is a key part of the democratic process, and the country and its institutions are certainly not going to move forward if it makes it a point to dismiss all criticism as having some sort of ulterior motive.

Let it be clear: this applies for the government, which is most guilty of using the ‘political football’, the opposition, which sometimes dismisses criticism towards it by labelling it as being ‘paid for by Castille’ or something along those lines, and any other institution with some modicum of responsibility in the country.

It is only natural that there will be criticism.  Some won’t be valid, and some will be.  It is part of human nature, because to err is human.  What sets people apart is how they respond to the criticism that is genuine.

Being too proud of ourselves and labelling any and all criticism as a “political football” will not get us anywhere, but maybe an approach with humility which accepts that sometimes mistakes will happen or that someone may have better solutions will actually allow us to move forward – even if it’s in baby steps.