The wideranging judicial processes that began last week need to be carried forward to their end in a tranquil manner and fast. Being vital to the national interest, the two objectives must be achieved no matter how difficult this may be.

One would have foreseen that people were going to be mobilised in the streets as the processes started. If that had something positive going for it, which I disbelieve, now it has been done. Carrying it forward during the coming weeks makes no sense and can do  no good. The mobilisation that had best be encouraged relates to the quiet and powerful gathering of minds assembled to discover the truth and nothing but the truth, while exposing foul play wherever it is to be found.

Meanwhile, in the administration of the judicial process the need will be for speed that in no way disrupts the search for justice. Too many times in the distant and recent past, there have been cases in which the courts served as wells of forgetfulness in which got buried both the fulfillment of justice and the reputations of accused people whose innocence then kept hanging by the thread of the formal claim of their say-so. If a judicial process leads to limbo, then it is not fit for purpose.             

***

FANNING THE FLAMES

In politics there come times which offer good opportunities for those whose favorite past time is to fan confusion among people in general. Some do this because they reckon that they can profit from a mood of social uncertainty. Others like doing it because they get a kick from it, a sense of adventure to counter the monotony that qualifies their life. Yet others believe that if confusion is rampant in society, it would be possible to smudge and rub off the negative consequencies of crimes that may have been committed.

Among the expressions used to describe those who are adept at fanning the flames of social discord is that of “agents provocateurs” – people who create incidents that in turn will provoke other more serious incidents. There were quite a number of such people around in the past. We have to remain on the alert and not allow their successors today to open new wounds.                     

***

NEUTRALITY

With the passage of weeks and months, and the commitment to implement plans for a defence policy hardens within the EU, I am increasingly concerned about how Malta’s status of neutrality is going to be safeguarded. There can be no doubt, given the way by which defence policy is being laid out, that the EU will surely develop into a military alliance, even as participation in such a structure is prohibited by Malta’s constitution.

There are different ways by which Malta can get involved in this alliance. One way is for the island to decide, in just a single move, to become part of it. Alternatively there is the more gradual, more sudued approach by which, half a step at a time, Malta commits itself to initatives and obligations that at the end, render it part of the alliance.

Both approaches are unacceptable, and even less so if this happens in the absence of all public discussion and parliamentary debate about the direction we’re heading towards. The political dividends of neutrality are of much greater benefit to Malta than many people imagine. It would be a great tragedy if we allow it to be phased out and lost for ever. Were this to happen, the temptation would be to employ another much stronger word instead of tragedy to describe the outcome – a word that also starts with the first two letters of tragedy.