It bears repeating. The arts always needed subsidies to flourish. Over the centuries, these came in different formats from the Church, the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie – all ready to pay good money in order to own prestigious works of art, mostly for the pleasure they afforded and because they reinforced social prestige. Closer to our times, the state (whether democratic or totalitarian) stepped in to extend support to the arts.
Yet, though subsidies remain necessary, it would be unwise if now, all artistic activity ends up completely dependent on them. There has to be a popular basis of interest and commitment for the output of all art... one that includes there being a market for it, to be clear. There have to be enough people interested in it (without themselves being artists) to create a strong demand for artistic products, as well as art-centred polemics and debate about ongoing artistic creation. This popular interest will then contribute to the improvement of artistic activity, generating further interest. Without it, despite the subsidies, the whole arts sector would remain frigid and feeble, elitist in scope.
***
JUDICIAL PROCESSES
Unless one has a legal background, it’s difficult to comprehend the rhythms of judicial processes and how they are organised. Personally I find myself perplexed to understand how cases of a certain importance seem to have gotten transfered to limbo. Months and years elapse, and when we some news about them reaches us, we are told that the legal processes are still being played out.
Then for other cases which should have equal importance, procedures seem to rush on fast forward while still being in full respect of the rules that define the procedural flow.
What factors determine why a given case moves forward while others remain pending? One must believe that it is in the public interest for more information to be available about such issues. Apparently, there are too many labyrinths in the management of judicial processes, and as a result, citizens cannot quite be sure that justice is being correctly served.
***
MALTA ĦANINA
Years have passed and still the call of “Malta ħanina” – “Malta the merciful” – resonates, in order to describe a country which is ever ready to provide support and assistance to those needing it on the inside and on the outside. The present day Maltese believe that they remain attached to that call because they subscribe extensively with their financial contributions when over the broadcasting media, they are asked to commit for all kinds of causes.
But is this enough to justify the claim of being “merciful”? For on the other hand, it is hardly nice treatment that we deal out to foreigners who live here – especially if their skin is even marginally darker than ours, or if they work in sectors that the Maltese prefer not to go for. We treat and pay them badly, and we want them to leave asap (but who will be doing “their” work? – a question for which there is no ready reply).
We need to seriously consider whether we really deserve the title of Malta ħanina, or actually whether it still is of interest to us, if it ever were!