Refining run rabbit run

Any government failures are reprehensible and, after many years in power, fatigue, arrogance and abuse of power are bound to set in. History teaches us this is invariably the case, human nature being what it is. What is more disquieting, though, is the way the Nationalist government and its apologists ferociously attack anybody who points out their shortcomings.

...one can be more successful in imposing an ideology without declaring it- Helena Dalli

For the past three years, the government has spent a lot of its time firefighting. Thus, hardly having a leg to stand on, when this Administration is criticised, Nationalist Party defenders resort to going as far back as the 1970s and 1980s in retaliation. That is the best that can be done in the circumstances, especially since, as privately lamented by the Prime Minister, Cabinet talent left much to be desired and we are living the consequences of said inadequacy. That is why the PN and PN-friendly media are replete with features on the pre-1987 period and why we shall be regaled with a higher dose the closer we get to the election.

It is where the PN’s main political arsenal lies.

The Nationalist government and party want people to think about the past in an effort to alienate them from the difficult present. Will they succeed? They certainly are trying hard. In fact, if the effort was instead put into good governance as opposed to defying it, we definitely would be better off.

Take, for instance, the issue of public broadcasting. The PN talks of the 1970s and 1980s, when the name of the Leader of Opposition was not mentioned on national television. Were we to go further back – to the 1960s – it was not just the name of the Leader of the Opposition that was not mentioned but the Leader of the Opposition could not speak on national television unless his script was vetted by the authorities, which he obviously refused. Both what happened in the 1960s under the PN and what happened later under Labour is wrong.

Mention then the 1980s and broadcasting and “run rabbit run” comes automatically to the collective mind. Since then, a propounder of the running rabbit has been adopted by the PN but that’s another story. I don’t have to say how ham-handed this “run rabbit run” approach was and how high a price Labour has paid for this and similar mistakes. But the PN wants more. It actually wants the PL to continue paying for this 30 years and four leaders down the line.

So how is the PN government different in the public broadcasting field? It is definitely less clumsy than Labour used to be, even though the exodus of staff from the PN stable to the national broadcaster is anything but subtle.

A story currently in the news is that of Joe Azzopardi. During a critical phase of the 2008 election campaign – at the same time that he was in charge of the moderation of the final crucial debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition – Mr Azzopardi tutored one of the Prime Minister’s MPs (Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando) on how to harass the Leader of the Opposition by presenting himself as a journalist (which he isn’t) at a press conference on national television. Some observers say that Dr Pullicino Orlando’s showdown with Alfred Sant (after being coached by Mr Azzopardi) was one of the contributing factors to the PN’s narrow election victory in 2008. This is debatable but the incident certainly did not help Labour and was clearly intended to benefit the PN.

There are various ways of how to favour one side or the other without being too obvious about where your bias lies. Even technically there is so much one can do with a camera: which angle to shoot from, lighting, the accentuation of certain body language...

These are technicalities that are hard to prove. Maybe too sophisticated for lay viewers to perceive, even though it would be having an effect on them. It is so much easier to recognise and remember the clumsiness of run rabbit run.

We are also often reminded that Labour had in the 1980s declared that it was imposing a socialist ideology on national television programming. That was the Labour way. Undoubtedly, one can be more successful in imposing an ideology without declaring it. The most effective way to exercise influence is to do so with the persons you are exercising it on not even noticing what is happening. That is the PN way.

One only has to analyse critically the news services and current affairs programmes on national television to see this. Fear of bias is not exactly paralysing the national broadcaster. But it is what was actually declared by Labour that the PN can quote 30 years on. The PN way is undeclared – albeit ubiquitous – thus more effective. Most importantly, it cannot be quoted.

We have been given different accounts of the Pullicino Orlando coaching debacle. Evidently, it is a question of who shouts the loudest explanation. Who has access to the more effective national tools to deliver the message. Which medium is at whose disposal. As for the truth... goodness knows where that is to be found. All is fair in love and war they say; it doesn’t matter if the audience is cheated.

helenadalli@gmail.com

Dr Dalli is shadow minister for the public service, government investments and gender equality.