Stand up and speak up

Some opinions, huffing and puffing against politicians like Franco Debono for expressing themselves publicly on national matters, are scary. They do not realise that this pressure verges on the mentality of a very unpleasant Italian leader of the past, though not past enough.

Few people nowadays practise blind, fanatical, partisan politics...- Anthony Licari

These opinions are wrong for two basic reasons.

First of all they threaten outspoken politicians with a reduction – if not elimination – of their political future. I see no interpretation of these threats other than pressure on honest politicians to be silent or abandon politics.

In all tranquillity, some people boasting of a certain intelligence actually propose for one and all a political behaviour of the yes-man as ideal political strategy. It is proof that intelligence can be enslaved and blinded into thinking that it can survive and flourish while surrounded by extreme right bastions.

What would remain of Maltese genuine politics if all politicians set their political behaviour on publicly expressing their happiness and demonstrate displeasure only within their political group?

These sinister suggestions reveal a morbid mentality exposing a subconscious desire that all Maltese politicians should be tame and shy, keeping their opinions to themselves and sometimes battling to express them within their political den only – if they are allowed.

Without batting an eyelid, some people are suggesting that political rationality means the suppression of opinion in public and the occasional muttering of a few words among comrades. (Communist pun intended.) At the same time, some self-righteous people easily explode into emotional tantrums if you tell them that they are not only being undemocratic but they are also promoting introverted democracy as the ideal mentality, attitude and behaviour of all politicians.

Another argument used is that of the umbrella, apparently meaning the rigid rules of political ideology of a party. Actually, what is meant is “straitjacket” but umbrella sounds less sinister.

This excuse of the umbrella, under which all politicians of one party must huddle like moles and not stray away in the least, also reminds one of organisations, apparently of Latin origin, where everyone must say “Yes boss” or be threatened with surgical removal of tongue, among other things.

The second reason why this pressure is erroneous is its naïveté. Few people nowadays practise blind, fanatical, partisan politics and the number of floating voters has increased.

I know people weakly hanging on to Dr Debono’s party who openly say that he is the reason why they do not become floating voters. There is thus a certain blissful simplicity dominating those who criticise liberal expression of the Dr Debono type as they are really shooting themselves in the belly-button while hollering that it is Dr Debono who is pleasing the opposition!

Ignoring the Prime Minister

I know people who believe that, over the years, the Prime Minister has been very silent and reluctant to condemn expression of hate by some correspondents while expressing himself openly and euphorically on less important matters. This is because, on some occasions, Lawrence Gonzi was wrongly quoted as saying that he does not believe he should interfere with expression of hatred as it could be interpreted as pressure on freedom of journalistic expression.

Journalistic ethics in Malta have recently evolved into a more organised and serious batch of rules responding to many Church and social leaders’ concern that the situation was degenerating to one where difficulty of mature and intelligent expression was being replaced by ignorant insults, which are easier but baser and, especially, very unconvincing.

Few people have commented on an opinion expressed by the Prime Minister during the commemoration of an anniversary of former Prime Minister George Borg Olivier.

Towards the end of his speech, Dr Gonzi openly expressed disagreement with expressions of political and personal hatred as used in some blogs and other media.

This clearly dispels the impression that Dr Gonzi is in favour of aggressive, hateful comments used in political debate and the erroneous opinion that he has anything to gain from foul-mouthed “supporters”.

I believe that Dr Gonzi’s appeal to civilised political language was influenced by the memory of Dr Borg Olivier’s gentlemanly manners.

For, let’s face it, debate that offends and insults the adversary on a personal basis can hardly be called debate.

We now have it clearly that it actually annoys the Prime Minister who, some people mistakenly believed, enjoyed emotionally-aggressive political language. This would be a contradiction as, on a personal political basis, one cannot be a former president of the Malta Catholic Action and enjoy hateful language at the same time. Nor can one lead a Christian democratic party and relish personal, immature, ignorant attacks on political adversaries.

Hopefully, intelligent journalists, social leaders and politicians will bring about and promote mature – as opposed to visceral – discussion.