A key phrase Franco Debono uses is “doing things the correct way”. The notorious school report was displayed with the intention to show that “correctness” is part of his very being. And the phrase keeps coming up whenever Dr Debono wants to legitimise his course of action.
Taking (Franco) Debono seriously must include fact-checking his claims about ‘correctness’ in liberal democracies- Ranier Fsadni
This week, he reiterated his dedication to the correct way when he justified why he was still turning down attempts at outreach. Yet, his notion of correctness has scarcely received enough attention.
That might seem a capricious judgement. The media have been flooded with interviews, the parsing of his demands and commentary on his psychology and motives. Generally, however, the attention has focused on teasing out what he’s thinking: the subjective Franco.
But that’s not taking Dr Debono seriously enough. Of course, all the media attention does amount to taking his threat to bring down Lawrence Gonzi’s government very seriously indeed. It does not, however, take his justification seriously, which is that he is being objective in his assessments about how true democracies operate.
When Dr Debono claims to be the champion of correctness, he is making claims about Malta and parliamentary democracies that can be investigated and tested. Some of these claims are very grave. But they are scarcely being treated as such.
First, take his accusations about “evil”. He is not talking about evil under the sun. He has specifically named evil in the shadows of the Prime Minister. Sometimes he’s softened the word to mean the unjustified belittling of someone’s reputation – but, logically, that wouldn’t leave any segment of the political field untouched, not even, arguably, himself.
But the fact that he has insisted on the word “evil”, which not even the opposition has ever used, means he is giving it the quasi-diabolical weight it has in ordinary discourse. Should he not be asked to explain why he is insisting on this word, not others?
Not to do so means that his use of “evil” is being dismissed as over-the-top. If it is, then that is in itself a judgement that should be explicated because it would be a verdict about whether Dr Debono is capable of basic ethical judgements, which are at the heart of his case. A related instance is his grave charge that there is a clique around the Prime Minister that may be blackmailing him.
Lou Bondì tried to get Dr Debono to expand on the charge, only to be told that he should investigate it himself.
By what standard of any other liberal democracy would Dr Debono be able to make this charge without the mainstream media pronouncing its assessment of a claim that, effectively, means there’s been a secret coup?
Surely, the mainstream media have been observing the life of this government enough to be able to form a judgement? If they draw a blank, then taking Dr Debono seriously means demanding that he hand over evidence.
Third, there are his claims about backbench rebellions in other parliamentary democracies. On several occasions, he has referred to last October’s House of Commons’ Conservative backbench rebellion, by 81 MPs against a three-line whip. As of this week, he will be able to cite the likely rebellion, by even more Conservative MPs (although on a free vote), against Prime Minister David Cameron’s plans to legalise gay marriage.
He has used such examples to draw a parallel with his own actions. I have yet to read or hear anyone ask him, however, to clarify this example.
As the UK reports amply show, backbench rebellions in the House of Commons (even under previous governments) are usually symbolic, meaning they are staged in the full knowledge that they will not result in the loss of the vote, let alone the collapse of the government.
That, to the best of objective knowledge, is what is considered “correctness” in liberal democracies elsewhere.
If he knows better, he should be asked to elaborate and we should be told.
The same goes for what he says about resignations. Put to one side whether Ministers Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici or Joseph Cassar ought to resign or not, an important issue but rather beside the point is how or when do ministerial resignations take place in other liberal democracies.
The objective answer: Either at the behest of the Prime Minister (or the President) or else after a media onslaught. (Alistair Campbell’s rule: If you’re not off the front page after 10 days, resign.) I am not aware of any recent episode, or even published political diary, where a resignation was effected on the pressure of a backbencher. If that is mistaken, we should be told.
The same goes for Dr Debono’s claims about “oligarchy”, which he appears to be confusing with “hierarchy”. No democratic political party or government can function without a senior inner circle of decision-makers. Indeed, no post-1964 Maltese government or any liberal democracy has functioned without one.
Taking Dr Debono seriously must include fact-checking his claims about “correctness” in liberal democracies. Do his claims to refer to the real democratic world “out there” ever pan out?
Whether you welcome the collapse of this government or not, the media owe you a cool-headed answer. Because whoever is in government in two months, the inner circles will persist and backbench rebels who threaten to bring down governments will continue to be stigmatised.
ranierfsadni@europe.com