As happens every year, this year too there was a brief discussion about the possibility of political satire in carnival. A routine discussion also takes place about circuses and the treatment of wild animals that prefer more space and, especially, to be left alone instead of being forced to repeat the gymnastics of human beings so people could clap and enjoy the uncomfortable feelings of animals kneaded into man’s entertainment machine. Circuses are reluctant carnivals where animals do not participate voluntarily – unlike men’s carnivals.

One of the best satirical writers was Voltaire, who was mercilessly attacked by fundamentalists and their brothers the extreme right. He went to prison for his satire and, as often happens, the excuse used was that he was a troublemaker who harmed the well-being of society and the general social order as promoted by the comfortable few.

I am convinced that satire obtains better results than direct criticism and attacks. When I use satire, sarcasm, sardonicism and other verbal activities of this nature, I rarely use names and especially never criticise friends, children, spouses of persons I disagree with, also as this is counterproductive.

Some people say that sarcasm is the worst form of humour, which is a load of horse clover. This opinion is used as a defence mechanism by those whose paranoid attitude makes them see themselves as the target of writers who very distantly mean to caress them.

I am in favour of political satire as a form of freedom of expression. Some political writing and drawing I have seen makes me cry at the obvious bias and immaturity. But it was Voltaire himself, among others, who stated that he was ready to defend with his life the opinion of those who disagreed with him.

I disagree with Voltaire here and I have no intention of defending any writer with my life, especially since any good writer can defend himself without my martyrdom, but also because I would myself require to have my own opinion defended with someone’s life. So, if you were planning to defend me with your sweet life, please desist as I understand and appreciate your kindness, generosity and courage but I do not wish anybody to defend me with his valuable life.

Somebody exaggerated recently by saying that, during my work, I satirically wiped the floor with a very antipathetic sort of person. This is not true at all because the floor was already dry and clean and the person slipped on it anyway without my cooperation.

Political satire, sarcasm and sardonicism are basically positive things in a democracy. They may be abused, of course, but then the person who expresses abusive satire exposes him/herself simply as an aggressive individual.

There are laws protecting politicians from abusive satire and that is the way it should be. We cannot discourage intelligent, competent, humanitarian persons from entering politics because the country would lose capable people. Also most politicians are human beings (don’t take me wrong, I mean some are angels) and, while they do not mind being criticised (with some exceptions of the devils who wish to take revenge), they have no obligation to be attacked in relation to their family, their physical defects and their illnesses.

This has happened and it’s not satire but vicious, venomous hatred. A person once drew something supposed to be me and as caption wrote: “Watch your back”. It looked more like a threat than satire.

Some sadists even attack others, calling them cruel. But life’s like that.

So it is taken for granted that political satire is not totally free, at least not free to be used by those who replace pens by daggers and the law offers protection against daggers.

But let us come now to the need for political satire in carnivals. This depends also on the country where it is practised.

A serious sociologist who had done comparative studies of cultures, once told me that all small island inhabitants have a passion, nay, an obsession, with politics. Indeed the Maltese situation may prove this. Some writers think of politics every time they touch a pen or a fork. Some cartoonists think of politics – or of what some politician did to them 40 years ago – every time they touch a brush. This is, of course, their business but do they never think of the fact that readers may be saying “Antika Valletta” or that they always limit themselves to the restricted circle of local emotional politics?

In Malta, we have loads of politics in newspapers, radio, television, blogs etc. We sometimes have politics in the theatre. We also have theatre in politics.

The question is: While we already have carnival in politics, do we also need politics in carnival?