What spurned me to write is a telephone in­ter­view I had with the president of the Malta Union of Teachers, Kevin Bonello, during a radio show.

Bonello stated that one provision the political parties seem to have abstained from discussing let alone adopting in their electoral programmes was the bid made by the MUT that “The time was ripe for the authorities to reflect seriously on what is going on in children’s lives after school hours and what educational values they are getting from home, from their neighbourhood and from other scenarios they are engaged in”.

The MUT also affirmed that “the time is apt to help parents realise the responsibility they have towards their children’s education. It is imperative that parents are provided with skills training and that such instruction should be linked to benefit payments, namely children’s allowance or other such benefits” (my translation).

While I do understand where the MUT is coming from, the rationale for such a recommendation is something I disassociate myself from in the same way the political parties did during the said radio show. A coercive measure like redressing the children’s allowance if parents don’t go for life-skills courses will instantly impinge on the children’s quality of life and that is a sanction I’m not keen on endorsing!

But this proposal by the MUT has unfolded an interesting argument.

Fact 1: There is no denying that we have perceptibly come across numerous reports these last years by NGOs (such as Caritas), State agencies and other social movements that have been signposting the phenomenon of social exclusion that is undoubtedly effecting minority groups in Malta and the struggle these citizens have to face given the social problems they experience.

Fact 2: Linked to the above is another important agenda that The Guardian discusses very patently: “Hundreds of thousands of poor people say they have been put off applying for or collecting benefits because of the perceived stigma generated by false media depictions of ‘scroungers’ – leading many to forgo essentials such as food and fuel, a new report claims” (www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/20/scrounger-stigma-poor-people-benefits).

Fact 3: These two specifics show that there are people who still believe that those receiving support from the State are essentially ‘bummers’, fronting a social and public policy episode referred to as ‘benefit stigma’.

My own conclusion to these actualities is that they are mistaken. In my view, in their preponderance, the vast majority of people who consume social services need them. Those who abuse the system are a minority element and need to be trapped, jammed and fixed. There’s no doubt about that.

Then again, we still need to ask what prompts these people to take the shortcut of abusing the system. Maybe the system lends itself open for abuse or perhaps it’s a vote-catching incumbency contrivance that has been ingrained in our political system. So where is this perception of undeservingness coming from (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk)?

In many people’s eyes, those ‘bleeding’ the coffers through social benefits are considered fraudsters, that is to say: the unemployed (who are ‘not bothered’ to ‘look for’ let alone ‘find’ a job), those with oodles of children and single parents, among others.

These categories are all blamed of being entranced in having benefits served on a silver platter without taking on any responsibilities.

A significant portion of citizens still feel that people on welfare benefits are not taking the slightest forbearance route to life. Some even add that ‘they’ are better off living on assistance and, hence, are undeserving and being given an unreciprocated gift.

Furthermore, it seems to be the prevalent acuity that petitioners of aids are unworthy, claim falsely and commit fraud.

The media is further cockeyed and encourages these off-putting representations through the way a minority of tricksters are presented, further perpetuating and depicting a dependency culture that is likely to describe such community clusters, individuals or populations as weak and as being an encumbrance and a social liability. But is there any truth in all of this?

To better understand ‘benefit stigma’ and the long-term implications of this portent we need to lay out some important reflections: to what extent is claiming benefits stigmatised? What are the drivers that advantage stigma and what is the impact of welfare shame?

There is also another facet to this debate.

Dishonour is further magnified due to circumstances whereby people applying for benefits have to wait in long queues (which communicate benefit claimants as being low in status), a lack of privacy (having to spill the beans to get themselves any help) and looked at suspiciously when requesting services.

This whole situation will change if, firstly, people benefitting from help are seen as deserving, are provided support in the right measures and that a ‘spring board culture’ is embedded in every benefit, thus ensuring that people are enticed to bounce back into their community better equipped to face the challenges.

Secondly, benefit receivers need to be seen as having gained the right for this support centered around two fundamental values: reciprocity of citizenship and solidarity.

Thirdly, the system needs to be revamped to ensure that we can all understand the perceived needs.

Fourthly, we need to fathom the professed eligibility and trade-off from ‘benefit stigma’ to stability of eligibility.

All of this will bring the much-needed change in perception, whereby benefit patrons are no longer seen as let-downs but as front runners to the changes they would like for themselves.

Andrew Azzopardi is senior lecturer at the University’s Department of Youth and Community Studies.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.