Tamas Szecsko, in his introduction to the book Mass Media and Social Change, recounted the ‘story’ of a TV reporter on Mount Sinai, who together with the journalists’ pack, waited for Moses to announce the Ten Commandments. “Summarise everything in 90 seconds”; the TV reporter hastily interrupted Moses’ long-winded explanation. He then edited the report starting: “Today at Mount Sinai, Moses came down with Ten Commandments, of which the most important three are these …”
Without a clearly worked-out and assimilated vision – at both leadership and grass roots level – politics risks becoming just the managing of the polls
Let me follow-up Szecsko’s story.
True to form, most people (and several commentators) would then just read these three commandments, forming the clear and distinct perception that the Ten Commandments are just three. Whoever would be so misguided as to gainsay this, would be given the kind of look that is normally accompanied by the statement of utter disbelief, “Are you for real?”
This fictional rendering is only slightly exaggerated as people generally base their perceptions of reality on the information given in and by the media, even when this is minimal.
The PN’s commissioned report analysing the result of the 2013 general election is undoubtedly not as august a document as the one Moses so laboriously brought down the treacherous slopes of Mount Sinai, but the media reaction and popular perception follow a similar pattern.
One sincerely congratulates the Fenech Commission for producing in such a short period of time a report of close to 400 pages using a solid research methodology.
A 37-page summary was distributed to the media. A summary of just a few hundred words was then published in the print media and a couple of hundred words communicated in reports on radio and TV. Public perception was then formed by the summary of the summary.
Some criticised the report, saying it gives us perceptions. This, on the contrary, is the forte of the report. In the main it does not communicate the opinions of the five members of the commission which drafted it. The report gives us the perceptions of close to 3,000 people who communicated with the commission.
A person’s perception is tantamount to fact for that person. In an era where perception is king, should one ask for more?
The most important contribution of the report does not lie with its content. I think the process adopted was more beneficial for the Nationalist Party than the contents of the report. As was said by many, the contents were relatively well known even before the compilation of the report and the publication of the executive summary.
It is not the first time that research confirms what is already popularly known. Unfortunately the process adopted was not given any importance by commentators.
I think the process of writing e-mails, sending letters and undergoing interviews must have been a salutary process of grieving and catharsis for the hundreds who participated. They could look at defeat squarely in the eyes, fume about it and parcel blame. They could grieve with the members of the commission who, on occasions, must have served as therapists more than rapporteurs.
This exercise could have helped many to pass from denial, to anger, to acceptance and then to move forward to action.
The second most important aspect of the report is the part outlining the way forward. Seventy-one recommendations have been put forward. The most important one is titled: ‘A clear mission statement for the Nationalist Party’.
What will be the grand narrative (or if you prefer, vision) that will now guide the Nationalist Party, and what will be the grand project it will propose? This kind of talk flies in the face of the post-modern philosophy with which I differ.
Without a clearly worked-out and assimilated vision – at both leadership and grass roots level – politics risks becoming just the managing of the polls; the quest to achieve short-term gains; the acceptance of polls as the ultimate driver of politics, and the striving for victory just for victory’s sake. I refuse to share this cynically utilitarian view of politics.
The mega-projects executed by the Nationalist Party in the past 50 years were, among others, the acquisition of Independence, the restoration of democracy, the modernisation of the economy, the pluralisation of broadcasting and accession to the European Union.
These were only possible because the party had a clear vision of the kind of country it wanted Malta to be; solid values that guided the process; and leaders who valued principled decisions over strategies based on convention and cynicism.
Quite naturally, the grand narrative to be adopted will only be relevant if it is grounded in the developments shaping contemporary Malta; and in turn, it will also influence developments in society.
The seminal document Prinċipji Bażiċi provided such a clear vision in the 1980s; while L-Għeruq Tagħna is a recent and reasonably credible attempt to update it. Much more has still to be done for this vision to be elaborated and for it to percolate to all the members of the party. This is a task more difficult that the administrative changes asked for by the commission reporting on the electoral defeat and which are – quite rightly – being put into practice in earnest.
Structures and administrative changes are important. But what are structures without a soul? What use is there for a soul if it does not result from a vision shared commonly by the leadership and the grass roots?
These would then have the task of effectively proposing it for the acceptance of the majority of the population. Such a communicative endeavour will take more than the 90 seconds that the fictional TV reporter, in the beginning of this piece, allowed Moses to explain the Ten Commandments. But on its success or otherwise depends the future of the Nationalist Party.
• Last Sunday, I wrote that Pope Francis’ first 100 days lacked pomp and circumstance. Probably the English composer Elgar was not amused.
Following last Saturday’s papal absence at the now infamous concert, another composer – none but the famous Beethoven – joined the ranks of the un-amused, together with many big cheeses at the Vatican.
The empty white chair during the concert is, so far, the most powerful visual of this pontificate. Stronger visuals will probably follow, accompanied by radical action.
Is it a case of saying, let the music begin?
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt