There have been a lot of amnesties in the news lately. First we had one for prisoners at Corradino, then on rigged smart meters, and now we have proposals on stuffed bird collections and on illegal buildings.
Amnesties are not necessarily a bad thing, but too many of them make a mockery of the law. They must be well justified, and only contemplated for valid reasons.
Voters are influenced by one of at least three things: policy, personal benefit, or the wish to send a message to politicians. Let’s here call them our three categories of the vote. These amnesties probably appeal to the second category, personal benefit.
What is the point of an amnesty on illegal stuffed birds in showcases, except to gratify their owners? These collections lie behind the illegal hunting of birds of prey. This is enough reason why they should not, in the doublespeak of officialdom, be ‘regularised.’
In an essay on politicians and language, George Orwell described how politicians avoid clear language in order to obscure their real aims. He compared it to a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
It is also known as muddying the waters.
Letting off the owners of illegal bird collections does not solve any wider social or financial issue. The culprits might just carry on as before, with absolutely no increased respect for the law. An amnesty on stuffed birds was already granted 12 years ago in the run-up to EU membership, and I see no reason for another one now.
Letting off the owners of illegal bird collections does not solve any wider social or financial issue
Amnesties are perceived as unfair by people who do follow the law, only to end up worse off than their neighbour who lied, cheated, hid or looted and then gets to keep the spoils.
People will always try to bypass regulations but if they make sense, they do finally accept and follow them. There was once resistance to motorcycle helmets, seat belts, smoking rules and dog litter bins, but people eventually fell in line.
It is probably easier to get people to follow rules linked to safety and health than, for example, the environment, but this is where education and enforcement step in. Instead, the regulations are being relaxed.
I would guess that a good number of swing voters, or so-called ‘switchers’, in the last election did not base their vote on policy issues or on joining a movement. Many wanted to send a message, or voted for personal gain. Categories two and three above.
Marlene Farrugia was on television the other day trying to explain what she still calls this new ‘movement’ that won the election. I don’t doubt that she genuinely believes in it, but quite honestly I was none the wiser by the end of the programme.
I simply can’t put my finger on the movement’s direction or policy. Let’s hope it is not doublespeak for some unholy alliance of special interest groups.
I doubt whether most of these voters feel that they were, or are, part of a movement. Many were just understandably fed up of the previous administration which had, after all, been in power for a very long time, and they were ready to take their chances for change.
People are often more interested in message than in content. Just look at the elections in Greece. Voters wanted to send a strong message against austerity measures, and did not care half as much about the policies required to turn the message into substance. Politicians played into this. Only weeks after the election, the absence of robust policy has already led to the electoral campaign being dubbed as an illusion by some Greeks.
In the longer term, promoting a loosely-knit ‘movement’ instead of a party makes it harder to project a familiar identity. Lack of clarity might work for a while and fudging words can be convenient, but it is also confusing. You can’t be all things to all men, or women.
In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell imagined a language called Newspeak with a limited vocabulary. In the remote and futuristic world of his story, he explored the idea that language can be manipulated to influence our thought.
This happens all the time.
The government has tried to persuade people that the amnesty on illegal buildings is actually sanctioning. This is hardly convincing as there are already rules on sanctioning, so why not just follow them? Yet as people are already familiar with sanctioning, they might accept this term more readily.
The extension of the development boundaries in 2006 was called a ‘rationalisation’ scheme. This is now itself a tainted word so the new proposed extension is said to be only ‘tweaking’ the boundaries.
The proposed amnesty on stuffed birds is styled as a ‘voluntary declaration’. The amnesty on rigged smart meters was explained as a ‘legal provision’.
In a famous quote from Shakespeare, Juliet tells Romeo: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.” Likewise, that which we call an amnesty by any other name would still be an amnesty. And it does not always smell sweet.
petracdingli@gmail.com