To say that the proposals for the Mepa demerger are disappointing is an understatement. In this newspaper, a former Mepa chairman said they are “not even fit for the most retrograde of banana republics on this planet and should be scrapped as soon as practicable”.
The Environment Ombudsman said that the proposals undermine transparency, accountability and public scrutiny, and will lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a few people.
The dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta listed 20 reasons against the enactment of the proposals, and considered the current law “notwithstanding its manifold deficiencies” to be far better.
A former assistant director of Mepa’s environment directorate voiced concerns that the new Environment Authority would be a “headless skeleton”, and that “those who yearn for a better future, better social well-being, a better environmental home, have to fasten their seatbelts. We are all in for a rough ride”.
The Church Environment Commission noted that the proposed structures create “a system which introduces very weak governance that will not leave space for checks and balances. It will also create the environment for corrupt practices”.
They are right to speak out, and their concerns echo those of leading environmental NGOs. What is going on? Many promises were made to all sides, but it seems that only promises to contractors and speculators are being honoured.
We have reached mid-term of a government which professes to be social democrat. Political categories are never clear-cut, to be sure, but still they help to build an identity. People want to know what a government stands for.
In some areas, such as the widening of civil rights and liberties through same-sex unions, or the continued promotion of an extensive social security system, our labour party is in line with mainstream social democratic ideas.
According to Michael Jacobs, author of The Green Economy, traditional left-wing parties were not interested in environmental protection. The related financial costs were seen as detrimental to growth and jobs for the workers. Environmentalism was a “middle class movement, with no economic interests underpinning its politics”.
Despite their stated good intentions on environmental protection, the Maltese social democratic party is pro-construction, with land speculation as an inevitable spin-off
The leftist political landscape has changed radically. European social democrats now promote environmental protection. This is, however, manifestly not the case here in Malta. In our small country, land use is a major concern. Dwindling open spaces affect biodiversity, agriculture, traffic, air quality, ground water, soil, visual amenity, noise and more.
Actions speak louder than words. Despite their stated good intentions on environmental protection, the Maltese social democratic party is pro-construction, with land speculation as an inevitable spin-off. Like those old left-wingers above, their interest remains the generation of wealth, by any means possible. This involves exploiting all available resources, including land. The formerly middle-class concerns about the environment still pass them by.
Am I being too political? I do not believe it is possible to be ‘apolitical’ when pushing for environmental protection. The way society is governed is an intrinsically political matter. Politics with a small ‘p’, one might say, as a figure of speech. Advocating better governance must involve weighing up which sides of the political spectrum, if any, are most likely to act.
It is essential to discuss this openly, as politicians of all stripes are pretty good at fooling people, and keeping quiet only favours abuse. They must be held to account, to live up to their promises and ideals.
What is questionable is not mixing politics and the environment, but speaking or acting – or not doing so – solely in order to gain power or personal advantage, without principles. That is what having an agenda means, and not the open discussion of politics and the actions of politicians.
Plenty of people in the environmental sector have critiqued and lobbied politicians for years, whoever was in charge, which is how it should be. Refusing to address politics is ultimately ineffective, as politicians hold the reins. Without them, nothing will change.
Effective campaigning means not being afraid to speak truth to power.
The Palestinian intellectual Edward Said wrote that “speaking truth to power” is not just optimistic idealism, but involves “carefully weighing the alternatives, picking the right one, and then intelligently representing it where it can do the most good and cause the right change.”
Said did not mince his words. For him, nothing was “more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take. You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you need the approval of a boss or an authority figure; you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate; your hope is to be asked back, to consult, to be on a board or prestigious committee… these habits of mind are corrupting par excellence.”
Effective public debate on national issues cannot ignore political power. It is also misguided to think that being ‘apolitical’ means that whenever the government is criticised, the Opposition must be compared in the same breath, and vice versa. That is not apolitical – it is tribalist, muddled thinking.
petradingli@gmail.com