Mark Antony begins his great speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar with the words: “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears”. In his famous lines, he uses ‘reverse psychology’ to expose the shallowness of Brutus’ arguments.
Brutus is an honourable man, is he not, Antony says to the crowd. Thus if Brutus says that Caesar was too ambitious, it must be so, and he was right to conspire to kill him to save Rome.
Repeatedly declaring that Brutus is honourable, he then shows that Caesar was perhaps not that ambitious. The people of Rome soon begin to question whether Caesar was wrongly killed by the conspirators, and to fear that “a worse will come in his place”.
Immediately after his resignation last week, former parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon massacred the National Audit Office’s reputation on the TV programme Xarabank.
With so many stories of corruption and collusion, it’s hard to know what to think. Comedy Knights will surely have enough material for sketches for years to come.
How about a short, rather unfunny, sketch with Brutus cast as Falzon, and the stabbed Caesar playing the National Audit Office (with apologies to Shakespeare and to Falzon)?
Scene One. “I come here to bury the NAO,” says Antony to the crowd. “Not to praise it. The noble Falzon has told you that the NAO was unjust. If it were so, it was a grievous fault – and grievously must the NAO answer for it.
“Falzon is an honourable man. Now allow me to say a few words about the NAO. The NAO was my friend, honourable and just to me – but Falzon says it was unjust, and Falzon is an honourable man.
Our stories of resignation, sealed with hugs and compliments, are fit for the Mad Hatter’s tea party
“It wrote many reports that exposed wrongdoing, in this did the NAO seem unjust? When wrongdoing was noticed, the NAO showed concern. Pfff, injustice should be made of sterner stuff! Yet Falzon says it was unjust, and Falzon is an honourable man.
“You did all respect the NAO once, people of Malta, and not without cause. What cause prevents you now from defending it? O sound judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason.” Exit Falzon.
Ridiculous as this may sound, the way that public manifestations of praise and censure are being handled is close to insane. Our stories of resignation, sealed with hugs and compliments, are fit for the Mad Hatter’s tea party.
There is a general expectation, somewhere in sane society, that a person who resigns following the results of an official investigation should lie low for a while.
I thought this was obvious. When you resign with a dark cloud overhead, you apologise and get off the stage. If not, you may end up in a spoof of Julius Caesar and you only have yourself to blame.
Joe Cassar was embroiled in a Gaffarena scandal and resigned from Parliament. We haven’t heard from him since, and he was not hugged or cheered at a public meeting by Simon Busuttil, as far as I know.
Giovanna Debono resigned from the PN parliamentary group due to allegations about her husband and the Gozo ministry. She has been quiet since, and Busuttil did not applaud her publicly either.
I am not defending anyone here. Stepping out of line has consequences.
Dark clouds cannot just be ignored. When Chris Said had resigned from Cabinet over some court case or other, I don’t recall him being embraced in public by Lawrence Gonzi. Eventually, Said had cleared his name and put the episode behind him.
Yet when Falzon now resigned over a major scandal he was described as a gentleman, to loud applause at the Orpheum Theatre in Gżira. He is a hero. His dark cloud is just a perception and the NAO is a dead duck. This really is not the way to handle a resignation.
Manuel Mallia’s resignation over an alleged cover-up was presented as so unfair that tissues were probably being passed around. Cyrus Engerer of revenge-porn fame was openly hugged and declared a ‘soldier of steel’.
When a misdemeanour, offence or crime takes place, somewhere there is also a victim. In the case of mishandling public funds, the whole of society is the victim. Responsibility implies a ‘debt’ that must be repaid to society, over time, but not at the Orpheum.
It is one thing to sympathise with a disgraced colleague and friend behind closed doors, but to do this in public sends a deliberate message. Nobody is more conscious of image than politicians.
The Prime Minister must think carefully about these messages. He holds a high office, so if he bestows praise it sets an example. Society has a shared system of values and morals that defines behaviour that is good or bad. Our values determine who we are.
Not everyone is so easily led into thinking that all is well when somebody resigns. If anything, watching these dubious scenes makes the alarm bells sound even louder.
What kind of moral universe is this in which people are applauded in public for wrongdoing? If there was no wrongdoing, then why resign in the first place? I must admit I am thoroughly confused. Are these resignations or celebrations?
petracdingli@gmail.com