Like most southern Europeans, we are renowned that when speak, we fill the space around us with emotion. We are thought to be warm but somewhat argumentative. Our public spaces, which we populate much more than our northern neighbours because of our warm, sometimes very hot, climate, are very often the sight of friendly but heated discussions, even among friends and on any subject under the sun.
We love politics, and this of course provides us with excellent opportunities to express our agreement and disagreement through colourful language. Our narra-tives are, alas, not infrequently flavoured with colourful blasphemies and expletives when we disagree, as if their use reinforces our argumentation and makes it more credible. And this despite the fact that that blasphemy was a criminal offence for many years, though in post-modern Malta, that law has been abolished.
In fact, obscene language is now commonly used in everyday discourse, on the media, in contributions to the ever-mushrooming blogs. Life goes on. The only two places where, perhaps, logical argument, in ‘acceptable’ language, still survives, are the Church and the law courts – where, incidentally, in both, one can get either a remission or a demotion for one’s bad language.
Despite this, we do expect speaking in public to be orthodox, of the right tone and logical. We bemoan our leaders when they do not communicate their message well. And rightly so, because we believe they should be charismatic, and a core feature of charisma is representation. So they must embody our ideas and transmit them convincingly. If they do not, we consider them unworthy of their positions and that they should be replaced.
Public speaking and debating are a form of art. They have always been. The ancient Greeks gave us Demosthenes, the Romans Cicero. The former learnt rhetoric by studying the speeches of previous great orators and is known to have given his first judicial speeches at the age of 20, when he managed to secure what was left of his inheritance from his guardians.
Cicero, of course, was so erudite in his style and focused on technique that he could make his audience stand in awe and admiration, even when he was battling to redeem his own home from the ‘planning authority’ of his time. On returning from exile, Cicero sought to recover his house on the Palatine, which had been confiscated, razed and dedicated in part as a temple to Libertas.
A good number of our students,however bright and promising,are shy to speak up, communicate their thoughts and express them convincingly
In many renowned universities, students are nowadays encouraged to learn the art of public speaking and debating. In my time at Oxford, it was with a lot of enthusiasm that we used to flock to the Union to hear, mostly in a spirit of fun, the eloquent arguments presented by students and especially when a foreign personality was invited. The air was of fun, the debates full of irony and the arguments very smart, however pointed and sharp. The Union there has survived since its birth in 1823 and has contributed extensively to UK leadership, in many spheres of life, but especially in politics.
In this respect, the Oxford Union followed on the experience of the University of St Andrews Union Debating Society, which had its origin in 1794 but was formally established in 1890, and that of Cambridge, set up in 1815. There are many more university debating unions, spread around the world.
Debate, even formal debate, has not been completely absent at the University of Malta, and our own alma mater has contributed extensively to the leadership corps throughout the island’s history. However, with the popularisation of tertiary education, it is commonly felt among academics that something is direly missing. A good number of our students, however bright and promising, are shy to speak up, communicate their thoughts and express them convincingly. The use of irony and pun is not so common, and at times, even simple group presentations become pedantic and boring.
The formal establishment of the Malta University Debating Union (MUDU) is a joint attempt by the university and the students’ council to address this issue systematically. Its objectives are to promote public speaking and open debate, to help students – leaders of tomorrow’s Malta – to acquire the necessary skills to be able to project themselves convincingly, using logic. Not without the traditional emotion for which we are well known, but with well-laced arguments that do away with the nastiness that at times colours local debate.
Besides training students, MUDU will run debates for them. It will organise activities for the general public as its contribution to investigation and debate in Malta. Its objectives are long term. Its captive audience is not an enterprising, elite few who have always existed among the student population, but all the students.
This week, MUDU is welcoming a very experienced personality in public speaking and debate, Stephen Sackur, the main presenter of BBC’s flagship programme Hardtalk. Sackur’s experience is extensive and varied. He will address students on ‘Building Skills: The importance of Public Speaking and Debating’ on Friday morning at the university’s main campus in Msida. In the evening, he will draw on his vast experience to explore ‘Investigative Journalism: Its Joys and Throes’. The evening session is mainly for journalists and members of the public who are particularly interested. Registration is required, closes Wednesday at noon and can be accessed at: http://ksu.org.mt/index.php/mudusackursession .
Mario Vassallo is professor of sociology and chairman of the steering committee of the Malta University Debating Union (MUDU).