“When someone has to intervene to defend the liberty of the press, that society is sick,” said Umberto Eco, the late Italian writer and intellectual.
Eco, who died last week, first achieved a wide international reputation with his best-selling novel The Name of the Rose, set in a medieval monastery.
Besides his academic career and works of fiction, Eco was also a columnist in Italian newspapers and magazines, writing on a range of subjects, including culture, politics and sport. In his articles he decoded and critiqued the messages which surround us, analysing culture and economic or political power.
Eco believed that European intellectuals have both the right and duty to engage in public discourse. He even perceived it as a moral obligation.
Modern scholars have often described the ‘public intellectual’, with varying views. To some, the intellectual is a reclusive, elitist creature babbling away in an ivory tower.
To others the intellectual is a strong and important influence in society, shaping minds and thoughts, challenging authority and conformist ideas. At various times in history, intellectuals have been harassed and bullied by governments trying to stamp out subversive voices.
The literary critic Edward Said strongly believed that intellectuals should play a public role in society, with their ability to articulate ideas and opinions on behalf of the public. They are able to raise difficult questions, confront dogma and “represent all those people and issues who are routinely forgotten or swept under the rug”.
The Italian philosopher and journalist Antonio Gramsci, who was imprisoned by Mussolini in the 1930s, had a wider definition. For him, many were intellectual but not everyone fulfils the role in practice. Many people can boil an egg, but not everyone is a cook.
This approach views artists, priests, journalists, lawyers and academics, among others, as traditional intellectuals. In various ways they promote ideas and thoughts within society.
Some MPs are intent on gagging the freedom of the press
Alfred Vella, a front-runner for the upcoming post of University rector, was asked in a recent interview about academics being vocal on public issues. Refreshingly, he answered that if academics stay silent they create a vacuum in public discourse. Vella reportedly said he would urge his colleagues to understand that they owe it to society to speak out and engage with current issues.
On another front, the Archbishop has also shown willingness to put forward ideas on topical issues, including the environment. Whether you agree with Church positions or not, his open approach and readiness to engage in public debate gives hope that a new broom sweeps clean.
Free, informed, open and vibrant public debate is a fundamental pillar of a healthy democracy. Yet there is an accepted framework for participation. For example, while senior public servants can of course engage in public debate, they should steer clear of party political activities, including politically-biased broadcasting and blogs. This comes with the territory.
There is sound reasoning behind this. Public officers implement policy and carry out their work on behalf of all members of the public. They must be impartial. Positions of trust within the public service should follow the same rules.
I have, obviously, not thought this up myself. The rules are written down in the Public Service Management Code, freely available on the internet. Some people in senior public positions out there might be well advised to consult it.
Restrictions apply since political bias may create a perceived conflict of interest. They do not generally apply to staff below Grade 5, as these posts may not be as politically sensitive. Being politically ‘free’ or ‘restricted’ does not, however, apply to anyone paid from the public purse. Academics, for example, are not considered to be public officers and are excluded.
The rules may not be carved in stone but a prudent approach is far preferable to the flouting of good practice, with dubious exceptions becoming the norm.
The Prime Minister seems content to allow senior public roles to be linked to unsavoury, political or racist comments. At the same time, other MPs have gone to another undesirable extreme, intent on gagging the freedom of the press.
First we had Konrad Mizzi and his lawyer trying to get a magistrate to order that a journalist’s sources are revealed. Then a few days ago Labour MP Joseph Sammut asked the Speaker of the House to investigate the Times of Malta for its reporting in connection with the Gaffarena scandal.
What does the Speaker have to do with it? All this move did was backfire.
Sammut was wrong to criticise in Parliament the Times journalist who uncovered this important story. Among the many scandals of this government, so far the Gaffarena story has possibly hit the hardest. It certainly touched upon a raw nerve for Sammut, which looks bad.
A few years ago, former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had taken legal steps against the press for reportage on his private life. His action was widely condemned. Eco and other writers, journalists and intellectuals had signed a public message of solidarity with the newspapers.
Eco had wryly commented that “In robust democracies there is no need to defend the freedom of the press because no one tries to limit it.” Wise words and sadly all too relevant.
petracdingli@gmail.com