Dissent is a dangerous species. One of the risks of handling it is to think of it as a new and recent phenomenon. That’s because save for a few mega-stars like Jesus or Galileo, most dissenters appear with hindsight to have said things that weren’t so mad or revolutionary after all. That was the whole point of their dissent in the first place. Contemporary examples, on the other hand, tend to seem innovative.

As for Franco Debono’s sense of humour, tick ‘Not Applicable’ and turn the page- Mark Anthony Falzon

Historical bias declared, I think it’s fair to say that high-profile naysaying is on the increase in Malta. The Catholic Church has recently found itself crossed by its own inner circle, notably on divorce and now IVF.

On their part, the two big political parties (Alternattiva Demokratika was born of dissent and has always cultivated a different approach to it) have discovered that colours run rather too easily.

I suppose sociologists would say that the ‘dual hegemony’ is no longer as dual or hegemonic as it used to be. My own view is that in principle that’s a good thing.

I don’t much care for unconditional loyalty of any sort and especially not of the political one. It’s reassuring to think that swallows don’t stay put mindlessly, that they do migrate after all.

The point with dissent, however, is not to be thus, but to be safely thus. By ‘safely’ I mean convincingly and ultimately consequentially. I would suggest it makes sense to look at ways of how this might be so.

The obvious test case is Franco Debono. Briefly upstaged by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando on the Cachia Caruana vote, he is now back with enough ripened vengeance to last 10 lifetimes. He seems to occupy more of One TV’s airtime than Joseph Muscat and, for most, he has become the one face of significant political dissent in Malta today.

There are two caveats I wish to make, in dogged fairness to Debono if you will. First, I don’t think it necessarily follows that since MPs are elected on party tickets, they must therefore toe the line at all times. I think there’s something to be said for MPs who have guts enough to take a stand whenever they deem fit. Although the distinction is fuzzy, Debono is right – if not terribly original – to point out that Parliament represents the people rather than partisan-political agendas.

Second, there is a universal tendency to marginalise, nay pathologise, dissenters as neurotics and bothersome freaks. This is something we need to discard before we can begin fairly to take stock of our case. For the purposes of what follows, Debono is right as rain.

That said, there are three reasons why I think his dissent is fatally flawed. First, the timing. It simply doesn’t make sense for him to level at and try to unhorse government ministers now, over four years into the Administration and a few months away from a general election.

Even Debono cannot possibly believe that new appointments at this late hour are going to make any difference whatsoever. If, on the other hand, it’s a more radical change he’s after, he’s had plenty of chances to get that done. Instead, he seems to prefer capriciously to prolong the PM’s, Labour’s and the country’s misery.

Second, the lack of a sustained line of criticism. Debono is a lawyer of some note and I imagine he must be used to building and presenting his cases in a systematic and focused manner. Not so his behaviour as a politician and parliamentarian, characterised as it is by Quixotic random volleys let off at real and imaginary enemies to no apparent method.

His appearance on Miriam Dalli’s Resumé on Monday was a case in point. He managed in the space of a few Brownian minutes to find fault with ambulances, Arriva buses, heavy fuel oil, the PN oligarchy, immigration policy, and Manuel Delia’s sartorial choices.

It’s not that he’s necessarily wrong. But it would have made much more sense for him to focus on a main grievance and develop it in a sustained and convincing manner.

This is where form matters. Debono enjoys a reputation as an excellent public speaker, but he isn’t really. What he is, is quick-witted and entertaining in a love-to-hate-him sort of way, which is different. His writing too isdamn poor. I’ve seen blogs written by teenage skateboarders that are a million times better-crafted than his.

The third problem with Debono is his bizarre style. Everything he says is drenched and dripping with a narcissism and a sense of martyrdom which are quite jaw-dropping. He appears to think of himself as some misunderstood intellectual giant, banished for his radical ideas to the salt mines. As for a sense of humour, tick ‘Not applicable’ and turn the page.

I’m not interested in dissing Debono for the relish of it. He’ll probably imagine I’m paid by the Prime Minister personally to do so, but never mind. My point is rather to use his example as a negative instance to say something about what might be more productive ways of structuring dissent.

Certainly, it is always going to be difficult to go about. Political parties and institutions like the Catholic Church represent hegemonies of thought and dense networks of loyalties and rent-seeking alliances which initiates will fight to the end to uphold. That’s precisely why anyone who thinks they have a serious point of disagreement should plan their moves carefully.

Using the Debono model, the three things to consider are timing, cogency and form. Take Fr René Camilleri, who has publicly disagreed with the Church over a number ofsignificant matters.

No one I know pooh-poohs his dissent. That’s because, first, it is always accurately timed to coincide with the issue at hand and second, because he sticks to the subject and doesn’t go off on erratic diatribes on the massacre of the Templars, banking scandals, and the Pope’s choice of footwear.

Above all, you don’t get a sense that his dissent is about him, him, and him. That’s what makes it so convincing and consequential, qualities that other rebels can only dreamof having.

mafalzon@hotmail.com