Considering the unacceptable way certain political speakers and media contributors sometimes express themselves when discussing hot political issues, especially the language they occasionally use vis-à-vis individuals having different views, the Prime Minister’s concern about this is timely. As it happens, he raised the matter soon after he apologised in Parliament for terms he himself used in relation to his political adversaries.
Often enough, but particularly at election times, quite a number of politicians tend to be carried away by their political enthusiasm and are inclined to indulge in personal insults and inflammatory language. Indeed, there have been stages in the island’s political history when party political confrontation brought about much unnecessary tension that sometimes even led to violence.
Malta cannot afford to let its political climate go back to such times. Indeed, one would like to believe the situation has changed dramatically since then but the quest for power among parties could very well lead to a most unwelcome deterioration of the political environment if the political language used is not checked in time.
The greatest responsibility to ensure this falls squarely on the political party leaders. They have to lead by example all the time, not just when it suits them.
A healthy political climate requires a genuine appreciation of openness and a sincere commitment to truth. At the same time, there also exists a crucial need to ensure that dialogue is invariably authentic and sincere. This implies, on the one hand, mutual acceptance of differences or, even, of contradictions and, on the other, respect for decisions freely made according to one’s conscience. In this way, the authorities and the people, political parties and the media will be able to contribute actively to the consolidation of a healthy, open and respectful political environment. Freedom of information and expression is a must in a true democracy. The big question is where to draw the line between freedom and what one may define as misguided or wrong approach. Indeed, the proper exercise of the right to information and expression demands that the content of what is communicated be true and complete but also within the limits set by effective justice and fairness. Above all, it should not be offensive, distasteful or hateful. This applies to all, both speakers and writers.
As all rights are rooted in human dignity, communicators have to ask themselves whether what they communicate is consistent with the full measure of human dignity. Errors of judgment, mistakes in evaluating the propriety and justice of what is transmitted and wrong criteria might offend and wound consciences and human dignity.
The point of departure towards ensuring a healthier democratic political debate and environment could well be an honest effort, by one and all, to forgive one another for past or present errors and prejudices and to support a common effort to overcome selfishness, arrogance and degrading language. This must be done without going to extremes: Destructive criticism is wrong but so is being oversensitive.
Politicians and media contributors need to commit themselves, by word and deed, to educating people to show greater mutual respect and esteem to one another. They should promote a mature, democratic dialogue and refuse to consider differences as an insurmountable barrier to greater reciprocal understanding.
A tall order? It is and the ideals may sound lofty and difficult to reach too but failure to check the present deteriorating political language now may well lead to unnecessary political tension.