In Malta, there seems to be only one Daphne. Mentioning the surname, Caruna Galizia, is futile. Everyone knows who she is and her name hammers shivers down politicians’ spines. You either love her or hate her. There seems to be very little middle ground. If you fall within her target, she would stick to you like an octopus and not let go until another of her pet hates comes along.
Undoubtedly, she has put her stamp on Maltese politics. She has never run for office, she is not a member of Parliament and neither does she hold any position in any party, but her pen has influenced a large chunk of the electorate and the local political debate for years.
Her style is unique in Malta but not in other countries such as the UK. Her journalistic prowess on publishing facts is enhanced with her own comments, most of which are not flattering. Here is the controversy.
A journalist should be on the side of facts and expose those facts to the public and allow them to comment. Irrespective of personal opinions, a journalist should publish what s/he has found.
A journalist should dig deeper by asking politicians for more information or comments. A good interview would be one which would be uncomfortable for the subject. A journalist is put in the privileged position of asking politicians questions we would love to put ourselves and not let go until the questions are answered. At the end of the day, we would like to sense that the journalist has done his/her job.
Daphne is a different kettle of fish. She is a journalist, campaigner and political opinion-maker all rolled into one. She would have fantastic journalistic articles, however, she would have other satellite stories about a politician’s appearance, with whom s/he is having coffee or publish amusing photos from Facebook, which would effectively distract from the main and important story.
It also gives a sense that she would have lost the journalistic objectivity and looks as though it is a personal fight or crusade. One may argue that corruption and political dishonesty is personal but comments on a wife’s dress are not.
It is no secret that she has a dislike for Labour and anything remotely close to Labour. In turn, Labour have taunted the Nationalist Party for following ‘Daphne’s agenda’ and she being part of its strategy team. In some way or another, that accusation has managed to stick, with her popularity within the party ranks fluctuating in the same way as the PN’s current leadership and administration.
She was hailed as a heroine when she broke the story about the Panama companies but lost support immediately on the PN’s electoral defeat.
Only when being entrusted with a task, will people know whether you can deliver
The PN has always denied both accusations and, although on the face of it there is a connection between what Daphne was writing and the PN’s battle cry, a more prudent reflection would bring us to the logical conclusion that any Opposition would have taken on the story and used it to attack any government.
Can you imagine the PN being silent when the story came out and confirmed that Konrad Mizzi had a company in Panama that was incorporated days after his appointment to office?
The PN had in the past waged many wars against corruption. People of my generation remember Eddie Fenech Adami accusing Dom Mintoff of leading a corrupt government. He coined the term institutionalised corruption. Nobody said at the time that he was being too negative. When in government, he set up the Permanent Commission Against Corruption and more.
Over the last four years, Labour did its utmost in shutting her up. They also came up with the brilliant plan of letting loose Glenn Bedingfield by allowing him to set up a similar blog, which I seem to have contributed to. Should the PN have stood by and allowed her and others to register their websites?
In the absence of a proper defeat analysis within the PN, Labour obliged by contributing ideas as to what were the elements that brought a colossal defeat. Daphne tops their list. This has also rubbed off on Nationalist diehards.
Therefore, when Daphne decided to turn her attention to PN leadership contender Adrian Delia, the die was already cast. She was the cause of the PN’s defeat, then she must be stopped and the only way to do that is to vote for the person she is attacking. But Daphne is not contesting the leadership elections.
This is the third leadership contest I have voted in and in it I notice the most ideological split between the two contenders: Delia, coming from outside the party and boasting of being able to change the party’s fortunes while learning the ropes, and Chris Said, an established politician who can identify where reform is required within the PN.
The election is not whether we like Daphne’s style or not or whether she should have the power to influence the political scene. The question is who is the best from the two contenders to reform the PN in the space of a maximum of five years and present the party as a credible alternative government.
My decision to vote for Said was not influenced by Daphne at all. Although I know Delia and I like the man, I believe that, in politics, like anything else in life, you have to work yourself up the ladder. It is only by working in politics that people can identify whether you have the true qualities to lead.
Working within the structures, one can identify whether you are there on an ego trip or whether you actually want to change the world.
Only when being entrusted with a task, will people know whether you can deliver.
As much as I would like to see Delia in the PN, I would like to work with him first within the party for me to trust him to hand over the PN and, eventually, the country. But this is just me.
Malcolm Mifsud is a Nationalist Party councillor.