Politico-speak is the term I give to statements that are only intended to give loyal constituents some glib answers, which allow them to mentally reject what is happening and to recite when the blogs become too uncomfortable. But these statements do not stand up to scrutiny.
Obvious politico-speak is the statement that institutions have failed before, but nobody attacked them or asked for any resignations. The statement at least acknowledges that the institutions have now failed, again. It is however insidious politico-speak to equate what is blatant incompetence, as is clear from the example reported, to a complete paralysis of the institutions, in the face of serious allegations dating back to 2012.
It is also politico-speak to challenge someone to go to the magistrate to ask that any allegations made about him be investigated. In normal countries, any serious allegations, especially about public personalities, are investigated autonomously, when they are made, and not when the subject of the allegations decides to “ask” the magistrate, as if the investigative process exists to exonerate oneself.
The challenge is, in itself, an admission that the institutions have failed, since inv-estigations will not happen unless one asks.
Politico-speak is also the refrain, bandied around by protagonists of party A, that, in the famous words “There are crooks everywhere,” are also included protagonists of party B. Equality of crooks, present in both political parties, is, presumably, meant to make us feel better.
Are citizens reassured, simply because there are criminals on both sides of the political divide? Are we meant to rejoice that all is fine, given that the institutions are weak with persons from both parties?
The suggestion that the alarm expressed in Europe, and the rest of the world, is orchestrated by the Opposition, is another politico-speak example – the same Opposition that is derided for its inability to organise a blunder-free internal election is then portrayed as so powerful as to control opinion in countries all over the world.
So is the suggestion that demonstrators are damaging Malta’s economic interests. In a way, this could be a preparation for the deflection of blame when the proverbial hits the economic fan. Malta’s interests are damaged by the paralysis of our institutional watchdogs; and this paralysis can only be blamed on the incumbent, because only the incumbent has the executive power to undo the paralysis.
It is irrelevant politico-speak to declare, self-righteously, that party B did not make the necessary institutional changes in the 25 years they were in power. Now party A is in power; and now is the time to make institutional changes.
The institutions have failed, since investigations will not happen unless one asks
The suggestion that those protesting against the situation in Malta leading to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination could see their protests “blow up in their faces”, is not only an inappropriate choice of words, in the circumstances, but it betrays a mistaken logic.
If it were proven the murder had nothing to do with the Panama Papers or Egrant or Pilatus or the FIAU (which it probably does not), would this not exonerate the government and the institutions? Not so.
The government was elected to govern, and among its responsibilities there is the obligation to ensure that the institutions in Malta function to create a climate where such murders do not happen.
Nothing can explode in our faces, because what we are claiming is already proven: our institutions are not working properly and need to be reformed.
It is insidious politico-speak to align those who are protesting (and allegedly “politicising” the issues) on one side and those who elected the government on the other. This is an attempt to create an “us and them” divide. Government is elected to govern – nobody is contesting this. Nobody is challenging the “true heart and soul of the Labour movement”.
The protest is against ineffective institutions that only the government can repair.
The protest is against individuals who continue to exploit politics as a convenient screen for becoming rich, and against those who, having a constitutional duty to act, do not do so.
One of the cruellest bits of politico-speak is the insinuation that, you know, these things happen, people die, journalists get blown up, and Caruana Galizia was just unlucky – it just was not her day!
This was the ultimate, stupidest and the most insidious of attempts to pretend that, in Malta, it is business as usual: Malta is still a beautiful country, this was just an unfortunate mistake, and, please, do not stop the money rolling in.
One blogger, clearly not very well informed, recently wrote that, in any case, what Caruana Galizia alleged was never proven. Well, something of what she said must have been true – her murder is the ultimate proof.
There are none so blind as those who persist in not seeing. Politico-speak is insidious; it leads to idiots killing pigs to celebrate a murder or to idiots who write of mowing down protestors in the street.
Health warning: insidious politico-speak can harm our health.