Last Tuesday, after the vigil commemorating the first anniversary of the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, I participated in a discussion programme on Net TV. My parting shot was that most people were not interested in Daphne’s assassination. This took both the panel and viewers by surprise, and elicited reactions ranging from disagreement to disgust.
Rewind to my commentary of November of 2017. Then, I defended the same position even though then, demonstrations were larger than they are today. I wrote:
“It is not true that all Maltese are shocked by Daphne’s assassination or that they condemn it or that there is a sentiment of national grief. On the contrary there are many Maltese who are happy at Daphne’s assassination. Besides, most Maltese do not care.”
Today, almost a year later, I reiterate this with greater conviction. Last Tuesday, only around five or six thousand people turned up for the demonstration and the vigil. As if that was not enough proof, after the programme, a politician told me that he visited one thousand households. Only 20 per cent mentioned Daphne or good governance or corruption.
The truth of the matter is that there are two Maltas, and what greatly interests one does not necessarily interest the other. Among the headlines featured in the Times of Malta last Thursday two caught my attention. One stated: “Malta failing to safeguard freedom of expression” while the other read “Malta in joint first place for economic stability.”
The first statement was placed on page one. It reflects the interests of journalists and those whose values make them participate in the ‘Daphne’ protests and vigils. The second one was deemed to be less important by the paper, which consequently placed it on page 4. But it is this latter story about economic stability which the vast majority of people are really interested in.
It is the story about economic stability which the vast majority of people are really interested in
They do not want more ‘freedom of expression’ but they do want more money. They are angry not because the demand for more freedom of expression or good governance or less corruption is frustrated by government. They are angry because they consider that there are other people who benefit from the gravy train of economic expansion more than they do. They probably believe that they have all the freedom of expression they want as they post on Facebook whatever takes their fancy. They also post it with all the aggro or sensitivity they deem fit.
It is very clear that those still clinging to the values at the lower level of Maslow’s hierarchy of values are greater in number than those aspiring to the values at the higher rungs.
But this only partly explains the lack of interest in the assassination of Caruana Galizia. There is a second reason. Daphne, for years before her brutal assassination, was the victim of a most cruel delegitimising campaign that dehumanised her, thus making it ‘normal’ to hate her. She was portrayed not as a normal human being but as a ‘saħħara’ (witch), harkening to the deeply ingrained cultural opprobrium reserved for the occult; an evil saħħara, to boot, probably more evil that the witches that were burnt at the stake a few centuries ago. She deserved nothing less, and she was killed with ‘nothing less’.
The fury of the delegitimising campaign did not abate when she was assassinated. Besides her, now also her sons are viciously and continuously the target of hate campaigns.
I referred to a ‘campaign’ in the preceding paragraph because I believe that the incitement against her was partly organised. The hate messages that were written on the internet, particularly Facebook, were fuelled and nourished by organised groups and bloggers paid by our own taxes.
I do not think that they did what they did because they wanted someone to kill her. My comment is different: they created an environment which was taken advantage of by the assassins who realised that in the minds and hearts of many people, Daphne was sub-human.
There is a third reason for this state of affairs. The groups striving for good governance, clamouring for justice for Daphne and militating against corruption, are divided and also lack a proper strategy. Theirs is a one-dimensional campaign which they fail to make relevant to the majority of the population.
They cannot appeal only to the high moral ground in their arguments; there must be a dash of ‘what’s in it for me’ in their strategy.
Besides, it is very sad that lack of co-ordination and outright division are the hallmark of that side. Some seem to be as keen on rubbishing others who potentially are on the same side as they are to condemn whoever is guilty of corruption and bad governance. The statement “united we stand, divided we fall” is not a vacuous dictum.
Coalitions and alliances are the name of the game. If lessons are not taken from the Malaysian example the current situation will not change.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece