Following politics in Malta has shifted from the Parliament chamber to trailing political antics in the law courts instead. The most fiery, controversial political issues are regularly played out in front of judges or magistrates, instead of in the House of Representatives.

In other countries we are more likely to follow such debates in the House of Commons, the Bundestag or the Camera dei Deputati, than in the law courts. In the UK, public enquiries also gain their fair share of attention.

But here in Malta, political accountability and decision-making are increasingly dependent on court proceedings, which may take years to conclude. The role of our Parliament is weakening and failing. The difference between political accountability and criminal liability is intentionally being blurred, and nobody assumes responsibility.

Partisan politics also features frequently at the law courts in the choice of magistrates and judges, through their previous or ongoing close links with parties, as well as the political connections of countless lawyers appearing in front of them.

As a prime example, the Prime Minister will only insist on political responsibility regarding revelations on the ownership of the company 17 Black, and its black-on-white links to offshore companies of senior government figures, shown in the Panama Papers over two years ago, once a lengthy magisterial inquiry runs its course – while he is actively stalling that same inquiry.

At the same time, he is resisting calls for a concurrent public inquiry on broader issues, such as the safety of journalists working in Malta and the government’s role in this – also laying these calls at the door of ongoing court proceedings. Such inquiries are conducted not to establish criminal liability but to promote accountability, and as a process of public learning and healing following a political crisis receiving wide media coverage.

The government’s denial of an independent inquiry into the safety of journalists in Malta has been flagged by international organisations, and damning statements have been widely published.

The government has thereby denied open scrutiny on the safety of journalists, particularly those investigating corruption or campaigning against it. If they receive threats, what steps are taken? We know full well that they can be harmed and even killed. This is not fantasy, or allegation, but fact.

Why avoid an open public discussion about this, and how could it possibly interfere with a magisterial inquiry on 17 Black or anything being reviewed at an excruciatingly slow pace in the law courts?

Political accountability and decision-making are increasingly dependent on court proceedings

To compound all this, besides Parliament, the courts hamper public discourse in the media, such as forbidding a television interview on Xarabank, on a case which had already received wide coverage. In reality, this muddled prime-time show, which specialises in unintelligible and incoherent shouting matches and tear-jerking interviews, is unlikely to affect any court outcome. To be clear, I thought the Xarabank handling of the Simon Schembri incident was distasteful (par for the course in that show); but still the programme should not have been legally barred from airing an interview with the accused, just as it was able to give time to the victim.

As we know all too well, Xarabank expertly numbs rational thinking. Still, I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. This is surely the essence of free speech, a principle which the courts should also endorse.

Poaching ideas

An article in The Economist considers how political parties adopt toned-down versions of their opponent’s policies. This essentially means poaching ideas to gain broader appeal.

A US academic study of voters’ behaviour in 23 countries over 40 years showed that voters are most pragmatic about policy changes on economic issues. But they are less likely to accept party-line changes on principled beliefs. Others argue that establishing differences between pragmatic and principled policy areas is complex. Debates on NHS funding in the UK, for example, encompass both.

Are such changes due to mere political expediency, populism and vote-seeking – or do political parties still retain core values?

Here in Malta, for example, the Labour Party has clearly steered away from some previously held ‘principled beliefs’. This includes its traditional defence of the low-income earner and its former strong stand against EU membership. Today it promotes an influx of foreign workers, many working very precariously, and has defined itself by a pro-money stance.

Unlike its European counterparts, Labour is not pro-environment and is behind an unprecedentedly fast, ruthless destruction of our natural and urban surroundings, thereby creating an unaffordable property market for the low-income earner, in the name of supposed progress. Anything goes, so long as it makes money (for some).

The Nationalist Party on the other hand, had defended its pro-EU stance against PL accusations that Malta would be flooded with foreign workers. Under Adrian Delia, it is now instead pushing against immigration, basing its arguments on ‘national identity’.

The language of populism repeats simple messages until fiction seems fact. But just presenting something as fact does not make it true.

petracdingli@gmail.com

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.