Minister Owen Bonnici has just visited Leeuwarden, this year’s other capital of culture with Valletta, to try to build bridges. Unfortunately, Leeuwarden is refusing to collaborate any further with the Valletta 2018 Foundation. This is due to its chairman Jason Micallef’s attitude, expressed in public, towards the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Micallef’s remarks on Facebook were hurtful to those grieving personally and offensive to many campaigning in Malta and elsewhere for the safety of journalists and freedom of speech following Daphne’s assassination. He has also attempted to remove the spontaneous memorial dedicated to her in Valletta, at which frequent vigils are held by the public.

Bonnici tried to persuade the politicians, officials and journalists who gathered to listen to him in Leeuwarden that all is well. He insisted that he would not ‘censor’ Micallef’s behaviour as he believes in freedom of speech. He would only censor comments, he added, if they could be construed as ‘hate speech’ (that is, if they were potentially illegal). But as his Dutch audience noted, this is simply a question of what is decent, not of censorship.

One person tried to rephrase the issue. Censorship aside, she said to the minister, will you not at least publicly distance yourself from Micallef’s comments? Bonnici avoided answering directly. He did not distance himself.

The Friesland politician, Siestske Poepjes, concluded by saying that among her constituents in the Netherlands, Micallef’s comments would not be considered as acceptable behaviour for his position. And, presumably, neither would Bonnici’s complacent reaction.

Bonnici refused, or seemed unable, to distinguish between illegal and inappropriate behaviour

Bonnici refused, or seemed unable, to distinguish between illegal and inappropriate behaviour. This legalistic approach is an increasingly common stance. In short, as long as the conduct of persons in public roles does not actually break the law, it’s a free-for-all. Forget standards.

Tourism and migrants

The call to limit the number of tourists visiting popular heritage sites and cities is growing wider. Among others, in recent years there have been public outcries in Barcelona, Dubrovnik and Venice. In Spain, it has been dubbed ‘turismofobia’.

Interestingly, a recent report shows that in Spain some people are so fed up with ‘over-tourism’ that they are less negative towards accepting migrants than tourists. Attitudes towards migration are growing more complicated each year.

Here in Malta, Archbishop Charles Scicluna is one of the few big voices emphasising compassion and humanity towards desperate, struggling migrants. Yes, of course, all Europe – and the rest of the world – must share the burden, not just tiny Malta with its limited resources. But it is refreshing to occasionally hear a message based on solid values, as so much spouted by our political leaders nowadays sounds so unprincipled, short-sighted and shallow. As long as money is going around, nothing else seems to matter.

This applies to everything, including the environment which is going to the dogs. But man does not live on bread alone. No wonder everyone appears so disillusioned with the political class on all sides. Swathes of self-serving mediocrity across the entire political landscape create a state of affairs where decent politicians struggle to breathe. But I have always maintained, and still do, that there is wheat among the chaff. And thanks to gravity and the forces of nature, the pendulum always swings.

What the people voted for

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, was famously said by Churchill. Democracies are imperfect. The good side is equal voting rights to all. But democracy also depends upon the judgement of voters, who are susceptible to misinformation and manipulation – as seen in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, for instance.

A lack of information was flagged following the Brexit referendum. Yet Theresa May insists that her government is delivering “what the people voted for”. But now that the complexities of Brexit are clearer, perhaps people should have an opportunity to voice their opinion again. After all, when they first voted it was unclear how many things would unfold.

Apart from the considerable number who did not vote for Brexit, many who did also appear to be unhappy. Last week saw major resignations over Brexit disagreements within the UK government, including no less than Brexit minister David Davis and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson. Some Tory backbenchers are claiming that pro-Brexit constituents are disheartened. May looks miserable. EU Member States are disappointed. Is anyone happy at all? Is democracy delivering good results?

One obvious long-term solution to a lack of information, or misinformation, at elections is education, particularly media education, helping the electorate to sniff out fabrications, trolls and keyboard armies. The trouble is that media education is often aimed at younger people, while it is possibly older voters who need it most.

An ideal solution is to raise ethical standards among politicians. Not achieving a stated goal is one thing but carelessly making or breaking promises on which people base their trust is not on. Anyone ready to accept politicians who cheat is part of the problem. Voters must draw a harder line on politicians who make cheap or false promises or who twist the facts. Democracy enables voters to do this, if only they use it well.

petracdingli@gmail.com