Tag: daphne caruana galizia

Categories
Zolabytes

Joe Bloggs: Thoughts on Daphne

Joe Bloggs (a pseudonymn) shares his thoughts on Daphne Caruana Galizia.  Joe Bloggs regularly commented on the Running Commentary as well as on other online papers. Here he tries to look at what it might have been like to be on the receiving end of insults and threats.

Perhaps the worst part was the degradation, the dehumanising.

Those who saw her as being on their side would say that she could give as good as she got, she was strong. She portrayed herself as such. But she got blamed for electoral losses or close shaves, in fact the Running Commentary was born out of that.

Others called her a witch, a bile blogger, a ‘bicca blogger’, a gossiper, a slut. Partisan newspapers called for her ‘cleansing’ in editorials, a magistrate’s partner and government consultant actively posted and tweeted about wishing to consign the ‘Galizia mindset’ to history, the Government supported the setting up of an anti-Daphne blog (glennbedingfield.com) that actively degraded her with photos of her butt, the internet is literally replete with insults, edited photos and hate pages. Lord only knows what she received in her mailbox, email (which was always there on her website), mobile and comments section.

This went on for 20 odd years. 20 years of insults, threats and fickle friends.

Guess what, she was human. I recall being added out of the blue by her on LinkedIn earlier this year and found that rather odd. Months later I realised that whilst her blog posts were slowly dropping in frequency she had started sharing articles on LinkedIn, slowly building up to a mini blog. A new channel. When I pointed out that I noted that she was starting to post on LinkedIn and told her she’s right that that is an important audience, her characteristically concise reaction, “and no abuse” struck me as so weary. She often wrote about the misogyny and the insults but many took it (if I am honest with myself, to a degree I think I did too) as perhaps reinforcing her strong persona. This was a private conversation, it resonated.

Her last post, almost an outburst, about crooks everywhere and crooks denying that they are crooks was the first about that topic, the Panama Seven, in what felt like a long while. Deep in the comments section, perhaps best found on her Disqus profile (https://disqus.com/by/daphnecaruanagalizia/?) is the explanation. Besides taunting references to stories that she was yet to finish writing (Labour using Cambridge Analytica’s Psy-Op Services being one that springs readily to mind), Daphne was attuned to what her readers wanted to read and which topics would elicit a reaction, start a discussion, be shared. She called it the ‘news cycle’.

When prompted just 11 days ago as to why she was still writing about Delia and had stopped writing about the poor state of Maltese institutions and the crooks in power, she said to one commenter: “Nobody is interested right now. Certainly not my readers.” And “I have a good understanding of what people want to read and when they want to read it, and right now – wholly understandably – they want to read about the new man.” to another.

11 days later she broke the news cycle.

You lent us  your mouth,  so  that we  could  speak  our mind.
You lent  us  your  ear, so  that  we could find solace by  sharing  when  others would not  listen.
You lent us  your  nose  for  a  good  story,  so  that  we  could  read  about  that  which no  one  else would  dare write.
You tried  to  set us  right  when  we  were  wrong.

We got  lazy.
We got distracted.
We compromised and allowed ourselves to  be bribed.

Those who ought  to  know  better  took  advantage.  First  they belittled  you,  then  they demonised you, then  they  isolated  you, then, when  few  were  those left  looking, they  erased your mouth,  ears  and nose.

Now the Running Commentary has stopped. Forever frozen in a deafeningly silent  scream. This memory  will  not  be erased,  we  will  not  allow  it.

We  must each use our  own  mouth, ears and nose to  speak up, listen, educate and hold  those  that  took  advantage  to  account.  We must  wake people up  from their  slumber.  We must  prevent  a  repeat.

Rest in  peace dear  friend, we will  continue  the  narrative.

–  Joe Bloggs

Categories
Mediawatch

The birth of a blog [3 days 6 hours]

[3 days 6 hours]

The 2008 election campaign was the first one to feature blogs heavily. The Maltese blogosphere had only just really kicked off and most times it was a case of blogs being quoted in what was then referred to as the mainstream media. J’accuse (already three years young at the time) was one of the leading blogs and the comments section also served as a forum for discussion between quite a varied group of individuals. Comments were full of heated exchanges of all sorts and I remember that at the time moderation was still a controversial issue with wild accusations of censorship or appeals to the moderator to intervene when things got too heated (or offensive). One major topic on these pages at the time was the “Wasted Vote” issue as J’accuse’s editorial line developed around the need to elect a third party that breaks the hold of the major parties.

It was around this time that Daphne became one of the regular persons to comment on the blog. Daphne being Daphne, whole discussions soon turned into a Daphne versus the rest kind of match. It was thrilling, it was lively and at times it was dangerously violent – as violent as words and accusations that could fly on the net could be. Daphne’s take on the wasted vote issue was that anyone thinking of voting for a third party was immature and unable to fathom the consequences of “risking” getting the dreaded Labour party elected. We argued. Oh how we argued. I scrolled through the endless arguments in the posts of February and March of that year. Daphne is all over the place. One minute she is arguing with persons who in the future would become trademark Labour trolls, another with Raphael Vassallo, another still with Claire Bonello, Justin Borg Barthet, Fausto Majistral, David Friggieri, Kevin Ellul Bonici and so many many other regulars.

There were times when life got in the way like when I had to absent myself from the keyboard for a few days because I had booked a skiing trip and when I finally found a cybercafe’ in the middle of the Alpes de Huez I noticed that J’accuse had been inundated with comments awaiting moderation. It is so ironic for me to see the comments by Daphne jokingly telling me off to have left the blog for such a long time – when would I be back? when can the discussion resume? Little would I have known that years later I would be the one wondering why Daphne was taking an inordinately long time between one blog post and another. That damn refresh button.

The closer the election got the less patience Daphne had with being moderated by others. It was not in her nature of course to accept to be told what was out of order and what was not. We were all on a learning curve back then remember. I did my best to keep the ensure that discussions on the blog remain civil but those early days already showed the worst of some people when interacting online – and Daphne, being Daphne, managed to get the worst out of some people (and I am not in any way excusing those people). I remember being told off by Daphne for having moderated a whole discussion thread – “we are not schoolchildren here”. In the end I like to think that it was not the random insults that were bandied around that made her move on. It was the need to be in control. Daphne had seen the potential of the blog and wanted part of it.


And that was it. The adventure began.  Running Commentary was here to stay. The first post on her blog was entitled (surprise, surprise) Zero tolerance for corruption. The first comment to appear on The Running Commentary? Why of course…

Why am I writing all this? It’s probably my way of coping with the grief and with the anger. 2008 seems like another world, another era. Lawrence Gonzi’s PN would win the election and the battle for constitutional reform would be postponed again. The Running Commentary would go from strength to strength shifting between punditry, cutting analysis and what seemed to me to be petty gossip-column like observations. When the “one man wiki-leaks” dimension came about first with the John Dalli scandal and then with the more recent undoings of the Labour government  (first among which is Panama but the list is endless) Daphne’s blog became much larger than an online opinion column. For what it’s worth my main criticism in recent times had been that Malta could not afford to have a “one man wiki-leaks”. First of all because I felt that it is not right that one person should be the gatekeeper of such information and secondly because of the dangers that were being borne by one person.

And those dangers were brought home with the horrendous assassination. We had a one-man wiki-leaks because of the collective institutional failure. We had a one-man wiki-leaks because nobody in his right mind trusts the police. We had a one-man wiki-leaks because it was evident that the whole apparatus of government would turn onto anyone who dared go against the tide of sanitised positivism as proposed by official propaganda. We had a one man wiki-leaks because the abuse of the libel system in the courts of law afforded little comfort to everyone other than the bravest. We had a one-man wiki-leaks because  because the fourth estate was an embarrassing shambles – sold out to the highest bidder or, in the case of partisan media, busy being their master’s voice. We had a one-man wiki-leaks because the system of the rule of law had broken down.

Often in her last posts since the last election, Daphne exhorted whoever could to leave the island. There was no future in Malta. The country was going to the dogs. She did say that she urged her successful sons to do so because the island had no more hope. I often wondered what stopped Daphne from leaving herself. What kept her going? Was it a sense of patriotism and some misplaced hope that one day this nation of egoists realises that it needs to think about its collective future? Really. I could never find an answer to that question until her son Matthew spoke to the Guardian. He said something very important: Daphne never gave in to cynicism. She believed she could bring about change. Her work in exposing the wrongs of the nation was all in the hope of getting people to understand why change is needed.

After last election I had given in to the cynicism. I would still be glued to the internet to follow the latest developments from home. Yes, I too would refresh my Running Commentary tab to see if there was anything new that the mainstream press was still unable to report. A few posts here and there on this blog were more the force of habit than anything else as the last shreds of hope waned. Cynicism and lack of faith in fellow citizens had almost dealt a final blow to my will to engage and work for change. Then came October 16th.

I am sad. I am angry. I am full of feelings of revulsion. I am responsible. I am helpless. I I I I. I is the word I feel most guilty of using. I needed to write something to break the blankness of the last few days. I decided to share this chronology of the beginnings of a blog that would change Malta’s history.

We are back. We want change and we will start to fight for it to happen as from today.

[3 days 8 hours] – the time for grieving is over. The time to fight has begun. For the change we all believed in – to make Malta the country we all want to live in again.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

They cannot kill us all

 

Eleonora has had to be particularly patient with me in the past two days. It must not be easy having a brooding, melancholic zombie walking around the house. I still find myself unable to string coherent words together about what has just happened. Unable on a personal plane, unable on a political plane. Until this period of shock and grief is over I am thankful to have someone like Eleonora beside me. Someone who understands and clearly expresses what we are going through. We, as in her newly adopted second home that is fast turning from a fairy tale paradise into a pirate island of darkness and misery. Here is Eleonora’s post on facebook today.

I would like this opportunity to thank all my colleagues at work from all nations who have sent me private messages of solidarity. I wish to be able to convey this kind of understanding to many of my fellow citizens – the same citizens in whom I had lost faith already a few months ago and who I will hopefully strive to win over to the new battle for change starting from the coming days. 

 

This week I’ve received A LOT of messages of friends expressing their sorrow and shock for what has happened to Mrs Caruana Galizia last Monday.

As an Italian citizen whose partner is a Maltese citizen (sorry, Gozitan), obviously I felt the emotional blow that followed the announcement of her tragic murder. On the one hand, being Italian my mind immediately recalled the death machine that took the life of Judge Giovanni Falcone in Capaci back in 1992. A car exploding, a major quantity of explosive probably detonated by someone/something operating a remote control, a road that will be left for long with a crater and a country mourning one of its most important and controversial public figures. We Italians have unfortunately developed a special awareness when it comes to this kind of events. On the other hand, I am also getting acquainted with “my country-in-law” and therefore I knew who Daphne was, what her work consisted of and how it was perceived among the Maltese population.

But it struck me when I realized that I wasn’t the only non-Maltese-citizen genuinely feeling for the “desperate situation” in which Malta finds itself right now. Colleagues and friends, they all sent a text over the past days to express their sorrow for what happened to Daphne. Why is that?

At first I considered it very strange, because usually everybody tends to undermine the role played by the smallest EU country or its potential. People actually make fun of the fact that such a small country manages to sit at a table together with Frau Merkel and Mr Juncker. Then I thought that perhaps all this empathy was due to the fact that the brutal way in which the murder has been carried out had caught the attention of the usual crime-news-audience.

But I was mistaken.

Friends who are writing me simply need to share their emotions, to express their shock, and want me to convey their sympathy to my partner. I realized that they are doing this because they too have been affected by this tremendous assassination. Because I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
We, people living in the long-awaited Area of Freedom, Security and Justice simply cannot conceive that an investigative journalist is murdered, let alone in this brutal manner, because of her ideas. Also our rights as human beings, our fundamental freedoms have been violated by this savage act. Because we’re no longer Maltese citizens, Italian citizens, German citizens. We’re Europeans, we’re citizens of this world, and we all feel for each other, especially when these events occur.

Now it’s the time to ask ourselves: what of this stream of emotions? Will we just burst out our sorrow, feel for the family of Mrs Caruana Galizia and watch from far what will be done to bring to justice those who are responsible for this?

I think that it’s important that Maltese citizens feel that we all will not immediately forget what’s happened and, in a broader perspective, what’s happening in and to this country. It may sound too obvious, but keeping in the public eye the events that will follow what happened to Daphne will allow all those who are now protesting in the streets and calling for a more democratic society to feel that they are not alone, that they still have our support and that they are claiming something that we all deem essential. A Maltese citizent told me today that you can assess what’s the status of the rule of law in Malta by seeing what will be the follow up of this tragic murder. Let’s make sure we all follow closely what will happen now.

Because as Judge Rocco Chinnici (also murdered by a car bomb parked in front of his domicile) said when he first envisaged the establishment of the antimafia pool, “they can kill one, two of us, but they cannot kill us all”.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Blood on their hands

 

On any other day this facebook post would have been taken up and pasted onto the Running Commentary. The blog is no more but the spirit not only lives on but will grow. I am reproducing this post here with the kind permission of its author Justin Borg Barthet. 

We don’t know who ordered the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Perhaps we never will.

But there’s blood on your hands, Prime Minister. You systematically destroyed the institutions which would have protected journalists from the violence of those who feared the truth. You emasculated a police force, and you reprogrammed the constitutional order to eliminate the rule of law. There’s blood on your hands, Prime Minister.

There’s blood on your hands too, Leader of the Opposition. Your political career is built on the dehumanisation of a journalist, on the weakening of the truths for which she stood, on the removal of the support of people who stood between her and yesterday’s events. There’s blood on your hands, Leader of the Opposition.

There’s blood on your hands, Attorney General. I have never addressed your omissions before for fear that my voice would be amplified undeservedly. Not now. I don’t know if it is cowardice, promise of preferment, or plain lucre which has made you remiss in your constitutional duties. But chances are, had you done your job properly, a journalist, a mother, a wife, a sister, would still be with us. Her murderers would be in prison. There’s blood on your hands, Attorney General.

There’s blood on your hands too Police Commissioner. But about you, least said soonest mended.

Categories
Internet Rights

Saving Daphne’s Privates

privates_akkuza

Gaffarena Gate has been the black hole of news and information over the past week or so. Anything else newsworthy was sucked into the vortex of the spinning black hole of Falzon’s resignation, Muscat’s double-speak on governance and the n-th celebration of disgraced politicians by a Labour mass meeting. Patriots and pork only just made it past the all-enveloping scandal and this was probably due more  to the ridiculous stunts performed by the defenders of bigilla and zalzett than to any real newsworthiness. Even the Times descended into silly land asking the haplessly controversial question whether persons of a particular religion should be allowed to congregate and play.

Meanwhile in a law court not so far, far away a very important bit of jurisprudence was in the making. In the court presided by the impeccable Magistrate Depasquale, Minister Konrad Mizzi was desperate to prove that he had cause for grievance against blogger (for ’tis in this vest that she hath been summonsed)  Daphne Caruana Galizia. Such cause for grievance had been filed under Malta’s much maligned, misused and abused libel laws – those that have criminal consequences, so to speak. Caruana Galizia had written about some supposed/alleged fling between Minister Conrad Mizzi and one of his minions involving, among other allegations, an exchange of kisses in public. Minister Mizzi could only but cry “lie” at this serious allegation that would, if proven true,  amount to an extra-marital flirtation by said Minister. Hence the law-suit. So far so good.

We were informed, through the medium of the press, that in the sitting of January 18th, the line taken by Mizzi’s lawyers was a rather unorthodox one. Messers Mifsud Bonnici (Aaron) and Lia (Pawlu) were insisting that Caruana Galizia reveal the source of the libellous information. And here lies the problem. Not just for Mme Caruana Galizia but for every single citizen of the island of pork-guzzling patriots and martyred ex-Parliamentary Secretaries. You see, Caruana Galizia was sticking to the age old  universal protection afforded to journalists with regard to their sources. She was not obliged at law, she argued, to reveal her sources for her journalistic work. True. Very true.

The only problem was that the legal team for Minister Mizzi of the government that championed the protection of whistleblowers among many other things decided to become incredibly narrow and literal minded in their application of the law. Shylock was after his pound of flesh. The reasoning put forward by the lawyer who has been touted as the next Chief Justice of the land (pray note that this also means that he would chair the Constitutional Court, guardian of all things holy) was that since the blog in which Daphne writes can not be registered under the Press Act then surely Daphne Caruana Galizia is not acting as a journalist whenever she writes in her blog. Which would mean of course that her sources – who she has called moles, spies and other names through the lifespan of her blog – would be afforded no protection.

Which is a load of hogwash of course. A load of hogwash that would only find place in Kafka’s novels or in the best of Soviet theatres and kangaroo courts. But this is Malta in the time of Joseph Muscat and a very very weird interpretation of the law and legal rights (The government has just gone and sued itself in a case so don’t even dare challenging this assertion).

Let’s go step by step.

1. She is not a journalist

You may not agree with the woman. You may find her blog to be the result of a particularly efficient network that collates information and disseminates it in a selective Wikileaks manner. You may, like me, find her automatic negative reaction to anything Gozitan particularly distasteful. You may think all these things and more but to insist that Daphne Caruana Galizia – even when restricted to the blogging hat of Daphne Caruana Galizia – is not a journalist is complete and utter hogwash. In the year 2000, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe drafted a recommendation signed by most of its member states with regard to the protection of journalists from disclosing their sources. (Full name – Recommendation No. R (2000) 7  of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information). Here’s the definition section of the Recommendation:

Definitions

For the purposes of this Recommendation:

a. the term “journalist” means any natural or legal person who is regularly or professionally engaged in the collection and dissemination of information to the public via any means of mass communication;

b. the term “information” means any statement of fact, opinion or idea in the form of text, sound and/or picture;

c. the term “source” means any person who provides information to a journalist;

d. the term “information identifying a source” means, as far as this is likely to lead to the identification of a source:

i. the name and personal data as well as voice and image of a source,

ii. the factual circumstances of acquiring information from a source by a journalist,

iii. the unpublished content of the information provided by a source to a journalist, and

iv. personal data of journalists and their employers related to their professional work.

It fits nicely does it not? We have not even begun to look at the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court (Goodwin anyone?) or the European Charter of Rights. The recommendation is already clear enough about how far the protection should go. It is not restricted to some state defined numerus clausus such as a list of “approved journalists” under the Press Act. Any natural or legal person. Regularly engaged in the collection and dissemination of information. To the public. Via any means of mass communication. I don’t know about you but it is pretty clear to me that Daphne’s blog falls fair and square within this definition and that would make Daphne a journalist even when she is limited to blogging on the Running Commentary.

2. She has to disclose the source

What is this obsession about the source anyway? It is in fact the most dangerous part of the case being built by Mifsud Bonnici and Lia. Don’t be mistaken because there are no scruples here. We all know that Daphne Caruana Galizia is prepared to go all the way to defend her right to publish information in blog form. Blog and be damned she will. Aaron Mifsud Bonnici knows it, Pawlu Lia knows it and most of all Konrad Mizzi knows it. The very public obnoxious shake up here is not directed at Caruana Galizia but at any potential source. What after all is the use of getting the accused in the libel case to give up the source of the information? Very little really. Except that Mizzi and his team do not care about anything other than putting the fear of god into anyone who might in the future be made to think twice about whether or not to send one of those quickly snapped photos of yet another politicians’ misdemeanors.

Whether a Minister chooses to have an extra-marital fling is a debatable piece of news that can be used in various ways. As any Monica Lewinsky, Lord Boothby or John Profumo might vouch, sexual affairs and politicians rarely are just that. More often than not they have repercussions of a constitutional nature and any self-respecting journalist in his right mind would want to investigate and report.

Sources are paramount for Daphne’s kind of blog that is less pundit and more reportage thanks to a long list of willing suppliers of information that end up being a very informal but well-connected network. Muscat’s men know that the effects of this network can be lethal. Which is why in this case they are not really going for the journalist and editor of the blog. They want to get to the source. They want to put an end to the network of informants and to do so they are prepared to attempt to get the courts of the land to apply a very dangerous and literal-minded precedent.

To conclude. The journalistic profession has not had a good last two decades. When more than two-thirds of the people who get their bread and butter from some form of journalistic work are inextricably linked with the major political parties you tend to get a withering of the power of the fourth estate – one of the important pillars of a democratic society. The lack of respect towards the profession was never more blatant than in moments when journalist credentials were handed out to anybody that the parties needed for a particular stunt. Remember JPO bearing a PN press card in order to harass Alfred Sant in his crocodile tears phase?

The profession needs to win back respect and it can only do so by performing its duty of investigating and monitoring the powers of the nation without letting them interfere. It also deserves all forms of protection from any institutional assault such as this one being orchestrated by Konrad Mizzi.

It is not Daphne Caruana Galizia who is in danger. It is an important cog in the machinery of a democracy and it is the citizens of the democracy who have a right to access all forms of information and weigh it on their own account. For all our sake and for all that we stand for, Daphne’s privates must be saved.

“They’re talking about things of which they don’t have the slightest understanding, anyway. It’s only because of their stupidity that they’re able to be so sure of themselves.”
― Franz Kafka, The Trial

Categories
Campaign 2013

Dogs of War (DeLorean Unveiled)

They say that a week is a long time in politics. In that case twenty years must seem like an eternity. Churchill is often attributed the quote “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart, show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.” Time and experience changes people. Under normal circumstances and outside the partisan fog of war it is considered normal to weigh your options every time an election comes around. Of course your own political preferences and outlook might give you an automatic preference towards one party or another but there is no shame in changing.

It’s not change for change’s sake that I am talking about though. That’s plain stupid. Sadly many voters will be voting for change for change’s sake next Saturday and, yes, I do think that it is plain stupid to do so. What I am referring to is the possibility of having evolving politics and ideas, of having the opportunity to compare parties who in turn have evolved their ideas and projects. That is important for a healthy representative democracy. That voters get to choose between parties healthily vying for their trust by proposing good plans for the nation, its citizens, their rights – that is healthy.

For a long time this blog has advocated the idea that our bipartisan system is geared to becoming a race to the bottom. It is a race to mediocrity that promotes populism, contradictory promises to everyone and everything and – because of the inevitable entrenchment of a political elite – it weaves an intricate web of inter-dependent interests that are conducive to corruption. In short the PLPN method sanctioned and strengthened by the constitutional amendments that kicked off with a Government White Paper in 1990 is wrought in such a way as to kill off (or greatly minimise) any terzo incomodo and strengthen the stranglehold of the bipartisan duality.

The combination of a series of amendments since 1987 (1987, 1996, 2007) to the sections of the constitution has continued to strengthen the PL and PN positions to the detriment of a possible third party. This has been one of the main criticisms directed from this blog – particularly at the phenomenon called “The Wasted Vote” that ends up killing all hope for potential third party voters on the eve of elections. It’s simple really – the PL or PN spinmasters wait till the last moment and then shoot the “you’re wasting your vote” argument : from Austin Bencini’s traditional “constitutional” article to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s “setting yourselves up as objects of hate”. It’s the death knell for AD.

Back in 1991 when the proposed amendments were still under discussion we had one particular columnist who got rather hot under the collar about these changes. In an impeccably written article the columnist presciently summarised all that was wrong with the system and even managed to predict one of the inherent dangers of the system. I copied out the second half of the article yesterday as a guest post under the name DeLorean (smart geeks among you will have recognised the car from Back to the Future). You can see the full article here in “Voting like it’s 1992” – actually it’s the second half of the original article, the first half was full of not so kind descriptions of Austin Gatt and Eddie Fenech Adami.

The whole philosophy of the importance of electing a third party to government is encapsulated in the second half of this article under the subtitle “The Argument”. Gems of thought such as the importance of representation over and above governability leap at you conspicuously. The article includes a prescient worry:

What if we find ourselves, in 20 years’ time with the choice of two absolutely disreputable political parties? What if the Nationalist Party disintegrates into the kind of sagging, soggy, useless mess of the Sixties… a heap that gave rise to the joke “Tgħajjatx għax tqajjem il-gvern!”? What is a traditionally Nationalist supporter supposed to do… vote for the Labour Party, vote for a mess, or not vote at all?

20 years from 1991 … that’s just two years off the mark, yet it is still so very tangibly relevant. The complaint by the author is clear – are we to end up with a Hobson’s Choice? A gun against our head? Are we to end up being blackmailed with the haunting idea of the “wasted vote”? A Daniel I say, a Daniel.

Most intriguingly one of the most telling paragraphs remains the following – and this mainly because of the author’s subsequent metamorphosis and absorption into part of the Leviathan that is so aptly described:

Third parties cannot be created out of nothing. They must grow, and their growth must be spawned by a real need within the people. Even if this need exists – and there is no doubt at all, it does – all growth will be warped by Malta’s all-pervasive fear and ignorance, which has effects similar to that of radiation on a growing foetus. Through this fear and ignorance, the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party survive, thrive and continue to grow.

Fear and ignorance. We were so close weren’t we? Fear and loathing we described it, plus an incredible propensity to abuse of ignorance. 20 years down the line and we have observed a campaign imbued with fear and thriving on ignorance and misinformation. Half truths are mixed with political assassination of the cruellest kind and yet even when you work out your sums and eliminate the two possibilities – the two podgy kids on the see-saw – you find out that your remaining hope has been nipped in the bud. Yep. the wasted vote argument. Not only that. The moment you boldly announce that you are determined to be represented because governance is not the be all and end all, because representation is just as important – that is when the dogs of war are unleashed.

Which is where the sweet irony hits home. Yes. It is time to reveal who DeLorean, writing with so much passion against the death knell that was writ into our constitution two decades ago is. Well it is none less than Daphne Caruana Galizia – the passionate put-downer of the third party, currently engaged in a character assassination of Michael Briguglio (last time round it was Dirty Harry) through a mixture of half-truths and the usual dose of “wasted vote stupids”.

As I said in the beginning, there is nothing wrong with change in a person. Daphne has already commented on this article this week : “Probably filed with the article describing Eddie Fenech Adami as a villager lawyer in a folder called ‘Mistakes I made at 25’. There are a lot of them. Fortunately, I had the good sense not to persist in error.” (it was actually the same article but she has to feign that it is not important so she would not remember would she). Probably the folder of “Mistakes I made at 45” includes backing JPO to the hilt in the 2008 election and actually voting him number 1.

People change. Daphne has every right to change her opinion about what makes the country tick. It makes you wonder what the motivation of this change is though. From a passionate advocate for third party systems to a staunch defender of the PLPN dichotomy.  I do hope this is not considered “calling names by the AD crowd”. It is sad though to see the transition from what was evidently a motivated young liberal to a dog of war baying for Briguglio’s head – and why? Because voting Ad will get you Labour according to Daphne. But Daphne…

Alternattiva is not the crux of the problem. The hypothetical small party is. Many people might disapprove of Alternattiva, but they should not be so shortsighted as to assume that they will disapprove of any other political party that might grow out of unrest and discontent over the next two or three generations. We must be unselfish enough to think beyond the next two or three generations. We must be honest enough to admit that we do not want our children to live their adult lives as we are now living ours. We must stop thinking in terms of our immediate future, because many of us will live for a great deal longer than that, ….

Unselfish. Honest. At what point did those kind of values stop being important, I wonder. Still, I found a good maxim in that article, it fits my philosophy perfectly, and it seems of many others:

Governability is not the Holy Grail, and we should not allow the government to sell it to us as such.

And we won’t Daphne. We won’t.