|
Last Sunday, the leader of the GWU weekly it-Torca once again tried to attack the party in government by asserting that criticising the actions and opinions of ‘democratic institutions’ such as the offices of the Auditor General and the Ombudsman undermines the country’s democratic system. Moreover, according to this same editorial, this attitude is – surprise, surprise – a reflection of the arrogance of the government of the day!
This assertion was then followed by the usual sort of pious hogwash lamenting the way democracy is being eroded in Malta, and how the country is going to the dogs…
It is to the credit of both the PN and the MLP that they agreed that the two institutions mentioned by it-Torca were cut off from the mainstream administration set-up of the country. They are responsible and answerable to Parliament and to Parliament alone, and not to some Minister of the government of the day. The government of the day cannot, therefore, influence their actions in any way and even their financial independence from the government controlled purse is assured.
However, giving the Auditor General and the Ombudsman the independence and the means so that they are able to act freely without government interference or bullying and respecting this independence does not mean – as it-Torca seems to imply – elevating them to the status of infallible untouchables, beyond anybody’s criticism for their actions.
It is, perhaps, quite interesting if one were to make some parallels that could throw some light on this particular obsession of the editorial writer of it-Torca, an obsession that somehow surfaces now and again in these editorial columns.
In the UK, for example, there were some who reacted to the Hutton inquiry report that exonerated Tony Blair from wilfully ‘sexing up’ the dossier on WMD in Iraq by describing it as mere ‘whitewash’. Going by the proclaimed ‘more pious than thou’ self-imposed parameters of it-Torca, this was an unacceptable attack showing a serious lack of respect of the democratic institutions of Her Majesty’s realm. As for me, I simply think this was just an exercise of free speech. Lord Hutton’s decision was respected and accepted by all – but this does not mean that his decision was infallible and that everybody agreed with it! This is the sort of important distinction that is apparently beyond the thinking process going on in the minds of some MLP apologists.
To move to an example nearer home, what about the way Court sentences are criticised in the press, including it-Torca of course? Writing in this newspaper last Sunday, Claire Bonello criticised a particular sentence given in the case of a man who pleaded guilty of rape. Incidentally, Claire – with whom I agree hundred per cent on this one – was echoing similar criticism in another section of the press. Since the functioning of the law Courts without undue interference is a vital part of the democratic system, according to the warped logic of it-Torca, such criticism undermines our democracy! Isn’t the independence of the Courts guaranteed by the Constitution and isn’t the rule of law a fundamental tenet of democracy? No doubt. Does this make every Court sentence beyond criticism? Of course not! Why does it-Torca find this distinction so difficult to understand?
When the constitutionally set up Employment Commission found that in two separate cases the Alfred Sant administration was guilty of political discrimination, the two political appointees concerned – Helena Dalli and Edwin Grech – did not meekly accept the decisions. Both criticised the way the Commission went about its business and alleged that certain important aspects of the cases had been ignored. The Commission’s decisions are final and they are to be respected, but this does not mean that Helena Dalli and Edwin Grech did not have the right to say why they disagreed with these decisions or that exercising this right reflected their ‘arrogance’.
So what is the basic difference between Helena Dalli and Edwin Grech publicly criticising the Employment Commission and rebutting its conclusions and Nationalist politicians publicly disagreeing with some aspects of the workings of the Auditor General and the Ombudsman? Why is one considered acceptable and treated as ‘run of the mill’ in everyday politics and the other is considered unacceptable, arrogant and undermining the country’s democratic institutions?
The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind.
The answer is simply the hypocritical two-weights-two-measures attitude adopted by the Labour press. If it’s red it must be OK. If it’s blue, it must be wrong. I know that whoever is reading this has probably already shrugged and retorted by asking: so what’s new?
The point, however, is that by making stupid accusations on the democratic credentials of the Nationalist Party, the Labour press is undermining the same democratic process it is purportedly defending. It is ‘giving away’ the game that goes by the name: we don’t give a hoot for democracy. The rules are simple, even for it-Torca to understand: If it serves our end, we use it and abuse it. If it doesn’t, we ignore it! In other words, the game underlies the fact that the player concerned does not really know, or care, much about democracy.
What it-Torca has been doing is tantamount to attacking the democratic credentials of one’s political adversaries by using ridiculous arguments in a way that actually makes Labour’s own democratic credentials suspect.
|
