PN and civil society: a relationship of convenience

Fresh from his re-anointment as party leader, Prime Minister Gonzi declared he is willing to address repeated accusations that his legislature has become insensitive to the public. Two 'initiatives' were announced. Initiatives should bring something 'new', when in fact his two steps merely entail old arrangements.

First, it was stated that the PN secretary-general should ensure that ministers, parliamentarians and candidates reach out to their constituents. What's new in this? Isn't it his job to see that his party communicates with electors? This announcement could have been a positive 'initiative' only if the Prime Minister instructed his Cabinet to acknowledge that - given the slim electoral majority of 2008 (and his current questionable support in Parliament) - they should be addressing the concerns of the whole nation and not just the lost sheep that may or may not vote for his party in a fast-approaching election.

The second 'initiative' is even more amusing. Dr Simon Busuttil was appointed special delegate to lead a "structured dialogue" with civil society and the social partners.

Flirting with civil society is not news to us. As the PN seems set to drop the GonziPN brand, we are now witnessing renewed attempts at attracting civil society exponents. Yet, history has shown us that this flirting has always ended in a relationship of convenience. Civil society has been repeatedly bruised by such blatant political expediency. 

Only two years ago I was only one of several observers who noted in this blog, that after the heavy petting that went on during the EU referendum campaign, we were experiencing "the ramming of civil society". When government failed to tame activists by co-opting activists into some state structures, critical individuals were demonized. Government quickly forgot that civil society may positively contribute to enrich our democratic life. Critical voices became an unnecessary nuisance.

One clear example of sheer arrogance toward civil society exponents comes to mind. Barely four years after all the sweet-nothings whispered in the EU referendum campaign, environment minister George Pullicino had an ugly showdown with seasoned environmentalist Alfred Baldacchino, whom he brutally slammed as 'gakbin' (traitor) in front of bemused bystanders. He lambasted him because Baldacchino dared to speak out. This is not an isolated incident as in the past years, critical NGO activists turned from heroes to villains.

The marginalization of civil society players is another trait of this unhealthy relationship. The brutal exclusion of Forum Unions Maltin from MCESD is one clear example. I now wonder if the new delegate can help resolve this shameful and long-standing issue. Wasn't MCESD meant to promote social dialogue? So why have we wasted so much time and resources­­­­? How many suggestions were made by MCESD and NGOs, and how many of them were taken on board?

There have been several ways in which the important role of civil society was put aside. Then, how many times have we seen government spin questioning civil society's representativeness and transparency? How often did agenda-setters inject negative perceptions of NGOs and their leading exponents?

Very often government and a chorus of media supporters portray critical voices as insignificant troublemakers. We have seen high profile opinion-leaders assert that civil society actions have no newsworthiness whatsoever because they are few in number and do not have professional set-ups. There are moments when NGO members were described as naive and malleable.

We can also observe that some valid groups are being shackled so that they do not have enough oxygen to flourish. Take student politics at University as one very clear example. The University should be a training ground for political and civil society leaders. Yet, government has never lifted a finger to ensure that many student organizations do not continue to be blocked-voted out of the Students' Council. It never intervened to help replace an outdated first-past-the-post election that secures a majority of votes for government sympathisers in the executive committee.

Dialogue entails two-way communication. It also entails respect for the autonomy of civil society exponents, who are often less powerful then hegemonic party and state machineries. The promise to take the PN in this direction cannot be undertaken just by a solitary Brussels-based delegate. It requires the effort of a whole party to restore trust and it is now too late in the day to move in that direction. The party has clearly already ignited its electoral engine and its electoral ambitions are far too obvious.

Dr Carmen Sammut is the chairperson of the Labour party think-tank Ideat.