‘Enough is enough’… after the protest, what’s next?

Organisers have claimed that 3,000 people answered their call to gather in Valletta. More conservative estimates suggested a decent turnout of over 1,500 participants, with attendance peaking as the crowd converged in front of parliament.

Numbers apart, this would still make the ‘Enough Is Enough’ protest convened by Moviment Graffitti one of the most successful in history.
While in the protest numbers do matter, each protest also occurs in a different context: in this case, that of growing anger at the power of developers in a context where the government still enjoys widespread popularity and the Opposition struggles with the toxic legacy of its own past. In this context the environment has emerged as one of the few issues where floaters and even some traditional Labour voters feel bold enough to express their dissent.

In this case the protest organisers deliberately asked MPs – whether Nationalist or Labour – to stay away from the protest. In the current political context of a Labour government facing no visible internal dissent, this effectively meant that the ban applied to PN representatives and their entourages, who participated in previous protests organised after 2013 (alongside AD and Marlene and Godrey Farrugia who when they were still Labour MPs), particularly in the massive protest against the Zonqor development in 2015 – in the same way as some Labour politicians had joined green protests before 2013. While the ban was limited to MPs, the message may well have kept party stalwarts who normally would not miss an occasion to bash the government, from mobilising their own networks.

Since identification with party is one of the strongest bonds in Malta, the deliberate choice to exclude political parties may have depressed the turnout. But it may well have created a safe space for Labour-leaning people and floaters angry at the government’s track record on environmental issues, to feel more comfortable to join in and march without the risk of being associated with the PN.

In this regard the protesters have been successful in conveying the message that a sizeable number of people can assemble in a non-partisan protest, even if they cannot ignore the reality that the vast majority of Maltese identify with the main parties and legal changes can only happen if supported by political parties.  

One major challenge for the protesters was that the protest, unlike others before it, lacked one single focus. While the context for the protest was set by anger at the loss of trees and 40,000sq.m of agricultural land as a result of the approved Central Link road project, as well as by anger at the developers’ lobby following the collapse of a number of houses due to neighbouring excavations, the protestors had to create a solid narrative, one which could unite different groups and individuals motivated by different concerns.

Protests limited to opposition to particular developments like the removal of trees or the destruction of ODZ land in iconic locations like Zonqor or Ramla l-Hamra can bank on an emotional response without the need of much deliberation. In this sense it is easier to rally a crowd against a particular development than one calling for a change in policies.

The six key demands presented by protesters this time round, strike directly at the dominance of the construction lobby on the political system and at the way the planning process is skewed in favour of developers.

But in the absence of a crowd to support them, these demands would have remained an academic exercise.

wo girls setting the example by picking up waste during the demonstration

How to build a crowd

In this way the protest was an experiment in crowd-building. Graffitti found itself taking a leading role for three main reasons: it has an excellent non-partisan track record, having protested under different administrations, it best represents the current anger against big business setting the agenda, and it has mastered the art of turning protest into a joyful expression of dissent.

The secret to its success here was creating a space where radical groups, mainstream NGOs, resident groups, cyclists or farmers and others could co-exist and merge.

Speaking to MaltaToday after the protest, Graffitti spokesperson Andre Callus contends that “the process leading to the protest was as significant as the protest itself”.

The fact that 68 groups, “going well beyond environmental NGOs and including many residents’ groups, students, farmers and cultural associations, amongst others, participated in both the protest as well as in its organisation” was one of the most significant aspects of the protest. This was the reason why the 7th September protest, unlike most other previous protests, was announced more than a month in advance “in order to have the time to connect all the different groups around Malta and Gozo that are active, in some way or another, against this unsustainable development model”.

The next step

Yet one pertinent question remains, what’s next? For while single issue protests opposing singular decisions and developments have the advantage of having an achievable aim, as was the case of the Zonqor protest after which the government responded by downsizing the ODZ uptake of the project, the impact of the protest which was held two weeks ago cannot be measured by an immediate response from government. For the demands are themselves too over-reaching to be measured by one single response.

In fact, the response from the authorities was respectful but one which shifted the blame on the local plans approved in 2006. Moreover, as has happened in the past, governments can defuse pressure by making small concessions and buying time before the next onslaught of mega projects, some of which are now under wraps thanks to increased PA secrecy in the publication of planning applications. Developers can also bank on the fact that while they have strong financial leverage, activists have only the power to mobilise and organise.

But protests are also important in setting the national mood and that is where last Saturday’s protest may have been most successful. Just as pre-2008 protests against building zone extensions forced Lawrence Gonzi to promise that ‘ODZ will mean ODZ’; and just as the Zonqor protest made Labour wary of any further tinkering of development zones, the latest protest may well make the government more sensitive to the creeping perception that it is in cahoots with big developers.

The endorsement of protest demands by former Labour leader Alfred Sant has also shown that Labour is facing internal contradictions on this issue. But this also raises the question on whether activists should build political bridges with receptive ears in Labour.

As happened after other protests, one would expect Planning Authority boards to be more sensitive to criticism in the next few weeks. But to prove the protestors wrong, the government would have to take some significant action, like backtracking on its commitment towards major developers like the DB Group. Opposition to the DB project by Labour-led councils represented in the Local Council Association and the northern region council is also indicative of a change of mood.

Yet in absence of substantial policy changes, the risk is that after the momentum fizzles out and activists’ fatigue sets in, everything would return back to normal. In this case, the ability to turn the protest itself into a joyful event and a safe space for non-partisan people, may well be the greatest legacy of last week’s protest. This may empower more people to fight back.

But this also raises one important question; how can activists expect change in the absence of interlocutors in parliament in both government and the opposition, where legal change actually takes place?

Andre Callus is wary of what he calls “sterile dialogue”, and insists that the strength lies in networking and continuous mobilisation, subscribing to the maxim that power concedes nothing without a demand. The goal is to create a counterweight to the power of developers.

“This network is there to stay and grow stronger. It is our belief that change does not happen through sterile dialogue, but through building a popular and broad non-partisan movement that can act as a counterweight to the disproportionate influence of developers over politics… The only possible way forward is to continue strengthening the movement that is fighting the unchecked power of developers and defending our environment and quality of life,” Callus says.

He considers the challenge ahead to be that of ensuring that “the weight of those thousands of persons alarmed with this construction frenzy counts”. This can only happen through “relentless activity that takes different forms such as supporting local struggles against development that does not respect residents and the environment; direct actions against obscene decisions by the authorities; mass protests; and the formation of a national discourse that counters the notion that this widespread destruction is inevitable or even desirable.”

Currently Graffitti is processing the wide range of proposals received from the public prior to the protest. These will be compiled in a document outlining “a tangible plan for changing the current suicidal direction our country has taken”.

“We will then present these demands to the authorities and emphasise that this movement can no longer be ignored. Anger is palatable since our future is at stake.”