Mediawatch

The P.N. must die

The weeks of long knives at the PN HQ have just been put in temporary suspension as an apparent reprieve has been found. ‘Party stalwart’ Louis Galea described as the man who transformed the PN into a ‘slick political machine’ between 1977 and 1987 has been appointed as AZAD Head and given the mission to reform the PN. Here is how the Times of Malta reports the former member of the European Court of Auditors when explaining his mission :

Image from Times of Malta
La Cavalleria Rusticana

Dr Galea said he had several meetings with Dr Delia before Thursday’s meeting of the executive and had discussed various ideas. He would now lead a reform process which would include all those within the party and the country who wished to help so that the PN could stand on its own feet. This, he said, was in the interests not just of supporters, but the country as a whole.  

Times of Malta, Louis Galea appointed head of PN Think-Tank, 5th July 2019

The reform is apparently motivated by the needs of the party to “stand on its own feet“. What comes next will blow your mind (as the click-bait peddlers are wont to proclaim nowadays): The PN needs to stand on its own feet in the interests of its supporters and of the country. Which is the kind of reasoning that normally precedes the launching of a floating device up a narrow sheltered waterway filled with excretion while inconveniently forgetting to equip said device with any means of propulsion.

Once again half of the PLPN hegemony will go through a process of renewal, regeneration and redesign much in the vein of what Inħobbkom Joseph had done with the Malta Labour Party in order to turn it into a ‘slick political machine’ (see what I did there?) that churns out the kind of electoral victories that are sure to cure any kind of “uġiegh” that any die-hard “partitarju” may have felt. And therein (among a myriad other considerations) lies the crunch… (Qui sta il busillis)

(Not) A man for all seasons

Louis Galea means well. I am sure he does. This is definitely not an attack on Louis Galea. Nor is it intended to be an attack on the current leadership (for want of a better word) of the Nationalist party. This post, like many posts before it on this blog, is an attempt to point out the real needs of the country, its residents and its political parties (strictly in that order). In order to do that we must focus on the current dramatis personae but we must also step outside the political machine that takes many givens for granted and patiently point out the emperor’s nudity for the umpteenth time.

Louis Galea was anointed by Adrian Delia in these times of trouble and overt rebellion in order to quell the forces of evil and convert them to striving for the party’s cause because unity in the party, with the party, for the party is presupposed to be the overriding panacea. We could waste time looking into the factions, the dissent, the anger, the hurt and the damaged pride of what appears to be a party on its last throes. We could. But it is beside the point.

Let us just state the obvious that this transfer of responsibility from Delia to Galea is clear evidence of the failure of the Delia mandate. Leaders are appointed to give vision. A change of leader inevitably implies a change of style and direction with the imprint he or she will give to the party as a whole. It is not just Delia that is being held to such standards… here is what we had to say on Simon Busuttil’s performance as deputy leader (and Muscat). In handing over to Galea on of the most basic of tasks he should be fulfilling as leader Delia has openly admitted his lack of grip over the party.

Galea will do what he has always done. There is no way that the veteran politician who has served the party will change his ways and adapt them to 2019 and the future. His successes in party management occurred in an era when the cold war was in full swing, the end of history had not yet begun and coincided with the period of constitutional tinkering at a national level that set the way for the PLPN Constitution – an adaptation of liberal democracy centred around the pathetic alternation in power of THE parties.

Nostalgics will look back tearfully at the age of Xogħol, Ġustizzja, Liberta’ and wish against wish that Galea will manage to bring back that golden period. What Galea brings to the table though is the iron-clad determination to restore a party to its former slick perfection. What he does not bring is the content, the values, that were advocated by that slick machine in that period of time. Sure enough the good old Fehmiet Bażiċi will be bandied around at some point but they will do so in the same manner as has been done in recent years – one that weighs the importance of policy choices on the shameful scale of positivity and popularity.

Galea’s eighties PN differed from today’s PN in one important aspect. An era kicked off in the late seventies and reached all the way to 2004 and petered out as PM Gonzi soldiered through the economic crisis. That era was one where the PN was driven by consecutive “causes” that allowed an alienation from the mantra that is “in the party, with the party, for the party”. The PN was a party with a national interest acting for the national interest. Which is what a party should always be.

A nation that was born out of constitutional struggles with its colonial masters had seen first independence and then a republican constitution in its first steps on the world stage. The Mintoffian interlude and experimentation with ad hoc socialism had led the country to a developmental stagnation. Fenech Adami’s PN took up the challenge with vigour and the steps that followed involved a transformation into a liberal democracy, an infrastructural boost coupled with the path to membership of the European Union.

Nationalist party electoral victories (and losses) in this period cannot be seen separately from the underlying causes that were being fought. No matter how slick the party machine was, the real reason for the (at times disappointingly marginal) victories was that a sufficient majority of the nation could identify with cause after cause behind which the nationalist party had thrown its weight. At the time, the early signs of backsliding of the rule of law that resulted from party abuse of the law could be sidestepped for the greater cause.

There is no denying that by the time the people voted in the EU referendum, many pro-EU votes were also a vote for change – one that would allow for the raising of standards beyond the grasp of the petty partisan politics. The EU Acquis should have done the rest. Still. The PN had served its purpose for two decades. The last few years of the Gonzi government were concentrated on steadying the ship through the economic crisis but the PN had already begun to lose its hold on the pulse of the people.

A party for all reasons

Any reform of the PN must therefore also be seen in this light. As has always been the case a party must have a reason to exist. Aside from the minutiae of everyday policy development one must also be able to identify a party with an overarching cause – of the type that marked the PN’s double-decade of success at leading the country. Call it ideology if you will, though that gets complicated in this day and age what with the modus operandi of the current political arena.

The party’s mission with such a cause would be to convince first of all the people that they must espouse it and this for their own sake. That, in itself, is not the easiest of tasks. Just consider for a moment that the ground-breaking election of 1987 that launched the era of change was won by… wait for it… a margin of 4,785 votes. The cause must transcend the party. There is no other way of going about this for real effectiveness.

As things stand the reasoning that underlies ideas of reform is pinned strongly in the heart of the current system. Here is how I described it in 2016 in a blog post entitled Il Triangolo No:

The structure of our constitutional system has been built using a language that reasons in bi-partisan terms. A bi-party rationale is written directly into the building blocks of our political system – both legally and politically. Since 1964 the constitutional and electoral elements of our political system have been consolidated in such a manner as to only make sense when two parties are contemplated – one as government and one as the opposition.

We are wired to think of this as being a situation of normality. The two political parties are constructed around such a system – we have repeated this over the last ten years in this blog – and this results in the infamous “race to mediocrity” because standards are progressively lowered when all you have to do is simply be more attractive than the alternative. The effect of this system is an erosion of what political parties is all about.

The political parties operating within this system are destined to become intellectually lazy and a vacuum of value. The intricate structure of networks and dependencies required to sustain the system negates any possibility of objective creation of value-driven politics with the latter being replaced by interest-driven mechanisms gravitating around the alternating power structure. Within the parties armies of clone “politicians” are generated repeating the same nonsense that originates at the party source. Meaningless drivel replaces debate and this is endorsed by party faithfuls with a superficial nod towards “issues”.

The whole structure is geared for parties to operate that way. Once in parliament the constitutional division of labour comes into play – posts are filled according to party requirements and even the most independent of authorities is tainted by this power struggle of sorts. Muscat’s team promised Meritocracy and we all saw what that resulted in once the votes were counted. In a way it was inevitable that this would happen because many promises needed to be fulfilled – promises that are a direct result of how the system works.

The “intellectually lazy and value vacuum” parties are what needs to be reformed. This requires a rebooting of the system. What needs to be targeted are the laws and structures that have developed into an intricate network of power-mongering and twisted all sense of representative politics. Reform of this kind goes a much longer way than merely rebooting the party and putting it back in the same fray.

Forza Nazzjonali was a last-minute attempt to mobilise the forces of opposition to corruption in this country. It is telling that the part of the PN that viewed the coalition as anathema would justify their aversion to the idea with the fact that this damaged the “party”. It is the same part of the PN that is unable to see the greater picture regarding the backsliding of the rule of law in the country. In their eyes the difference between them and Muscat is that Muscat has hit on a winning formula and has raised his party to new heights of glory. You can bet your last euro cent that had Muscat been PN they would be applauding him till the cows come home.

As things stand though, the reform of the PN does not seem to be pointed in the direction of greater causes. The reform will in all probability get mired in the usual bull concerning street leaders, committees, local councils, regional structures, partition of party fiefdoms, “listening” mechanisms and such. Nahsbu fin-nies taghna. Nisimghu il-wegghat. Partit miftuh u lest ghal bidla. Yada yada yada.

That kind of reform deserves only a slow death. It would just be a tinkering of the ladders of power that are built within our parties with the hope of getting a chance of replicating them on a national scale once in “the power” (For more on how this works see yesterday’s fresh report from the Commissioner on Standards – or if you’re lazy just watch the Yes Minister episode called Jobs for the Boys). It is the kind of reform that assumes all is ok with the laws of the land and how they are applied. Again. That reform deserves a slow and painful death.

Death becomes them

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that calling for the death of the party will attract all sorts of opprobrium from the party core. That should not matter. What matters is that the message gets across. The PN must die is really a call to rebuild from scratch. Thinking within the confines of an age-old mentality of parties wired to mirror and milk the state machine can only cause further damage. Instead the PN must rebuild as a party that owns the biggest cause at the moment : the need for a radical constitutional change that inoculates the nation against state capture.

After his failed mission at the last EU #topjobs summit Joseph Muscat flew to the Czech Republic and met PM Babis. The squares of the Czech republic have been filled with protesting citizens unhappy with Babis who is under investigation for fraud. Muscat could give a lesson or two to Babis on how to convert the baying crowds into comfortable electoral margin wins. That’s the Muscat who was not considered for an EU Top job because of his governmental track record.

The new PN should be out there leading the battle against corruption on all fronts. It should be reminding the people that this battle is for their best because the backsliding of the rule of law will ultimately have one big victim: the very people who currently blindly follow Muscat’s every turn. That new PN can only exist if the current format and mindset are ditched. This is the chance to take the lead in a wide coalition of opposition for real change. In 2020 the seeds for a new forward looking movement could be sown. The odds are stacked against that though – the system is a survivor, the system feeds on the core nostalgics and will show a strong will of self-preservation.

Never forget, and beware, that old Mediterranean adage: “if we want everything to stay the same, then everything must change”.

Judge Grixti’s Catch-22

“They don’t have to show us Catch-22,” the old woman answered. “The law says they don’t have to.”
“What law says they don’t have to?”
“Catch-22.”


Catch-22, Joseph Heller

Konrad Mizzi, the government and anybody with an interest in transforming the Mizzi/Schembri Panama Papers issue into yet another story of apparent ‘allegations’ are crying victory all over the social media following the Appeals Court decision to overturn a lower court’s decision to allow an in genere inquiry (inquest-inkjesta) to go ahead into allegations of money laundering by the government’s star-minister.

Ignorance of the law has always been abused of and politicians will continue to do so, as long as citizens are happy to be taken for a ride. The Court decision today is all about not allowing an inquiry to go ahead. It does not exculpate Mizzi – far from it. The whole judgment reads as a technical examination on whether or not the grounds exist for an in genere inquiry to go ahead. In layman’s terms the Judge was examining whether the report that was made was substantial enough to justify starting an examination of facts in order to preserve such facts for what could eventually be a prosecution.

The worry in today’s Malta is that the systemic breakdown that includes the breakdown of the rule of law has affected every branch of our democracy’s institutions. Our Justice Minister constantly takes pride in reminding everyone who complains that, among others, we have a faultless judicial appointments system. And yet.

Yet the Venice commission report clearly pointed out faults in this appointments system. The judiciary remain firmly within the hold and control of the executive – particularly with regards to their hopes for their future career development. It would not take much to begin to wonder whether judgments are being written in reverse – a decision is taken and then an excuse for a justification for a decision that grasps at straws to sound “law-worthy’ is conjured up as a supposedly good reason to reach that decision that has already been decided.

Judge Grixti’s ruling is faulty. There is no harm in saying that because, as I know very well myself, drafters of judgments are far from being infallible. It is not enough to claim that it is faulty though – an explanation must be given. @bugdavem on twitter gave the perfect explanation in a thread that I am reproducing below.

I will only add that Grixti seems to have come up with a Catch-22 situation for anyone wanting to report a crime with the hope to get an inquiry in genere going.

It goes something like this: You need an in genere inquiry to investigate, find and confirm the existence of proof that may be used for a future prosecution of a crime. In order to get an in genere inquiry going you need to provide the type of proof that would normally be found and obtained by the in genere inquiry itself. See? Grixti’s very own Catch-22.

Bugdavem on twitter

The catch with Judge Giovanni Grixti’s ruling is (and this is where you realise that the Maltese courts have – intentionally or otherwise – no understanding of money laundering), that attempted money laundering is in itself a crime punishable by 3+ years imprisonment.

What does that mean or entail? Money laundering laws set a low threshold for evidence given that, in practice, the machinations that might be employed by launderers or attempted launders could frustrate justice.

In a case of actual money laundering, the threshold needed for the prosecution is prima facie – at face value – that there is no logical or lawful explanation for the monies to be laundered. The Maltese courts have held jusrt this in the past and it is also clearly stated in the law.

Once that is proven then it is up to the defendent to prove to the satisfaction of the court that any monies and arrangements were in fact lawful and legitimate. This is the rule for actual money laundering as well as the threshold and burdens of proof required.

For attempted money laundering, the threshold is even lower since given that this is an “attempt” one would need to show prima facie the intention and preliminary steps taken to implement that intention.

In Judge Giovanni Grixti’s decision to reject even the opening of an inquest to saveguard evidence (ie, not even for a prosecution so the threshold is actuallylower) he ruled that he expected a level of evidence that is higher than the prosecution in an actual case of laundering .

This is the active part where he stated that is was incumbent on the complainant, here Simon Busuttil, to prove how the series of events and machinations were illegal (as opposed to the threshold of prima facie no logical or lawful explanation).

Anyone with half a brain can see how bizarre this is. The threshold to request a magistrate to safeguard evidence in attempted laundering which the Police won’t investigate is (by virtue of this judgment – J’accuse) actually (set) higher than that required by the Police to secure a conviction for actual money laundering.

A nation of tree buggers

Strong winds in Luxembourg last night uprooted several trees around the country. Bad weather can be a bummer. That’s bad weather though, in Malta some idiot sitting at a desk decided to kill a tree that had lived through a world war because “it was becoming dangerous for passers by”. The most dangerous naturally occurring thing in Malta is ignorance and it’s spreading out of control.

Il-ballata tal-balluta. – Antonio Tufigno

Jien twelidt qabel il-gwerra, ma kien fini kważi xejn
Kont ftit iqsar minn sitt piedi, u lin-nies ħarist fl-għajnejn

Meta l-ħbit tal-għadu twettaq, fost adrenalina enormi
Min ifittex biex jistaħba, min inemmel bl-uniformi

Imbagħad kollox waqaf f’daqqa, ma baqgħex theżżiż jinħass
Qisha bdiet dinj’oħra kalma, u l-inkwiet maqtugħ b’imqass

Minn quddiemi jgħaddi kollox, ħafna postcards kuluriti
Moviment grazzjuz u varju, rġiel għax-xogħol liebsin puliti

L-għajjat li jdawwallek qalbek, ta’ tfal żgħar qed jieħdu gost
Għax kważi waslu l-Barrakka, ġiri u logħob sfrenat fil-post

Rużar Briffa ħosbien jgħaddi biex fuq bank jikteb bil-qegħda
U l-għarajjes intreċċjati lesti biex jagħmlu kull wegħda

Umbagħad wara xi elezzjoni tkun maħnuqa poplu l-pjazza
Ġemgħa orgażmika għax rebħet, logħba sfida u ġlieda mqaddsa

Sadattant ġibt ruħi sewwa, fini kważi żewġ sulari
U kuntenta b’ħajjti u posti, allavolja minhix rari

Drajt iż-żwiemel u l-karozzi, pjaċir wisq li tkun fil-qalba
Ta’ Belt hekk movimentata, u għal tibdil żgur m’għandix talba

Pero’ llejla ġew ħaddiema, ma jidhrux li ħbieb tal-ġonna
Kienu mgħaġġla, kienu koroh, kienu ‘ed jidgħu bil-Madonna

Issa ma nistax nitkellem jew inħoss sħana jew bard
Issa jien m’għadnix neżisti, għaliex jien dal-lejl sirt l-art.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Ritratt u poezija migjuba bil-permess tal-awtur.)

Trump u Gerusalemm: Titnehha l-maskra

Intervent li għamel Karl Schembri fil-gażżetta t-Torca. Din qiegħda tiġi riprodotta hawn bil-permess tiegħu. L-opinjoni espressa fl-artiklu hija tiegħu personali.

L-aħbar li l-Amerka tirrikonoxxi Ġerusalemm bħala l-kapitali tal-Iżrael m’għandha taħsad lil ħadd. Jekk xejn, fl-aħħar, tneħħiet il-maskra tad-dupliċita’ perversa tal-Amerikani lejn il-kwistjoni tal-Palestina. Trump, bil-vulgarita’ medjokri tiegħu, ineħħi kwalunkwe pretensjoni falza lejn l-hekk imsemmi ‘proċess ta’ paċi’. Staqsi kwalunkwe Palestinjan u jgħidlek, “xi proċess? B’min trid titnejjek?”. Trump fl-aħħar ta s-siġill tal-approvazzjoni tiegħu lejn kull illegalita’ li twettaq l-Iżrael fil-Palestina okkupata. Mit-tkeċċija tar-residenti Palestinjani f’Ġerusalemm, għat-twaqqiegħ tad-djar u l-iskejjel Palestinjani, sal-bini tal-kolonji Lhud fil-qalba tal-Palestina. Tneħħiet ukoll il-pretensjoni li l-Amerka hija l-medjatur ta’ rieda tajba bejn l-Iżrael u l-Palestina. Trump għamilha ċara iktar minn qatt qabel, imma ma ninsewx li taħt Obama nbnew l-iktar kolonji fl-Istorja u kellna l-ikbar gwerra mdemmija fuq Gaża.

Il-mistoqsija issa hi: X’se tagħmel il-bqija tad-dinja? X’se jagħmlu l-kapijiet Għarab? U x’se jagħmel Mahmoud Abbas? Diġa’ rajna ftit kliem ta’ rabja mill-kapijiet minn madwar id-dinja. X’se jagħmlu dwarha? L-Għarabja Sawdija, il-Ġordan, l-Eġittu u l-istati pupazzi kollha tar-reġjun m’huma se jagħmlu xejn. Bħalissa qed jittollerraw ftit protesti fit-toroq. Ftit ieħor jibdew jarrestaw l-imqarbin li jgħollu leħinhom.
Abbas, li kieku għandu ħabba waħda ta’ dinjita’, ixolji l-Awtorita’ Palestinjana, jagħlaq ir-rappreżentanza Palestinjana f’Washington DC, u jiddikjara darba għal dejjem li l-ftehimiet kollha, ibda minn Oslo, huma nulli u mitfugħin fil-miżbla tal-Istorja. Imma mhux se jagħmel hekk. Jiddependi mill-Amerikani biex iħallas is-salarju tiegħu stess u ta’ eluf ta’ impjegati tal-Awtorita’ Palestinjana.

Il-PLO — l-Organizazzjoni għall-Ħelsien tal-Palestina, imissha issa tagħmel dak li jgħid isimha — twassal għal-liberazzjoni tal-Palestina. Ma fadalx triq politika miftuħa. Għall-Ewropa, dan huwa ċans biex tidħol bħal qatt qabel u tiddefendi l-liġi internazzjonali. Malta għandha tgħolli leħinha fl-Ewropa u tfittex gvernijiet li huma tal-istess fehma sabiex jagħmlu pressjoni fuq l-Iżrael.

L-Iżrael issa, bis-siġill ta’ Trump, se tkompli tagħmel dak li ilha tagħmel għal deċennji. It-tindif etniku tal-Palestina. Din tħalliha b’żewġ possibiltajiet: Jew tiddikjara l-Palestinjani ċittadini tagħha u ttihom drittijiet indaqs bħal-Lhud tal-Iżrael, jew inkella taċċetta li dan huwa stat ta’ Apartheid. U lkoll nafu kif il-bqija tad-dinja trattat l-Afrika t’Isfel fis-snin tal-Apartheid.

Karl Schembri għex għal erba’ snin fil-Palestina okkupata u bħalissa jgħix fil-Ġordan fejn jaħdem bħala media adviser għal-Lvant Nofsani ma’ aġenzija umanitarja. L-opinjoni espressa f’dan l-artiklu hija biss dik personali tiegħu.

The Truth when Lies are Paid for

Way back in 2005 I chose the slogan “the truth, if I lie” (la vérité si je mens) for this blog. The truth is an important aspect whether we are talking about reporting or opinion forming. Facts and the truth should be the basis of assessment in a normal democracy. We all know by now that in this age of post-truth this has changed:

“We have entered a new phase of political and intellectual combat, in which democratic orthodoxies and institutions are being shaken to their foundations by a wave of ugly populism. Rationality is threatened by emotion, diversity by nativism, liberty by a drift towards autocracy. More than ever, the practice of politics is perceived as a zero-sum game, rather than a contest between ideas. […] At the heart of this global trend is a crash in the value of truth, comparable to the collapse of a currency or a stock.” (Matthew D’Ancona, Post Truth, The new war on truth and how to fight back).

One manifestation of the manipulation of truth is the increasing use of space on mainstream media for paid propagation of information. Large chunks of public money are used to buy space on media to sell statements in an effort to turn them into universally accepted truths. More often than not the use of “statistics” is facilitated by the virtual disappearance of any proper watchdog and by the building of walls of silence that laugh in the face of the transparency that should be reinforcing the veracity of such statements.

Take the “record unemployment” figures that this government loves to flaunt. Behind such figures lie so many half-truths buried in statistical convolutions such as the reformed unemployment scheme that ensures that people vanish off the lists much before they enter gainful employment, such as the obvious reliance on a bloated civil service to take on more “jobs for the boys”. That same record unemployment was behind the use of the power of incumbency in the last election where famously Gozitan entrepreneurs and SME’s and employers in the entertainment industry found themselves short of staff simply because the government did the magic absorbing trick of vanishing their employees away into the civil service.

But there is another equally worrying trend. The government has found ways to buy “authenticity” by purchasing its way onto spaces in the media that could deceivingly be passed away as independent reporting. In the beginning it was close collaboration with houses like The Economist hosting talks in Malta packed full of government spokespersons and ministers. The Economist would be happy to lend its name to a national government paying its way into its discussion space. Two “The World in XXX” events plus one “Mediterranean Leadership Summit” were thus organised by the Economist in Malta at the Hilton Portomaso. The Mediterranean Leadership Summit, held in 2016, included Henley and Partners as its Gold Sponsor (we all know who these are), the Libyan Investment Authority as its Silver Sponsor (notwithstanding the fact that the LIA had had its assets frozen by the UN since 2011), and Finance Malta and Maltco lotteries as contributors.

It is not just events though. Articles can now be bought. Yes, you read that right. Articles on major international news portals can actually be “paid content”. Thus, the CNN article doing the rounds about Malta being one of the Top 15 country destinations for Christmas was apparently yet another paid article. Here are Andrew and Paul Caruana Galizia calling out another paid report, this time one that appeared on the Guardian:

Do not underestimate the government use of paid social media ads and posts (such as facebook campaigns). As time goes by, the Facebook algorithms are fine tuned to push to the top of your screens any paid information. While you scroll through the online papers and you see repeat adverts also paid for by government to promote its spin remember that. The campaign to disinform is much stronger than you think. The solution is to be vigilant and call out whenever you can.

Finally do not let the irony escape you that these lies and half-truths are funded by YOUR money. You are actually paying taxes that are then used to sell you untruths.

It’s a liars’ world out there. The truth, if I lie.

The Beautiful Garden

The atmosphere at the European Parliament this Tuesday was surreal to say the least. Not being too familiar with the building I arrived just as the debate on the Rule of Law in Malta had kicked off and took a seat hurriedly in the visitor’s balcony. Just as I started to take in the different speeches I noticed that I was seated a couple of seats away from Daphne’s family and the whole business took a wholly different perspective.

It was inevitable that different agendas would be pushed during such a debate. It was, as predicted, a repeat of the Pana Committee meetings with many deputies intent on taking advantage of this moment of weakness of the Maltese state in order to peddle their usual attacks on the island nation’s fiscal policy. Politics is politics and it would be too much to ask of all the deputies in the house to stick to the agenda at hand. Probably.

I felt very ill at ease though, for every other thirty seconds Daphne’s name was brought up. Whether it was to bolster an argument regarding the state of the rule of law in Malta or whether it was to harp on that spurious link between a legitimate fiscal policy and an atrocious cold-blooded murder, those three words would be repeated and would rebound along the walls of the Hemicycle. Each time I heard the name I did not dare look at Daphne’s family but I could not help wonder how awkward all this might seem, how distant from the warmth of a mother and a wife. True, we were there also because of what had happened and yet the way most politicians took over the name and memory of the recently departed did not seem right.

The weak respects jarred mostly in the mouths of those who could barely hide their contempt towards the very fact that we were there in that room, discussing the failure of a society and not only the failure of law and government. They went through the motions expressing regret for Daphne’s sudden departure though it sounded as convincing as a note of apology by the Transport Authority whenever the buses run late.

It was painful. Painful for me as a mere outsider who quite readily admits to having had strong differences of opinion with Daphne throughout the last years and who refuses to succumb to the temptation of creating false hagiographies. In fact I am quite happy to be clear that I did not find Daphne and her work to be perfect. Far from it. It is like stating the obvious. Somehow though I feel that it makes my case for demanding respect for her work all the stronger. Above all it puts the moment in perspective – there is an institutional crisis that led to a journalist being killed while doing her work and without any doubt because of the work she was doing. Daphne was killed with impunity because, in the words of her husband, she mattered.

The institutional crisis, the social deficit, predates Daphne’s assassination. The battle against the rot definitely predates Daphne’s assassination. The warning signs predate Daphne’s assassination. The side of Daphne that we want to remember and be inspired by is the one that was so ably described by her husband. It is the one who aspired to beauty in a world that she saw (as did many others) turn uglier by the minute. Before the situation became desperate it had already turned ugly. So ugly that it rendered others cynical. So ugly that many lost hope.

This is not about a sanctification of a person. This is about continuing the work that Daphne excelled in and that others too worked hard for with different results. The inspiration we should and must take is the Beautiful Garden. We should each build our own little garden and start to expand that slowly until the gardens take over.

The gardens are our hope, our courage, our future.

 

“But Daphne never grew cynical; she grew outraged and appalled by the increasingly sordid and frightening facts that emerged from her work. The more frustrated she grew at the state of our country, the more beautiful our garden became, the more trees she planted, the more books, art, ornaments and curiosities from all over the world arrived at our home. Daphne created, in the words of one of my sons, a parallel world of beauty in a country that slipped further and further away from European values and norms of behaviour which she held so closely. Meanwhile, Daphne’s work never slowed. With every story she broke, particularly about the money laundering network with links deep and wide connecting many of Malta’s political and business elite, her readership grew larger and more loyal.” – Peter Caruana Galizia