There are two vital debates taking place contemporarily. The first concerns democracy and personal rights in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The second deals with the operations of statehood. Both, though seemingly disconnected, are linked.
The first debate is taking place internationally. What will democracy look like once the pandemic is over? Have some regimes taken advantage of the current situation to become more authoritarian? Have states taken too much control of personal lives?
The second debate is taking place on a national level (or, rather, it should take place on a national level). It concerns the state’s role in the wake of the public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia.
The state has been singled out for creating “an atmosphere of impunity, generated from the highest echelons of the administration inside Castille, the tentacles of which then spread to other institutions… leading to a collapse in the rule of law”.
In response, the prime minister has issued an apology and claimed that the state has completely changed its operations since January 2020.
The two are connected since they point to a glaring contradiction. Both issues seem to point to the way the state acts, in other words, the day-to-day actions taken by governing institutions. Yet, the overarching and most significant questions relate to what the state is, in other words, to the fundamental principles which underpin all governing institutions.
By their very virtue, state institutions require power. This power allows them to fulfil their functions adequately but, conversely, it can also make them vehicles of injustice.
Therefore, it is vital to also look at the principles and character of the state.
The great Augustine of Hippo had once asked: “Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?”
Book IV of the City of God presents a fictitious dialogue between a captured pirate and Alexander the Great.
The pirate challenges Alexander; a pact binds a band of robbers and the booty is divided according to a prearranged agreement. He turns to Alexander and tells him that if this band “holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities and subdues peoples” it suddenly becomes known as a kingdom.
The fictional pirate teases further; since the pirate uses a petty ship, he is called a robber and, conversely, since Alexander seizes the whole world with a great fleet, he is styled “emperor”!
Justice, in and of itself, is a necessary prerequisite. Yet, we must also ensure an end goal to that justice. In other words, it is oriented towards something more significant and underpinned by good motives.
Justice cannot be mere retribution or revenge. Without an orientation towards the common good, the state truly becomes a “band of robbers”.
Unfortunately, the political class is often an accomplice and an enabler of this great tragedy.
With regards to COVID-19 restrictions and democracy, it must be said that these complaints are not new. The mask-wearing during the Spanish Influenza, following the Great War, was met with equal resistance and as vociferously opposed.
The state not only failed to enforce and protect but was complicit in creating an atmosphere that enabled high levels of corruption and murder- Andre Debattista
Previous pandemics have also seen the state take on additional powers.
This pandemic has not broken the mould in this respect. Governments also remain primary sources of information and purveyors of complex and effective vaccine programmes through extensive healthcare systems.
These measures point to what we may expect the state to be. Many have not objected to the state using its power to ensure that the population’s general health and well-being are kept in check. If anything, the most significant number of complaints were levelled when enforcement seemed to be scant.
The public inquiry report presents an account that is the complete opposite of this. Here, the state not only failed to enforce and protect but was complicit in creating an atmosphere that enabled high levels of corruption and murder.
Worryingly, and no main speaker from either of the main parties in parliament chose to address this, the report also slammed the “unwarranted closeness” between big businesses and government.
The report has suggested the introduction of laws to ensure transparency and accountability in the relationship between the government and big business as well as ensuring that only official channels are used when politicians and businesspersons communicate with each other.
In other words, the inquiry singled out a characteristic of governing institutions that many seem unwilling to deal with.
In view of these two parallel debates we must think about what we should expect out of the state, in other words, what should its ‘character’ be.
Firstly, we expect the state to have the common good at heart. Thus, the “economy vs health” and “personal rights vs health” debate becomes a false dichotomy unless a balance is struck to safeguard the good of all.
Secondly, we must keep on calling out this uncomfortable liaison between monied interests and political parties. Though ostensibly separate and independent, Maltese state institutions have often been subject to the whims of political parties, whether in government or in opposition. As a result, some aspects of policymaking remain worryingly partisan.
What hope is there for the country when, in the words of a leading lobbyist, the requests for money by political parties’ verges on the harassment, to the point of being “embarrassing”. This is a bold statement coming from a lobby group that did not feel embarrassed to ruin and uglify large swathes of our country.
In addition to being transparent, the character of the state needs to be consistent and committed. If actions depend on the office holder, then we have a feeble basis on which to move forward.