During the recent national unity conference organised by the President of the Republic, the absence of representatives of the Labour and Nationalist parties stood out. In his closing address, George Vella said political parties were not “formally invited”, the intention being of opening up space to alternative voices.
Indeed, the conference brought together common citizens, activists and academics, with most of the interventions providing interesting takes on the concept of national unity. It became more and more obvious, as contributions poured in, that the conference was running on a separate rail track to the traditionally monotone conferences involving politicians and businesspeople.
Civil society, or parts of it, took the initiative to present their points. Crucially, issues about civil society’s role were raised, especially when it comes to the creation of a united front against matters on which neither political party is willing to take a stand.
One such issue is our natural environment, whose plight various activist groups have highlighted for many years. While every administration has fallen to the easy temptation of tarnishing the image of such politically neutral groups, these groups’ agendas have now been backed by the presidency’s repeated calls for the preservation of our open spaces. Mario Fava, president of the Local Councils’ Association, has also advocated the defence of our towns and villages and, indeed, our communities from the persistent onslaught of unbridled development.
All along, the opposition (understood here as the Nationalist Party) has been largely absent from the environmental debate, choosing the road of silence in most cases. At the same time, swathes of Labour voters feel equally disenfranchised from their party because of aggressive development and road-building projects that will impact them directly.
It is not uncommon for citizens to shed their political loyalties, choosing to support or even affiliate themselves with civil society groups. This is a consequence of the political duopoly and its reluctance to fight for the population’s quality of life, choosing, instead, to dangle outdated clichés of ‘balance’ or ‘compromise’ between business and social well-being.
Arguments on the non-existent presence of such groups on state media have also been raised. In a context where certain issues are only brought to national attention through civil society’s activities, TVM’s insistence on giving PLPN the absolute majority of its airtime is a huge disservice to the country.
Besides the environment, issues such as women’s rights, the legalisation of cannabis, migrant integration and workers’ rights have become the sole remit of non-political organisations. Others are leading the way on the justice and rule-of-law front. By limiting their airtime, state TV is acting as a gatekeeper and not as a facilitator of open dialogue.
National unity in a democratic society also requires the recognition of citizens and taxpayers who do not bear any political affiliation, not their demonisation through propaganda machines. And while the debate goes on over whether such propaganda stations should even exist, it becomes clearer that a reform of public broadcasting, including that of its regulator, is becoming a priority.
Once political parties have abdicated their roles, the fight against greed, corruption and exploitation of national and human resources has been left in the hands of civil society which has, in the absolute majority of cases, kept itself free of partisan alignments.
It is TVM’s moral duty to ensure an equal and balanced representation of all groups in society. The state broadcaster has a huge role to play in national unity by informing and educating and by ensuring that public debate is not restricted to the stranglehold of the main political parties.