The democratic duty of dissent

In recent weeks, a troubling rhetoric has quietly woven itself into the fabric of Maltese public discourse. When scrolling through social media feeds and listening to politically motivated influencers, you will quickly encounter a recurring script designed to neutralise criticism.

Those who dare to voice dissatisfaction with the state of our infrastructure, governance, environment, or public services are systematically ridiculed. They are dismissed as chronic complainers who can never be satisfied or, worse, branded as “disgruntled nationalists” whose sole intent is to tarnish Malta’s international reputation and economic prosperity.

When we complain about the overpopulated Blue Lagoon and the urgent need to preserve its natural state, demands that are routinely disregarded, or when we voice frustration over chronic traffic congestion, power cuts in the peak of summer, businesses unlawfully taking over public spaces and slime from fish farms polluting our seas, the response from these influencers follows a predictable pattern.

We are branded as simply “being negative”, accused of failing to appreciate how lucky and privileged we are to be living in Malta. We are told that these problems occur the world over and are scolded for allegedly focusing only on the bad while refusing to see the “big picture”.

This toxic narrative is not merely petty partisan bickering; it is a calculated assault on the very concept of active citizenship. It seeks to reduce the historic, hard-won status of the Maltese citizen to that of a passive subject. True democracy demands a fundamental realisation: we are citizens, not subjects. We possess an inalienable right to criticise our government without fear and, far from being an act of subversion, complaining is one of the highest expressions of love for one’s country.

To understand the danger of the current narrative, one must look at what citizenship truly means. Historically, subjects owe blind allegiance to a monarch or an authoritarian state; their duty is to obey, endure and remain silent.

Citizens, by contrast, are shareholders in the republic. Their rights are not generous concessions handed down by the government of the day; they are constitutional guarantees. When citizens complain about corruption, environmental degradation, or institutional decay they are exercising a core democratic function.

The right to criticise power without fear of retaliation is the boundary line between a free society and an authoritarian one. When we strip away the right to complain, or when we socially penalise those who do, we slide backward from a robust democracy into a feudal mindset where the public is expected to display obsequious gratitude for basic state duties.

The most insidious weapon used by political influencers today is the weaponisation of patriotism. Critics are frequently accused of “hurting Malta” or damaging its reputation abroad, particularly when local systemic failures reach European or international forums. This is a classic authoritarian inversion: it shifts the blame from the officials who commit the wrongdoing to the citizens who expose it.

There is a profound difference between a chauvinistic, blind nationalism and an honest, progressive patriotism.

We possess an inalienable right to criticise our government without fear- Michelle Attard Tonna

Blind nationalism demands uncritical adulation of the flag, hiding systemic flaws under a veneer of superficial pride. It insists that to love Malta is to stay silent about its wounds.

Progressive patriotism, however, recognises that true love for one’s country means holding it to the highest possible standard. You do not complain because you hate your country; you complain because you know it is capable of better and because you refuse to see its potential squandered. A citizen who demands clean air and seas, transparent institutions and the rule of law is fighting for Malta, not against it.

Conversely, the political actors who gaslight the public by equating civic complaints with a “nagging spouse” are attempting to domesticate the electorate. By trivialising dissent as mere emotional instability or irrational nagging, they attempt to rob civic complaints of their political legitimacy. It is a deeply patronising strategy designed to make the average citizen feel isolated, embarrassed and, ultimately, silenced.

When political influencers successfully normalise the harassment and ridicule of critics, the civic space shrinks. When a society falls silent, democracy begins to fail.

Institutional checks and balances collapse because there is no public pressure to sustain them.

Furthermore, democracy fundamentally requires ‘the legitimacy of the loser’. In a healthy democratic ecosystem, those who lose an election do not lose their voice or their right to participate in the civic life of the nation. They remain an essential counterweight to the power of the executive.

When the ruling narrative frames the political opposition or independent civil society as inherently illegitimate, traitorous, or destructive, the democratic consensus breaks down. Democracy ceases to be a shared project and, instead, becomes a winner-take-all warfare where the winners rule with impunity and the losers are expected to vanish from public view.

Complaining is an engine of social progress. Throughout history, every major expansion of human rights, environmental protection and workers’ rights began as a complaint by a group of people who refused to accept the status quo. If workers had not complained about exploitation, we would not have the five-day workweek. If activists had not complained about institutional bias, civil liberties would be non-existent.

On the local front, numerous battles were won because of activists and ordinary citizens who resolutely refused to accept the status quo. A prominent example is the hard-fought campaign for Manoel Island, which, through years of public pressure, protests and civic defiance was eventually returned back to the people as a safeguarding of public space.

Similarly, the relentless public demand for justice following the tragic death of Jean Paul Sofia forced the government to concede to a full public inquiry. This demonstrated that collective grief and vocal insistence on institutional accountability can dismantle administrative resistance and drive systemic change.

We must reject the narrative that docility equals loyalty. When a political influencer or partisan operative attempts to silence a critic by calling them a chronic contrarian or a traitor to the nation, the public must see it for what it is: a sign of weakness from those in power. They ridicule complaints because they fear the accountability that complaints inevitably demand.

Malta belongs to its citizens, not to its politicians or their media echoes. Reclaiming our right to complain loudly, constructively, and without fear, is not an act of negativity. It is an act of profound hope. It is the assertion that our country deserves integrity, beauty and justice and that we, as citizens, will settle for nothing less.

Michelle Attard Tonna is an associate professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Malta.