Editorial: When critics become targets

Last week, the UK marked 10 years since the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, killed by a far-right extremist, fuelled by hatred and political rhetoric. Next year, Malta will mark a decade since the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, a murder that a public inquiry concluded was fuelled by an atmosphere of impunity facilitated by the State.

Both murders proved how the constant dehumanisation of political opponents carries consequences that can extend far beyond the digital world.

One of the greatest strengths of any democracy is the ability of citizens to criticise those who govern without fear or potential repercussions.

Malta has long taken pride in being a country where people can speak freely, challenge authority and participate in public debate and protests. But look around the world, even in established democracies, from the US to Israel, to see how the space for constructive criticism is shrinking.

Activists are portrayed as traitors, independent journalists are increasingly branded enemies and independent institutions are dismissed as partisan whenever they dare to highlight shortcomings.

And, in recent weeks in Malta, there has been a noticeable escalation in campaigns targeting government critics, from activists to opinion writers, even cartoonists.

There are two types of critics – the destructive ones who air their grievances in the most unproductive and crass ways, especially on social media. And, then, there are many critics merely exercising a fundamental democratic right, raising valid concerns, because they care about a subject, whether it’s social, political or environmental. The problem arises when the attack against these type of critics crosses into deliberate distortion, ridicule, intimidation and incitement.

Many government operators, including the ruling party’s own media, has upped the tempo since Labour’s fourth election victory. We have seen coordinated social media campaigns that appear designed not to challenge arguments but to discredit individuals and indulge in personal attacks. Some critics are repeatedly singled out as belonging to the “establishment”, their motives questioned and their central arguments distorted beyond belief.

When the same individuals and organisations become the repeated targets of orchestrated hostility, we simply cannot turn a blind eye.

Repubblika rightly pointed out last week that many of those currently being targeted in orchestrated campaigns are the same people who spent years demanding accountability following the assassination of Caruana Galizia. That observation cannot be casually dismissed.

Malta knows better than most countries where sustained campaigns of demonisation can lead.

The public inquiry into Daphne’s murder found that senior officials failed to recognise the dangers posed by the relentless hostility directed at a journalist.

A climate in which critics are persistently portrayed as enemies of the people or threats to the progress of a nation is dangerous.

Winning an election does not grant anyone the right to silence their critics. An electoral mandate confers the authority to govern, not immunity from scrutiny.

In any democracy, politicians and their work is expected to be scrutinised and, yes, even criticised. Free speech does not protect defamatory falsehoods, deliberate misinformation or conduct that places others at risk.

One may criticise an activist’s position, challenge a journalist’s reporting, disagree with an NGO’s campaign. But there is a profound difference between contesting someone’s ideas and seeking to intimidate or dehumanise them and indulging in organised harassment.

Political leaders and public figures have a particular responsibility – they can easily use their power and instruct their propagandists to tone down the aggression and the hatred. Because this echo chamber of noise and intimidatory tactics can ring louder in a small country like ours, where everyone knows each other and misinformation spreads like wildfire.