The tragic death of Karl Gouder, a prominent figure in the Nationalist Party, has shocked the country.
Respected by many, including political foes, Karl’s death has stirred an outpouring of grief. And with good reason.
The former St Julian’s mayor taught many of his contemporaries that you can do politics through critical dialogue and without the need to resort to cheap stunts and platitudes. His positive attitude and friendly approach endeared many who came across him.
As his friend JP Fabri wrote in an opinion piece on Saturday: “Karl’s style was not defined by ego or ambition but by servitude – always seeking the greater good.” At a time when politicians measure their popularity in Facebook likes, Karl was a rare breed.
His death just two days after being named the frontrunner for the post of PN general secretary leaves us grappling with difficult questions, and sadly, speculation. Some are questioning whether Karl was a victim of blackmail and aggression. Others resorted to salacious conspiracy theories which merely fuel the rumour mill.
Gouder’s death is being probed by a magistrate and the police. We should let them do their work in peace, if anything out of respect for his family and close friends.
Minutes after we broke the news of his death, people started sending us links to a blogpost published the night before criticising Gouder.
The post, which was subsequently deleted, could have been more respectful but by local blogging standards, it was not a threat, certainly not in a democracy that celebrates free speech.
It must be noted that so far, and we underline ‘so far’, there is no evidence that Gouder’s death was linked to anything written about him.
There is a clear and dangerous line between critique and abuse, and that line is being increasingly crossed
That controversy, however, has rightfully triggered a discussion on the relentless negativity and hateful discourse on social media. The dangers of hateful speech was one of the pertinent issues that Fr Claude Portelli raised during Saturday's funeral mass.
We really need to pause to reflect on the pressures faced by public figures in today’s hyper-connected world.
The impact of destructive speech on social media is particularly damaging in a close-knit country like Malta, where everyone is somewhat connected.
In a democracy, public discourse – especially political debate – forms a crucial part of our national fabric. Public figures, especially politicians, are expected to be held accountable, and critique is not only necessary but vital for a functioning society.
People in the public eye, especially politicians, are expected to grow a thick skin to survive in the arena. But they also have personal lives, vulnerabilities and emotions, just like anyone else.
But there is a clear and dangerous line between critique and abuse, and that line is being increasingly crossed. Just take a look at platforms like Facebook, which is very popular in Malta, and you will see the criticism fast morphing into something more sinister, allowing for an avalanche of harmful comments that can be deeply damaging to people on the receiving end.
The same applies for some media platforms, especially certain bloggers, some of whom persist in resorting to hurtful insults, blackmail, dishonesty and misinformation to attack their subject. In the chase for likes or social validation, we sometimes forget that the target of our frustration is a person who may already be dealing with immense stress. What we might perceive as harmless banter or a throwaway comment can be a lasting blow to someone on the receiving end.
While mental health is now more openly discussed and better understood, the dark side of the internet is slowly turning the issue into an epidemic.
The truth is we may never fully understand what led to Gouder’s untimely death. Yet, if there is a silver lining, it should serve as a wake-up call to the dangers that lurk in the digital world, and possibly push some of us to behave differently online.