Those in authority do not accept criticism easily. They look for a weapon to fight against criticism so that they can portray themselves as good leaders doing great things for the country.

They aim to increase the number of party loyalists by creating rhetoric that blames people who are critical of the government and appreciates those who praise it.

Former chief justice Silvio Camilleri wrote on Times of Malta’s comments board to express his concern and criticism of the proposed magisterial inquiry reform, warning it will “only serve to shield politicians and their persons of trust from investigation”.

In response, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard tabled a 90-page document in parliament, including 547 comments Camilleri “made against the government”.

Camilleri was not the only legal expert or civil society organisation – such as another former chief justice, Joseph Said Pullicino, or the business bodies – to express criticism of the proposed reform that, de facto, would limit citizens’ right to ask magistrates to investigate abuse of power by politicians.

In 2018, a Venice Commission report harshly criticised the government for its moral weakness, preventing it from always doing what is right for the country. The report argued: “The media and civil society are essential for democracy in any state. Their role as watchdogs is an indispensable precondition for the accountability of government… Even when it is stressful for the authorities to endure their criticism, the government has a duty to ensure that the media and civil society can freely express themselves”.

Things have not changed much since then. It is worrying to see top government officials and their henchmen single out critics.

The government thinks that the people and media that are supposed to represent different voices of people from the streets are biased against it.

The gap between the criticism and the government’s lack of tolerance, and the gap between the government’s rhetoric and arguments and people’s observations only serve to create animosity against each other.

The government expects each of us to trust it. Those who do not, according to the government, are regressive.

Attard and other ministers aim to increase the number of party loyalists by creating rhetoric that blames people who are critical of the government and appreciates those who praise the government.

When people become ‘yes’ men, a hierarchy will be created between the governor and the governed. This kills democratic practices and becomes detrimental to our society’s development.

The government must understand that appreciation of different perspectives and criticisms can only help it become more accountable - even if that criticism comes from a former chief justice.

The Big Brother attitude that whatever those in power do is flawless, bigger, better and unquestionable will further create a rift between the government and the people and media who are critical of it.

The more hesitant and obdurate the government becomes to listen to the media and people, the more it will be lambasted upon.

The prime minister must resist any autocratic tendencies. Criticism helps the government diagnose its mistakes, which, when rectified, can make people build trust in the democratic process. 

Morally weak governments will always be weak. The Maltese people deserve leaders who engage with concerns, not silence them. If the government continues down this path of intolerance, eroding the pillars of free speech and independent scrutiny, it risks turning Malta into a state where power is preserved through control rather than credibility.