The message behind the PN’s proposals for better governance is for each one of us to ‘look up’. In the film Don’t Look Up, Meryl Streep, in the role of the US president, sought to convince the electorate with the slogan ‘Don’t Look Up’ so that while a comet destroys humanity, a businessman and some politicians could take a chance at becoming more powerful and richer.
The PN is telling the electorate ‘Do Look Up’. The proposals are a set of tools that protect the electorate from being taken for a ride by that political class which chooses to collude to satisfy its own greed for power and money.
These proposals are a step forward in Malta’s progress towards maturing into a better democracy. It often feels as if we are a society which thinks that our role in democracy is simply to vote when an election is called. It’s like, OK, I went to vote, so democracy is alive.
In reality, democracy dies the minute the electorate is not interested in participating in public debate on matters of public interest. Basically, democracy is dead where no one questions the actions and decisions of those elected in power and those serving them.
Becoming a more mature democracy requires a legal framework that can kickstart a social, political, cultural and economic shift in a state’s mentality. This is exactly what the opposition proposals seek to do.
Let’s be mature and recognise that the principles on which these proposals are grounded are a paradigm shift. To put things concisely, the proposals control those who seek power by defrauding the public interest. The proposals seek to redress an imbalance of power between those who have so far been left free to cause havoc against the public interest and the honest individuals who go about their daily life contributing to the community.
The biggest paradigm shift of these proposals is found in the principles that underly the amendments to freedom of expression and the state’s obligations towards journalism. Though at face value these amendments may be seen as providing journalists and other media actors with some special powers, the amendments give much more power to the electorate than to journalists.
Indeed, I believe we protect the media because selfishly we protect our freedom of expression, our right to know, to receive and impart information. The fact that the amendments reflect particularly on journalists and other media actors is only the consequence of a strong wish to empower the electorate with access to information.
So without offending journalists, allow me to say that their responsibility to find information and publish it in accordance with the ethics of journalism is only a reflection of my freedom of expression and that of each one of us. The less we respect and recognise journalists for their responsibility in a democracy, the less we are a democracy.
The opposition wants to make media freedom a characteristic of Malta’s personality- Therese Comodini Cachia
The opposition recognises the importance of media freedom as an essential pillar of democracy and its pre-eminent role in a state governed by the rule of law and, consequently, recognises that the state is duty bound to foster an enabling environment for journalism to thrive.
In doing so, it is not doing journalists favours, it is respecting the electorate’s right to know and to receive information so that there can be a broad participation in debate on matters of public interest.
That the government may be afraid of this paradigm shift in mentality is nothing to be ashamed of. It is only human to be afraid to let go of power and, consequently, control. But the opposition’s proposals are not about asking the government to relinquish its duty to govern. The opposition is simply asking the government to recognise that public debate must be fostered, not muffled.
For you and me to be better empowered to participate in public debate, the very thing that keeps democracy alive, parliament must ensure that Malta recognises the responsibilities of journalists as a public watchdog and clearly stipulate what the government’s duty towards journalists and other media actors are.
The most basic of the state’s duty is to recognise everyone’s right to free and independent journalism. As a minimum, this means that a public authority does not interfere in the right to freedom of expression of a journalist except where there is a grave pressing social need; that public authorities provide journalists with accurate and reliable information in a timely manner; and that journalistic sources are effectively protected.
The opposition wants to make media freedom a characteristic of Malta’s personality. Is Malta ready for this change? Is the government willing to mature its vision for democracy?