In one particular country previously governed by an authoritarian figure, people are particularly loud. An urban legend has it that people gave up whispering to show the regime that they had nothing to hide. This bad habit has stuck ever since.

In Malta, an old idiom tells us that the more one shouts, the better the chance one has of selling; l-għajta nofs il-bejgħ.

Perhaps, in our political arena, we have taken this saying too literally. In an attempt to be heard, political opponents shout over one another hoping, perhaps, that one voice drowns out the other.

In doing so, we forget one small detail of this old saying – that in addition to ‘shouting’, one also needs to convince and deliver.

The advent of social media has exposed some of the most negative traits in human nature. Fake profiles are created to spy on, insult and denigrate opponents. The language used is increasingly coarse and violent. Positions have also seemingly become more polarised. The relative ease of anonymity with which such extreme views can be expressed encourages this attitude.

We seem to fluctuate between drowning out one another with shouting or, worse still, trying to intimidate or silence dissenting views. It is no surprise that our political climate has become toxic.

Within this toxic climate, there also seems to be a general inability for alternative political visions to thrive. Despite the best efforts of the opposition, it seems to have consistently failed to provide a convincing programme for an alternative government.

The situation is now such that it cannot credibly perform its constitutional duties unless its modus operandi changes.

The forthcoming leadership election will be a testing ground of sorts. It has the potential to breathe some life into an otherwise moribund party. It can also shift the discussion from people and personalities to ideas and policies – something which is sorely missing from the Maltese political arena.

In his recent public pronouncements and appearances, one of the contenders, Bernard Grech, raised several issues which merit discussion and evaluation.

First, he placed political parties in the right context. He noted that political parties are not an end in themselves but, rather, the means to an end. This is an important distinction to make.

In recent years, the adage claiming that “no one is greater than the party” has made an unwelcome comeback in political discourse. This statement discredits the whole reason for the existence of political parties.

If parties are only concerned with their self-preservation, then they become ineffective or obsolete. In this situation, they fail to see the bigger picture and become unable to articulate a proper vision for the country.

For political parties to remain relevant, they must focus on matters which are greater than themselves. The notion of the common good, the importance of prioritising the human person and fostering a political climate which respects the independence of institutions and the rule of law should be the motivating factors for political parties.

Bernard Grech noted that political parties are not an end in themselves but the means to an end- André DeBattista

Secondly, Grech made a distinction between political parties and civil society organisations. Attempts to discredit the latter have abounded in recent years, usually by attributing partisan or factional intent to their public standpoints. This in itself is a dangerous, slippery slope since the function of a political party is different from that of an NGO.

In a democracy, political parties are necessary vehicles which serve to bring together several ideas and allow for a broad representation of different views in society. That being said, public life is often more varied and nuanced. In this regard, the vacuum is filled by civil society groups.

Naturally, the onus is not on civil society groups to formulate and deliver on policies. However, they must raise matters which may otherwise be hard to decipher by policymakers who take a more generic approach.

The overarching principle, which brings these two central elements together, is the need for dialogue both within party structures and with wider society.

Without dialogue, differences are exacerbated, while fear and distrust become more tangible. Diverging opinions become entrenched, and a common ground would become difficult to reach.

Dialogue can only occur if there is willingness on all sides to participate in a frank exchange. It does not happen by merely sitting around a table and listening passively; rather, it implies a willingness to act, change and take difficult decisions.

Without this exercise, parties fail to see what is essential and fundamental and what principles should never be negotiable. They also fail to understand the mistakes of the past and where change is sorely needed.

However, the most significant benefit of fostering a climate of dialogue is that it allows parties to transcend themselves and become real vehicles for change. It forces political operatives to get in touch with the different challenges faced by a country and thus allows them to articulate the hopes and aspirations of a broader section of society.

It is also through dialogue that rifts and disagreements can be healed. The current political climate is a result of the various failures to make this quantum leap.

Without dialogue, the result is a political situation that is more polarised and a political class that is more detached and irrelevant.

André DeBattista is a political scientist.