Is it legitimate for a government to use public funds to defend itself politically and manipulate public opinion in its favour? I think not, but my opinion does not appear to be widely shared. If it were, the government would be under a barrage over its handling of certain matters to do with the environment.
A few days ago we were fanfared with news of a new national park at Wied Fulija near Żurrieq. The place is a kind of democratic project where all sorts of people dump all sorts of rubbish in any way they wish. Some of it ends up in the sea and out of sight, which is nice.
Except the Environment Minister has suddenly remembered this corner of the Republic and decided to take on the will of the people. Wied Fulija is ‘earmarked’ to become a park. “Hundreds” of trees and “around 45,000” plants – all fully indigenous and kosher, of course – will be planted and tended to.
It has all become wearily predictable. Whenever the government is under pressure over some or other environmental issue, José ‘The Wolf’ Herrera makes an appearance with some or other redemptive scheme. I borrow the nickname from the character played by Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction: Winston ‘The Wolf’ Wolfe is a fixer who is called in to clean up other people’s mess. ‘I’m the Wolf,’ he introduces himself, ‘I solve problems.’
In May this year, the government was taken up making sure that invincibles remained so. Aware that many people were not too happy about their trees, The Wolf and four of his Cabinet colleagues turned up in Bengħajsa and announced that an astonishing 8,000 indigenous trees would be planted on a tract of public land. Just don’t ask what has actually been done so far.
Government is using public resources to effectively drown out public opinion
Nor would I recommend checking on the progress of the national park known poetically as Nwadar. This wonderland came into being four years ago, coincidentally just at a time when government was facing harsh criticism over the Żonqor land grab. I forget how many indigenous trees and shrubs were promised that time, but I’m sure it was in the order of thousands.
You would think this verdant paradise would be visible from space by now. Sadly, it isn’t. I went there the other day with a magnifying glass and a pair of binoculars but could find no evidence whatsoever of a national park.
It doesn’t take a world authority on Machiavelli to see the point. This business of national parks is simply eyewash. It is a Pavlovian ploy used by the government to try to sway public opinion, or at least limit the damage. Every time people get too noisy about trees or land grabs or such, a national park is wheeled out to drown out the din.
Does it work? Yes and no. On the one hand, the prospect of a national park is the ultimate trump card. It evokes images of scented picnics among the orchids and poppies, of open spaces and clean air. On the other, the sleight is too obvious for people not to wise up to it. The Wolf’s fixing power dwindles a bit every time he promises a thousand trees and delivers a hundred, or 10, or none.
Still, there’s hope yet, and it comes in the form of advertising. It has become impossible in the past couple of weeks to click on any online video and not have to grit your teeth and swear at several seconds of government bromide that describes just how great the Central Link project is, how many hundreds of indigenous trees will be planted and grams of carbon dioxide saved.
Mostly my swearing has to do with the politics of it. I can’t bear to wonder how much this shameless advertising blitz is costing us, the taxpayers. It must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions. The big money involved also makes it extremely hard for a cash-strapped press to resist, regardless of what editorial policy suggests.
I’m saying that, in both the case of the parks farce and that of advertising, government is using public resources to effectively drown out public opinion.
If this were the marketplace, it would be a masterclass of unfair competition. Environmental NGOs, and the many other groups and individuals that make up public opinion and action, have absolutely no chance of competing against the behemoth. For example, which organisation opposed to the Central Link project could possibly afford a tenth of the relentless advertising?
It’s a sticky one this. It’s not part of the function of a democratic state to be massaging and trying to sway public opinion. Some will probably say it’s called ‘politics’, but the truth is there’s a fine line between that and manipulation.
Certainly in the case of the national parks and government advertising, I know which side of that line we’re on.