It had to be the goading of Nationalist MP Therese Comodini Cachia during the parliamentary debate on the opposition’s bill to raise the standard of the rule of law that finally pushed our prime minister to publish the draft legislation he asked his committee of experts to advise him about.
Comodini Cachia in a tweet justifiably described Abela’s drafts as “mediocre proposals” which are not enough “to provide journalists with an enabling environment and to entrench press freedom in Malta’s constitution”.
I have already strongly criticised the whole process. In my article on The Sunday Times of Malta (September 26), I expressed the fear that the whole exercise could turn out to be “a sop to the journalistic Cerberus” unless the process was spearheaded by journalists and included the “possibility of setting up structures which will strengthen the press in Malta and have it truly and concretely recognised as the fourth pillar of democracy”.
What is happening is exactly the opposite. The prime minister, not journalists, called the shots, so much so he resisted the inclusion of a reference to journalism as the fourth pillar of democracy in the terms of reference. His reluctance is reflected in the drafts produced. The positive points they contain, however, are miles away from what is needed to develop an enabling environment that is necessary for journalism to make a qualitative step forward.
Fortunately, a founding member of the Institute of Maltese Journalists and the editor-in-chief of Malta’s largest media house had enough mettle and backbone to take a principled position and refuse to be part of the prime minister-dominated exercise. One resigned, while the other one told the prime minister “thank you, but no, thank you”. Others unfortunately complied or just said nothing.
Word count obliges me to be brief, so I limit myself only to some proposed amendments to the constitution to which the prime minister wants his committee to react within two months.
The government’s proposed amendments betray a dry recognition of freedom of expression, stating the bare minimum. Even when one finds an echo of the decisions of the European court, the proposals never go the whole hog. Besides, there is no formal recognition of what that right includes, nor of the state obligations towards the press, and the rights of the public are not even mentioned.
The PN’s draft, which was voted down by the government, on the other hand, lists both journalists’ and citizens’ rights as well as the government’s obligations. This is essential because journalism is not the exclusive property of journalists but it is a public good. Journalists are the servants, not the owners of the right of freedom of expression. The safeguarding of the rights of citizens and their empowerment is crucial.
The PN’s proposed amendments to article 22 of the constitution enunciate 10 principles which make “media freedom and public participation principles for the State of Malta, part of its personality”. My op-piece ‘New or false dawn for journalism’ (January 13) had listed some of these principles.
The government’s proposed amendments betray a dry recognition of freedom of expression- Fr Joe Borg
Though these principles are not judicially enforceable, they describe the character of a country and, consequently, are political values with which all entities of the state are expected to adhere.
Considering the circumstances in which the prime minister’s committee is asked to advise on preparing constitutional amendments to entrench press freedom, one should expect amendments that are courageous and which leave no ambiguity as to what the state’s obligations are towards the press, freedom of expression and society.
While the public inquiry established that journalistic sources and journalists were harassed at the behest of people in public office, it is very telling not to find any specific protection of journalistic sources in the prime minister’s draft. This becomes even more important as the government failed to provide any adequate mechanisms that would encourage whistle-blowers to report abuse internally.
Can one reasonably expect a government that resists freedom of information requests (FOIs) to really want to protect the freedom of the press?
On the other hand, the PN’s proposals do, in fact, safeguard source protection.
Given that the government refuses to provide information sought in FOIs, it becomes very important to state what the government’s obligation is in this regard. While an intelligent reading of the prime minister’s draft shows that it just adopts the status quo, the PN’s proposal reminds the state of its obligations.
The PN’s proposals recognises everyone’s right to claim from the state the promotion and protection of a free and independent press. The proposals also state that all citizens have the right to enjoy free and independent journalism. There is consequently a formal recognition that while journalists have their own freedom of expression, they also have an obligation that arises from their audience’s right to free expression.
This recognition empowers individuals and civil society to demand, for example, that the state refrains from interfering with journalism or indeed demands that PBS respects its remit of balance and due impartiality.
What I find incredible in all this is that the process that should lead to an important reform of journalism is being handled behind closed doors. Abela’s committee should fully and publicly consult with all journalists, not just its members.
The committee’s members should know that as journalism and democracy go together like horse and carriage (besides demanding a lot of courage not to bow to authority), so do democracy and the people. Consequently, the prime minister’s appointees must consult the public and other interested groups about these reforms. Journalism is for the people and of the people.
Unless the process of reform follows the same itinerary of the public inquiry, journalism risks betrayal, not a new dawn.
Backroom deals are not on.