If republics could take out a life insurance policy, how would Malta’s case be judged? The republic turns 50 tomorrow. In human years, that’s midlife; in dog years, it’s like being Noah. As far as republics go, it’s like being 25 (according to one measure).
But we live in turbulent times. People are raising questions about the durability of the current dispensations in the US, France and Germany. An insurer would want to look more closely at a 25-year-old’s driving history and pre-existing health conditions.
If the insurer didn’t know Maltese, they might be alarmed at the government’s slogan. A literal, but careless, translation of L-Istorja Int is “You’re history”, which has a doom laden meaning in English. The slogan is, of course, a rip-off from Joseph Muscat’s Tagħna Lkoll slogan of 2013, which urged voters to become “protagonists” in the making of history.
For understandable reasons, this government didn’t want to be seen as echoing the snake oil merchant who promised political participation while leading a government that enabled suppression of information, repression of journalists, centralisation of decision-making, fraying of rule of law and the biggest steals in the republic’s history.
But, in yet another symptom of how the government can’t leave Muscat’s legacy behind, it adopted a rewording of the slogan, while giving it the resonance, for older citizens, of the celebrated RAI documentary, La Storia Siamo Noi.
All of this would be lost on a hard-nosed insurer, who is interested in the numbers that track health and risks. When it comes to weighting the factors for a republic’s life policy, three matter more than others.
First, are we a republic capable of looking history in the eye? Realism says a lot about chances of survival. But the way this anniversary has been advertised displays some denial of historic reality.
The adverts have built up the anniversary as though it’s the most important constitutional development in Malta’s modern history. We’ve been told it’s the event that gave us, as Maltese, “our identity” that “distinguishes us” from everyone else.
It’s an interesting change of mind from the same politicians who, only a few years ago, were part of a government looking forward to ushering in a “second Republic”, as though the one we have is seriously defective.
More than that, however, it shows historical illiteracy or, worse, a distortion of history.
Are we a republic capable of looking history in the eye?
Malta already had a distinctive identity prior to independence in 1964. It was the legal basis for demanding self-determination.
It should also be obvious that the republic couldn’t have been ushered in without the powers won at independence, which remains the most important development in our modern history. And, yet, this year, on its 60th anniversary, independence wasn’t marked with a fraction of the fanfare with which the republic’s anniversary is being marked this month.
Such denial matters to an insurer working out a life policy. When a republic’s leaders deny the obvious, so as not to concede an inch of merit to their political adversaries, it suggests that partisanship wins over truth even when it shouldn’t matter.
That’s a sign of a lack of political cohesion and statesmanship that could put a republic’s life at greater risk.
Second, no republic can enable its citizens to be history-makers if the citizens don’t know what’s going on. How can they steer wisely or change course prudently?
But our insurer will find that freedom of information is respected only in the breach. The authorities will fight a request for information every step of the way, treating watchdogs – those of the state as well as journalists – like the enemy. And when, finally, the information must be given up, the chances are the file will be discovered to have been lost.
Malta’s insurer will find that we are often driving blind or without headlights.
Third, the more robust republics are those that maximise the scope for self-correction. De-centralisation of power, giving broad space for civil society initiatives, is one reason why the US has had only one republic in 250 years, while France had five in as much time.
In Malta, we’re seeing the dispersal of power being rolled back. Increasingly, more decisions are taken (formally or informally) in Castille. Worse, power has become more personalised, with each ministry a personal fiefdom.
When a minister is caught breaking the rules, or worse, it’s not what’s right that decides the issue. It’s what the prime minister thinks he can get away with. It all comes down to the ebb and flow of the political tide.
It is political might that decides, not accountability. Which is another way of saying that politicians are behaving like overlords, not public servants.
Again, all this matters for an insurer seeking to rate the republic’s health. Real democracies are more robust. They register minor ailments and health crises earlier. They self-correct. They’re more ready to change.
Oligarchies and autocracies might be tougher and more resolute in the short run. But because they’re able to muscle their way through any crisis, they think they can tough anything out. Until, in the space of a few days, they just disappear. Like the Assad regime in Syria.
The way things look now, our republic’s life policy will have to reflect our pre-existing health conditions: a body politic suffering from unattended fractures; no tracking of our vital signs; and lack of self control.
Can it be fixed? Yes, with exercise. There’s nothing like the daily exercise of democratic and constitutional rights to make the republic healthy again.