What a difference an audience makes. Compare the behaviour of the two main political leaders during last week’s rowdy university debate with their general demeanour at the two encounters held this week by business chambers.
The lines of questioning and the audiences between last week’s and this week’s events were poles apart. Still, both Prime Minister Robert Abela and Opposition leader Bernard Grech seemed quite happy to allow the debate at the university – which, as the moderator rightly pointed out repeatedly, is the country’s highest educational institution – take the form of a political event in one of their strongholds. In this case it resembled a ‘red district’.
Expressing approval or disapproval is, of course, par for the course. What is heart-wrenching, though, is the missed opportunity for the two main political leaders to be grilled on matters of substance.
University students the world over and throughout history are known for their activism and critical thinking, often forcing social change by their youthful idealism and genuine desire to make the world a better place.
Yet, such free thinking and political vision were largely absent at the university debate. Only once were the words ‘free thought’, ‘criticism’, ‘analysis’ and ‘discussion’ uttered throughout the nearly three-hour long debate. They were mentioned by Grech when replying to a question about education, especially at tertiary level.
The questions asked and the manner in which the audience reacted encouraged the PL and PN leaders to play to the gallery. It is ironic that university students feel free to speak their mind and make critical comments in graduation speeches but are so subdued when in a position to bombard the political leaders with uncomfortable questions. The university students present preferred to take it lightly and partisanship, sadly, won the day. The failure to have a meaningful debate worthy of the institution suited the two political leaders fine.
This was a sorry example of the extent to which our education system is failing the country. Abela and Grech were supposedly addressing tomorrow’s leaders, the thinkers that would come up with new and exciting visions for the country, the planners of the future. But while the two leaders had their eye on votes, the students appeared more interested in what-is-there-for-me, rather than for the country.
From this, one can only conclude that tomorrow’s leaders do not promise to be any better than today’s crop.
In sharp contrast, the event organised by the two business chambers had mature audiences in more senses than one. The questions put to the two leaders from the floor were pertinent, seeking concrete answers, although the leaders were often far from eloquent or concrete in their replies.
One question in particular, asked in both chamber events, put both of them on the spot. In essence they were asked: how can you be making so many extravagant promises when the world around us is falling apart, what with the COVID fallout, the war in Ukraine and an explosive situation down south, in Libya?
The replies were more rhetoric, revolving around hopes of future growth unqualified by the realities of the present. It is an answer we have been hearing for the past weeks and months. This time, however, there were no university students to applaud or boo.
The subdued applause of the businessmen present very much represented the feeling of that section of the electorate that relies on what their mind tells them, rather than their heart, when casting their vote.