The initial decision by the PBS board not to broadcast the four-part documentary series on former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff was bizarre. Fortunately, a rethink appears to have taken place.

The figure of Dom Mintoff is no stranger to controversy. Mintoff governed during some of the most tumultuous times in Maltese history.

He was a convinced Fabian Socialist committed to the national cause and revolutionised Malta’s social sector. ‘Malta, first and foremost’ became his rallying cry. He championed the working classes and became an icon for the Labour faithful. He remains so till this day, more than 10 years after his death.

Yet, Mintoff was also responsible for ushering in a dark period in Maltese history. His rhetoric was often provocative, vulgar and inflammatory. He could be both charming and ill-mannered but was often antagonistic and rude even to those closest to him. Moreover, he did not shy away from fighting battles with the great mammoths of his period – the Church and the Empire – ostensibly for the country’s benefit.

However, he barely flinched when those around him engaged in violent behaviour towards those who disagreed with him. The premises of this newspaper were burned to the ground on October 15, 1979 for calling out his erratic behaviour. Rather than recoil in horror, his supporters cheered him on.

So far, there have been some attempts at biographical analysis. Two stand out. The 2012 biopic Dear Dom was praised and criticised in equal measure. Mark Montebello’s biography was welcomed by some as an attempt to size up the man. Yet, his family and the Labour Party distanced themselves from the book once the more salacious details of its contents became known.

All efforts to portray Mintoff seem to oscillate between adoration and scorn. Anyone who attempts to pursue a middle ground is accused of being partisan, depending on whether one is praising or critically analysing his behaviour.

Following an outcry about its decision, PBS will now air the Mintoff documentary alongside one about former prime minister George Borg Olivier. This decision too has an element of the bizarre: the principle of balance in broadcasting was meant to address present-day controversies not historical ones.

If it is bias that PBS is worried about, it should start by looking at its news bulletin, which is unashamedly partisan in content. Next, it should look at the appalling treatment and ostracisation of several journalists and production houses who do not sing the government’s praises.

This decision does not respect viewers’ intelligence. The production house involved in this documentary is no novice to such productions; so far, it always seems to have produced content of the highest calibre. Should we not allow the public to make up its mind over whether the documentary is balanced?

Most importantly, researchers and producers, academics and students may now be discouraged from pursuing their research of thorny political issues. Who would dare look at such subjects knowing their work might be cancelled at a moment’s notice or held back until another programme is found to ‘balance’ their own?

Balance is not achieved by having a similar documentary on a figure from the opposite side of the political spectrum but by dispassionately approaching the subject, presenting the person with warts and all. Balance is achieved by removing red- and blue-tinted glasses; it requires maturity and an open mind.

Sadly, this decision by the PBS board achieves none of the above. Instead, it continues to treat the figure of Mintoff as a demi-god who should only be discussed if one side is not unduly upset.

We deserve better from our public broadcaster.