Times of Malta was recently involved in a project called Europe Talks, in which people passionate about certain issues were invited to have a conversation with someone on the other side of the debate. The pan-European event, steered by Germany’s Zeit Online, tackled topics that ranged from human rights to the pandemic.
It was a worthy exercise in civil dialogue, a small step towards wider recognition locally of the need for healthy discussion and debate at all levels of society.
On one level, dialogue is the lubricant of democracy and democratic decision-making. Whether it’s public consultation or parliamentary legislation, the quality of dialogue is reflected in how smoothly the democratic engine is running. Effective dialogue filters out the bad ideas and pushes the better ones through into good laws and policies.
In Malta, that engine has all but seized up. The Labour Party enjoys a hegemony of ideas through its large majority in parliament and its rubber-stamping backbenchers, its control of content on public broadcasting and its faux public consultations on what is usually a fait accompli.
The need for improved channels of social dialogue, to become much more responsive to fresh challenges, was shown up a few days ago in the disagreement between unions and employers on how to handle quarantine leave.
Then there is dialogue at the level of community, on the big, divisive issues of the day – in Malta they might include corruption, migration and abortion. On these and other topics, people here tend to not even listen to each other, let alone talk.
With corruption, for example, the highly political nature of the topic means it’s one side shouting and straining to be heard and the other mainly closing its ears.
With migration, discussion tends to be stifled by the prickliness of racism as an issue. On one side, racism has become almost part of the daily discourse, while the other side sometimes mischaracterises genuine contributions to the migration debate as racist. Both are conversation stoppers.
When it comes to abortion, any chance of a productive to and fro is blocked by absolutist views.
“Let me try and understand your values better” ‒ has anyone ever heard such a statement being uttered in the abortion debate?
On these and other pressing issues, it seems impossible to explore common ground as a basis for moving forward. These issues are pressing because large sections of society are deeply unhappy about the status quo.
That means their voice needs to be heard and something needs to be done. Stagnation is never healthy in a society that is constantly evolving and spawning new forces and realities.
The sheer size of the political, ideological or religious gulfs that exist present an enormous barrier to productive exchange of beliefs and ideas. Other factors too prevent honest dialogue: the unshakeable belief in the supremacy of one’s beliefs and values; the fear of losing face; the discomfort of having one’s worldview threatened; the peer pressure from one’s ‘team’; the ascription of bad motives to the other side; the desire to prove a narrative instead of seeking the truth.
Early last year, President George Vella made a valiant attempt to kickstart a national debate with his ‘Conference for National Unity’. His mistake was to appear to exclude ‘partisan politics’.
What he might have said was: “Leave your partisanship at the door and let’s have a conversation in which we try to understand one another better.”
This year, the next attempt at national dialogue must be braver. Dialogue is irrelevant if it excludes the burning issues that are crying out for discussion.