The dramatist and novelist Francis Ebejer wrote his short book ‘The Bilingual Writer as Janus’ in 1989. He described the ‘literary schizophrenia’ of a bilingual writer working in two languages, Maltese and English.
Like dual-faced images of the Roman god Janus, he explained that, in Malta, we can “look in opposite directions at one and the same time”. Ebejer suggested that finding the middle ground was possible and could bring us to know ourselves better.
Bilingualism is not the only Janus-like feature in Malta, looking in different directions simultaneously. It pervades other areas. Environmental activism, for example, takes a dual approach towards politicians. It rejects them and reaches out to them, at the same time.
Environmental NGOs occupy a grey space in the political sphere. They are outside mainstream politics, yet work within its structures. They reject politics, yet formally participate in activities which are essentially political, such as the drafting of national policies.
They strive to be non-partisan, yet much of what they say is readily (and often unfairly) taken to be part of the game of partisan politics.
Politicians were specifically excluded from the national environmental rally held in Valletta in September, as though they are not players (or are perhaps opponents) in environmental concerns.
In an odd move, politicians who wanted to support the rally and its cause were rebuffed.
On the other hand, politicians (which includes local councillors, elected on party tickets) are now being called upon to support activism against the expansion of the American University of Malta buildings in Cospicua.
They have been requested to show their “direct, immediate and public support”.
The activist group ‘Tuna Artna Lura’ (give us back our land) which is opposing the AUM expansion, is led by Joseph Tonna and others.
They want to reach beyond partisan politics, but clearly recognise that the engagement and persuasion of politicians is essential to their cause. Their protest is justified and they deserve support.
Paths in opposing directions are also followed by politicians who run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. They may court the green lobby, yet openly cosy up to developers who have thrown Malta’s urban heritage and countryside out to the four winds.
The government had promised to tackle environmental degradation, but instead it is enabling havoc to be wreaked on our urban and rural spaces.
Successful arguments for social change must appeal to people’s existing values and ways of thinking. Activists are unlikely to change entire mindsets with calls for high ideals, and must address everyday things that are important to people.
Residents are up in arms at the insensitive destruction of their neighbourhoods, and the number of grass roots activist groups is on the rise.
Such groups can sometimes create effective campaigns because they speak the language of ordinary residents, not the language of environmentalists.
Worthy as it may be, invoking moral righteousness has little widespread appeal. It is possibly more likely to entrench fixed opinions on sensitive issues than to change them.
In the environmental front trenches, big ideas like ‘sustainability’ and ‘conservation’, or even ‘heritage’ and ‘identity’, do not change minds directly in public campaigns. I often use these terms. But that is not the language of change.
Creating ‘Brand Malta’
People are upset when their urban spaces are destroyed because they are connected to their sense of identity, their heritage and legacy.
Politics also leaves a legacy. It is impossible to say how future generations will look back at this time. What reputation, what image or lesson, will emerge? Identity is the way that we think about ourselves, while reputation is the way that others see us.
Joseph Muscat has led the shift to the current Brand Malta, and he answers for its successes as well as its failures
In this globalised world, countries are increasingly aware of their reputation. The image of a nation becomes its ‘brand’, something that people can connect with emotionally. In the UK in the 1990s, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, ‘Cool Britannia’ was the catch phrase.
Blair also rebranded his party as ‘New Labour’. To some extent, Joseph Muscat also did this with the Malta Labour Party before the 2013 election, turning the MLP into the PL with a new logo and suffused with the dream of a ‘movement’.
The Nationalist Party should take a hard look in the mirror, too, as it is in serious need of rebranding and revamping its image. Consumers buy into seductive brands when making a purchase. Their emotions come into play. This also happens when they make political decisions, choose political parties and vote. They buy into an idea, a reputation and a brand.
The reputations of many countries are shaped by some kind of cultural stereotype or branding. Malta once projected an image of a small Mediterranean nation, deeply Catholic and relatively conservative and quiet. None of that applies today.
‘Nation branding’ is an important tool of public diplomacy. A good ‘brand’ can boost the economy and also has political implications. Successful politicians on the world stage act like brand managers, engaging in marketing and creating an image for their country. They must think about customer satisfaction and try to create brand loyalty.
What is Malta’s ‘brand’ today? Events that make it into the international news play an important part in shaping it. So does the state of the environment. Deciding where to live, invest or go on holiday is influenced by all of this. Unfortunately, the events of the last few years have damaged Malta’s reputation.
When the revelations of the Panama Papers were first published, for example, it was immediately evident that Joseph Muscat’s chief of staff Keith Schembri and Minister Konrad Mizzi had become an albatross hanging around Muscat’s neck.
But he did not cut the albatross away then, and for over two years it has grown heavier and heavier. At first, Muscat seemed to be coated in some kind of Teflon, on which nothing sticks. But things do catch up eventually. Questions cannot remain unanswered forever, as Keith Schembri may eventually discover.
There is also a political legacy to think of. Living memory fades, and actions speak louder than temporary soundbites.
Tu quoque responses and other flawed statements are soon forgotten and will not pull the wool over the eyes of the future.
Muscat blames activists and opposing MPs for damaging Malta’s reputation, but he has nourished this outrage with a stream of dubious actions and unsatisfactory explanations. He has led the shift to the current Brand Malta, and he answers for its successes as well as its failures.