Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1356256
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 28 MARCH 2021 OPINION LAST Saturday, we witnessed some of the most high-profile arraignments that this country has seen in recent years. Schadenfreude, that is, the German expression for "relishing in someone else's suffering" is not exactly a healthy or plausible emotion, but I think it's un- deniable that on Saturday, a great deal of citizens felt something close to that. A victory of sorts, though a very bitter- sweet one. Because it confirms some of the horrific stories and accusations that have been going on these last couple of years. It is also noteworthy to say that this is relatively one of the 'less serious' of accusations (and we're talking of graft and a €650,000 kickback!). Which just goes to show the great depth of cases of corruption and financial crime that we have been dealing with. Of course, this case – as Joseph Muscat was quick to remind us, as if that absolves him of all that went on under his tenure – dates back to the pre-2013 Labour electoral victory. What is even the point of such a statement? Does it mean to imply that, since then, all has been rosy? Slowly but (hopefully) surely, we'll get to unravel what's in store in those cases that hap- pened under his nose. I want to reflect on the reactions of what the party apparatchiks, in this case, the Labour-leaning ones. The es- sence of the point I will make can un- doubtedly be stretched to the PN (that is the tragedy of it all), yet in this his- torical moment, since we're focusing on what happened last Saturday, it's the Labour apparatchiks that need reflect- ing on. Since 2013, Joseph Muscat and his 'army' have created an almost un- stoppable powerful media. They've out- smarted the PN in their use of media, television, social media, branding exer- cises, presentation, political aesthetic, discourse, etc… creating essentially a political monster. We see one manifestation of such ap- paratchiks in the use of internet trolls where it's difficult not to suspect that, in this case, the Labour party employs – literally or otherwise – a set of trolls whose sole purpose is to deviate polit- ical discussions from the truth. Their role is the opposite of clarification: to confuse, dismiss, and propound half- truths. This results in basically putting us one step farther from achieving a truth. All this for the sake of defending their favourite party and toeing the par- ty line. I am honestly intrigued by the psychology of such apparatchiks, not because these people do this because they're evil, but to the contrary they're uninterestingly ordinary. It seems that such apparatchiks internalize the narra- tives being put forward by their party. A classic example of this is the so- called 'empty file boxes' of Simon Busuttil – the same 'empty files' that stimulated this whole inquiry, and ul- timately led to Keith Schembri, Brian Tonna et al. being refused bail. The level of absurdity that these party nar- ratives sometimes took in these last couple of years is hilarious, were it not so sad and consequential on democratic debate and politics. We see this absurd- ity every time we encounter these short, quick-fire stock phrases and replies that are bandied about in response to any sort of political critique, in an attempt to undermine or throw dirt either on the speaker or the spoken critique. We see this happening, until this day, on allegations surrounding Caruana Galizia's murder – 'why wasn't the car parked?', 'why wasn't the dog barking?', 'where is her laptop?' – these absurd counter-accusations that pretend that they are as worthy as the original accu- sation, or as somehow diluting the seri- ousness of the crimes being interrogat- ed. This is a failure of political debate and, at some level, of ethics. We saw this happening too in re- sponse to any sort of inquiry or inves- tigation undertaken. The apparatchiks say things like: 'Ah, these accusations are nonsense – why don't you look at what your party has done?'; then, once an inquiry is announced, 'Ah, we have to wait until the inquiry is over – we can't jump to conclusions, nor attempt any critical analysis'; then, once the inquiry conclusions are out, 'Ah, the inquiry is nonsense anyway; the inquiry does not prove any crime'; then, once bail is refused, 'Ah, the courts are abusing of their power in dealing with bail'; or, even, 'No matter what, Keith we are be- hind you.' I mean… Not to mention the infamous 'fejn kontu meta…?' ('where were you when…') which, although may feel good as a Facebook tirade, hardly holds any water. Another such apparatchik coun- ter-narrative was the dismissal or dis- crediting of 'civil society' as a concept. I've written in the past on the unfor- tunate consequences that can follow when one ideological camp, with clear past and/or present partisan associ- ations, speak in such a way that they present themselves as the ultimate spokespersons of civil society, reveal- ing in the process their lack of under- standing of what a heterogeneous civil society is. But, on the other hand, time and time again, we've seen people – in- cluding people who should know better, academics, members of the intelligent- sia, artists and so on – who would say that any civil society activity (because there was a plurality of them) somehow, by association, gets tarnished, arguing that there's no reason to attend protests or voice your opinion, lest you be asso- ciated with the 'other side'. A harmful mentality of 'ma npaxxuhomx' – a kind of 'let's not give some advantage to the other side by, you know, attempting to speak the truth and be critical'. The funny (though predictable) thing is that, slowly, we are starting to see – and we have seen it happening espe- cially since late 2019 – some of these 'agents' distancing themselves in some way, not by admitting that they were mistaken (that is one of the things that is absolutely not done in the current political landscape, a kind of machis- mo of never revealing any vulnerabili- ty that might hint to your having been mistake or fallible). But, for example, by saying that they had always expressed some reservation on that 'gang' within the Labour party. Or 'ah, but the entire Labour party is not equivalent to these gang, and it would be a pity to attack the party because of these people'. And, in so doing, effectively reinforcing and leaving in place the current hegemo- ny and problematic politicians. This is what ultimately enabled Kasco et al to become so strong and seemingly un- touchable. It is also no wonder that so many people – including, again, people who should know better – have been so awk- ward in dealing with these accusations of corruption. Or, pathetically, going to the extreme of saying things like 'it's a pity that these things have happened under Muscat'. A pity not because they reveal the systemic failings of the Labour administration, but because these actions 'tarnish the many good things that Leader Muscat has done'. A cringe-worthy servilism and a castra- tion of one's critical mind. Apparatchiks and problems of democracy Dr Kurt Borg is a lecturer in the Department of Education Studies at the University of Malta Kurt Borg