Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1463655
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 APRIL 2022 8 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt Politics is both a science, The University is advertising courses to "empower students to take up leadership positions in public, private and voluntary organisations, by developing cutting-edge competences in policy-making, politics and gov- ernance." Already it can be seen that 'politics' means something slightly more than its every- day use implies. But how can a subject that is so vast, even be 'taught' in the traditional sense at all? First of all, politics is, as you say, a vast subject. It covers not just the political administration of the particular country – or of the international political arena as a whole: because we are now living in an interconnected 'global vil- lage' – but also all other aspects of public policy, and public life. In fact, 'politics' and 'policy' mean more or less the same thing. The Maltese language nails this better than English, because – like Italian – it uses the same word, 'politika', for both. In Mal- tese we say, 'il-politika tal-edu- kazzjoni' [education policy]; or 'tal-economija', or 'tas-sahha'; and so on. So it refers both to the 'ideological' standpoint, as well as to the 'policy' standpoint. Unfortunately, however, when people think or speak about pol- itics in more everyday terms… they tend to refer only to the 'partisan' sense. And this is some- thing we are on a mission to ad- dress. We want to democratize political science; because politics is both a science, and an art. The policy-making element, for instance, is purely scientific. There is a methodology for how to identify a socio-economic problem; then, how to formulate options to address that problem; and then you need mechanisms to identify which options offer the best results, and so on. On top of that you also need project management, to im- plement the policy; evaluation techniques, to assess whether it is actually working or not… but that is all part of the scientific methodology. There is also the 'art' side: which consists of how to influence people; how to influ- ence the national agenda; how to build a common vision, in a so- ciety that is becoming more and more individualistic. So in our department, there is a lot emphasis on the sociological fabric of the society we live in – not just in Malta, but globally – and we also look at specific issues such as the political economy; the rule of law, and all the legislative aspects; and also good govern- ance, and ethical leadership… because it's more harmful to have graduates who know the tech- niques, and the science behind the techniques; but then, do not have a moral compass to decipher right from wrong. Those are the ones who can use those techniques to their own advantage, instead of for the common good. But that's what I meant by the question. I can understand how the purely scientific side of public policy can be taught at University. Can you really teach people to have a 'moral com- pass', though? Yes, certainly… by debating. It is critical thinking that is most lacking here: our schooling sys- tem simply does not encourage us to debate enough, or to chal- lenge our own precepts. People are not taught how to think out- side their own box. For example: our own approach is trans-disciplinary, so in our courses we offer some units from the Edward Debono [Lateral Thinking] Institute. It's all about putting yourself in the shoes of others. So when giving my students an assignment – for instance, to read a political biography – I will try to challenge them: if they are from a Nationalist background, I will ask them to read Lino Spi- teri; or Anton Buttigieg; or Alfred Sant. If Labour: Ugo Mifsud Bon- nici, or Guido de Marco's 'Poli- tics of Persuasion'… and so many others. And it's a marvellous experi- ment, I would say: because peo- ple end up realizing how much they actually have in common. Unfortunately, however, there is a problem today. Because these technological devices [indicating his laptop] that were supposedly designed to 'open us up to the world', seem to be having the op- posite effect. What we are seeing is that they are 'closing our stu- dents into a world of their own'. For example, I was recently in a class of about 50 students, and I showed them a slide of Emma- nuel Macron. Out of 50 students, only around five knew who he was. So if the rest don't even rec- ognise Macron's face: how can I introduce them to his politics? That does sound shocking: but it might tell us more about their lack of interest in current affairs, than about digital technology it- self… Well… most people today get their news only from the head- lines that they occasionally see on Facebook or Twitter: and even then, often without clicking the link. To be fair, however: it's not ALL students who do that, naturally…. And it's not JUST students, ei- ther. Part of the problem with social media – which I imagine is particularly relevant, to Mal- tese politics – is that your scope of vision is limited to the things you 'like', and therefore want to see anyway. Are you suggesting that this may be contributing to the disengagement we seem to be seeing in politics today? It seems to be part of it: in the sense that it makes it harder, and not easier, to 'think outside the box'; or to 'put yourself in the shoes of others'. University degrees in 'Political Science' may appear excessive, in a country where everybody already seems to be an expert anyway. But as Prof. MARIO THOMAS VASSALLO, of UoM's Department of Public Policy, points out: 'politics' is about more than just an election every five years