Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1487299
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 4 DECEMBER 2022 9 INTERVIEW was 'Mistra-gate' such a scandal: when there were so many worse things happening at the time; and even more so, today? And this is what I think has changed most, in the past 20 years. There has been a pro- gression – or a 'deterioration' - whereby even the most unac- ceptable levels of corruption and incompetence have since been normalized, and perpetuated. Basically: there isn't even the 'pretence of morality', anymore. And this is why I also agree with the Daphne Caruana Galizia in- quiry's conclusion. This same progression has 'enabled'… not just Daphne's murder, but also, the wholesale plunder of all our country's assets: in anything from public gardens, to public pro- curement, to shady contracts for roads, to money-laundering… for while similar things had always happened, in the past: it was nev- er anywhere near as 'in your face', as it has now become. Take Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, for example. Not only did they both screw this coun- try over, in the most 'in-your- face' imaginable… but they even bragged about it: almost as if to say, 'We're screwing you over; and we ENJOY screwing you over, too!' This brings up another aspect of your book's initial reception. Just like you yourself were triv- ialized, for pointing out the cor- ruption of the time: critics of Konrad Mizzi, Keith Schembri, Joseph Muscat, et all, were also derided by the Labour Party. And when these issues were raised in international fora – such as the European Parliament, for instance – the same critics were also labelled 'traitors'. How do you account for this kind of re- action, yourself? There are a few factors, there. One is the overall Maltese pro- pensity for servility. I myself am still shocked, at how political leaders such as Robert Abela, Jo- seph Muscat – and even nonen- tities like Michelle Muscat – are idolized by people, almost on the level of medieval 'barons'. It's the same servility that also manifests itself in an inability to ever accept criticism. Things are always kept internal; and whoever drags them out into the open, is 'the enemy'. Again, this is nothing new. It's just another example of, 'those who are not with us, are against us.' There is also, I think, an el- ement of 'lacking confidence, when reaching outwards'. If an ex-pat living in Malta criticises something on Facebook, for ex- ample… the first reaction is usu- ally: 'Oh, just fuck off! Go back to your country!', etc. And it ap- plies to migrants and refugees, as much as to wealthy foreigners renting apartments. Having said this: I don't think it's a uniquely Maltese phenom- enon. It tends to be a little more pronounced here; because we're so small, and people get so emo- tional about things, that even mi- nor issues tend to get blown out of proportion… There may, however, be some- thing 'uniquely Maltese' about it. The word 'traitor', for ex- ample, by definition implies a betrayal of one's country… and NOT merely of one's preferred political party. Yet in Malta, this distinction is rarely, if ev- er made. As someone who has lived and worked in places like Israel, and the Occupied Territo- ries – where (whatever other is- sues may exist) there is certainly a deep-rooted sense of 'patriot- ism', informing the conflict on both sides - what do you make of this total absence of 'patriot- ism', locally? For what it's worth: my own take is that it's is probably a lega- cy of our Colonial past; and also, ultimately, of a very nepotistic, very Mediterranean idea: i.e., that everybody need a 'patron'; some- one to 'look out for their inter- ests'; to 'cut corners for them'; to help them get what, sometimes, they are not even entitled to… and even to make them feel that they ARE actually entitled to it; because it's a 'luxury' that is be- ing afforded to them, in return for their unswerving loyalty and allegiance. As a result, we're focused less on 'what is ours by right'… and more on 'getting whatever we possibly can; whenever we can; whether we have a right to it, or not.' And while this is still by no means 'unique to Malta'; it is probably more pronounced here, because of the sheer magnitude of how the two-party system ac- tually affects our daily lives. Simply put: it results in a situ- ation of 'total loyalty to the par- ty', in all circumstances. Even if those parties 'do the unthink- able' – like, say, 'opening bank accounts in Panama' – the auto- matic reaction will be: 'Hey, but these people are helping us. Why should we turn against them?' And it trickles all the way down, even to the most mundane of things. I remember, for instance, that when my grandmother was in hospital, people would come to visit their own relatives bear- ing little 'gifts' for the nurses: oranges, chocolates, that sort of thing. Now: I'll admit that it seemed like a nice little gesture, at the time. But then, why were peo- ple doing that, anyway? Was it because they genuinely wanted to show those nurses their appre- ciation? Or was it because they wanted to ensure that they got the best treatment possible, for their own relatives… through a small 'bribe'? Obviously, I don't want to blow it out of proportion: but then, when these small bribes start to become 'expected'… the problem starts to grow. And it wasn't just 'nurses at hos- pital', by the way. The police are another example. I remember, from my childhood days, when the village policeman would be given, say, a 'sack of potatoes' every now and again. Again, it's a small thing… but that's also an 'investment'. As such, it shifts the focus from 'what is your right', to… well, what the Sicilans call, 'L'arte di arrangiarsi'. Which ob- viously, comes at the expense of the common good. And these things become much more visible, when you compare Malta to how other countries operate. I work for a Norwegian company – even if it has a glob- al presence: I'm actually based in Nairobi, Kenya – so I have visited Norway, and other Scandinavian countries, quite a lot recently. The difference you see is quite remarkable, really. The issue of 'what is right', for example, is simply not even up for discussion at all. Why do peo- ple [in those countries] pay taxes? Because it's part of 'what being a good citizen' is all about. Because it's what keeps their country go- ing, at the end of the day. And the results are visible even at a glance. Those countries have some of the best health services, and welfare services, in the world… We cannot achieve that here, until… well, until we change our culture completely, basically. Be- cause there is this sense of enti- tlement, which is not in any way linked with 'what is right'; And it's devastating, for the country's assets, its coffers… and what little is left of its countryside. Are you hopeful that this sort of 'cultural' change can actu- ally happen, though? After all, even the title 'Taht Il-Kappa Tax-Xemx' implies that things are, up to a point, condemned to remain the same forever. Is that part of the point you were trying to make 20 years ago? And if so: do you still feel that way now? To be fair, there is a lot more of a critical approach, today, than there ever was 20 years ago. People are less willing to 'accept everything', nowadays; we see this, even in how NGOs like Moviment Graffiti are per- ceived. Twenty years ago, Graf- fitti – and all environmentalists groups, actually - were regarded as… well, 'loonies', basically. But now, I think most people can see that they've been vindicated, in pretty much everything they stood for… Today, however, there is an- other 'problem', so to speak. There is this perception that, for instance, we have done so much 'damage', over the years – not just to our environment; but also to our institutions– that, quite frankly, there isn't even all that much left to even 'save', an- ymore. That it's a lost cause… But that would be a totally de- featist attitude to take. And yes: it's true that this takes us back to 'Taht il-Kappa Tax-Xemx': and that, if there really is 'nothing new under the sun', things can only be expected to just keep re- peating themselves, indefinitely. To me, however, it is more of an 'existential' question, than a defeatist one. And I would say the answer lies in Albert Camus' 'The Myth of Sisyphus'. You have to keep going; keep fight- ing; because otherwise, you will only end up being enslaved by the very things that you detest…