Saviour Balzan | Wednesday, 09 December 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

How mediocre can we get?

Now imagine for just one minute: The Labour party or Partit Laburista decides to engage a writer to write the biography of Dom Mintoff.
The launch of the publication will be a big event with cameras at hand and the Borg Bonaci caterers in the wings; Dom Mintoff and friends as guest of honour; and then the usual tribulations and adulations best left to pocket dictators.
And of course, Joseph Muscat will praise Dom for his missionary role. And of course the whole event will be filmed live on One TV. After the publication of the book, a string of articles in the press about the interpretation of that event, the reportage of that incident and the quotes in chapter one to 15.
Of course, there would be the expected tirade against the sense of presenting history from a subjective writer and publisher.
So far so good! Now let us get back to the real world.
Last weekend the PN’s publishing arm launched a book about Eddie Fenech Adami. This is not the first time that a book from the PN about the quasi-Godlike former leader has been published.
But to have a publication from the political party that never once criticised or took to task the actions, words and decisions of Eddie Fenech Adami is a perfect example of how best to subscribe to mediocrity.
The only countries to write pages of exaltation and publish them as books are North Korea, Iran and Cuba, where the acceptance of a father figure is never questioned.
I am sure there are various extracts in the PN publication that are worth reading. But the same could be said for the book I once received from the former Albanian Communist party about their beloved leader, Enver Hoxha.
Such an exercise can never be translated into a historical and biographical account. Historical and biographical accounts need to be written by objective and independent writers.
Eddie Fenech Adami may have been to many, including myself, a kingpin in the democratisation of this country. But to many others he also definitely contributed to reaffirming the mediocrity in this country.
I have little or no time to catalogue a full list of his contributions in this respect, but a few pointers would be useful. The complete list of why Fenech Adami is a better politician can be found the book or any other newspaper or media.

The pointers are:
1) He stood by corrupt or shady politicians and did nothing to have them removed from the Nationalist party.
2) He favoured the nepotistic choice of partisan individuals in public companies and boards.
3) He ignored the need for an electoral law and party financing legislation.
4) He tolerated the influence of his personal assistant Richard Cachia Caruana in the running of his government, and believed the criminal Zeppi l-Hafi before the latter gave Queen’s evidence.
5) He chose his successor instead of allowing for a free choice with the PN councillors.
6) He allowed for the proliferation of political party stations.
7) He blocked any discussion on divorce.
8) He allowed Lawrence Gonzi to appoint him President.
9) He allowed for Mintoffian-styled subsidies to persist.
10) He allowed for the proliferation of cartels.
11) He destroyed any chance for third party politics in Malta.
12) He publicly rehabilitated criminals such as Ganni l-Pupa.
13) He allowed for widespread materialism and consumerism while at the same prescribing ‘Catholic values’.
14) State schools continued to be second-class venues for primary and secondary education.
15) Land use for major building projects continued to be generally unregulated.
16) He embraced businessmen who he had formerly lashed out for their allegiance to the Labour government.
17) He allowed violent policemen to remain in the police corps.
18) He failed to solve the murders of Karen Grech, Lino Cauchi and Raymond Caruana.

Eddie Fenech Adami said on the launch of his book that he was a cumulative result of the Maltese identity, or something to that effect. Rather self-centre.d I thought. in not realising how different Maltese society is to man who would find solace in the summer months by standing on the doorstep next to the ruckus in the ugly centre of Bugibba.
His successor Gonzi is very much in the same mould. But at least Eddie Fenech Adami has reason to be conservative. He is older and comes from a different generation. Gonzi does not.
In a complex younger society – where single parents are more than simply numerous, where separated couples are simply common, where the concept of the nuclear family no longer exists, where the middle class family can no longer make ends meet, where the real role of the Church is minor and where a new society exists with little interest in politics and politicians and where the woman’s role in society is still very peripheral – Eddie Fenech Adami is out of synch – Big time!
At 75 Eddie Fenech Adami cannot get himself to exit the political scene. So he continues to signal to his acolytes that he wants to be sounded out and more importantly, recognised for what he has done. Give us a break please.
In a island nation where the Labour leaders get lauded by Labour script writers and lambasted by the Nationalist bile machine, and vice versa, the real about these ‘great’ men will never be known.
I was an avid reader of biographies; the best biographies are those written by historians who have little or no links with the country. It is not very difficult to understand why.
A voluminous biography of the Fascist dictator Franco was written by a English author, and so was another one on Benito Mussolini. The Spanish and Italian historians who write about their dictators or rulers are usually taken to task for their prejudices or bias.
Yet the apparent acceptance – i.e., that it is rather normal to have a book about Eddie Fenech Adami originating from the same party that adulates him – is perhaps the best example of how mediocre we are as a country and as Maltese.
As the British Theatre director who had the script of his play censored said in today’s edition, we are living in a theocracy. Yes a theocracy.
When years back I militated in the pro-Europe movement IVA, the idea was to get us into Europe as quickly as is possible.
Many accused us then of being in IVA to improve our careers and get on to Brussels. Yes, they were right in some cases – such as in the case of the very ambitious Joanna Drake and the arrogant and partisan David Casa: they were the best examples of individuals who saw IVA as a stepping-stone to their political futures.
Unfortunately, the idea that European Union integration would lead to less interference from the State and less influence of the Church is not quite right.
This country may have an extremely modern set up, an impressive IT set up and banking system, but we have a government that still believes it should control people’s lives and beliefs; and that takes any criticism with complete contempt.
The State has its ways: it can for example appoint God-fearing folk to censorship boards, or cheer up the general public by officiating in grand style, for example in the opening of squares such as the one in Valletta in front of the Palace.
It can do better than use its janissaries on TVM, or mobilise distressed writers to foment untruths and spin. (The latest sham being that I am quitting my newspaper MaltaToday and flying off to Brussels!)
From a journalist’s viewpoint, I would rather see censorship removed, most especially from theatre, where the few dozens who attend performances are the least likely to be scandalised by scripts which illustrate God, or sex, or whatever other sacred cow in curious ways.
From a journalist’s viewpoint, it would be more pertinent for George Pullicino – the man who has a lot to answer for to explain something about the 1.2 million in direct orders under his stead. A good deal more pertinent than to have the opening of a square turned into a propaganda exercise and televised live on TVM.
What could be more mediocre?
Years ago we hid ourselves when the Labourites would act like cowboys. Now, it does not seem to be fashionable to question the likes of George Pullicino.
And while we are at it, perhaps it would have benen more helpful if the €177,000 spent on the celebrations to mark the opening of Palace Square were instead spent on upgrading small infrastructural projects i some local councils which don’t even have the money to operate. More so now, when most families have real serious problems paying for their school bills and medical expenses.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.