One of the questions I get asked most frequently by readers is: ‘what do we do now?’
This question always comes up whenever I talk about the ongoing fascist takeover of both national and global institutions.
The summary version of the answer is ‘switch to zero tolerance mode.’
In practice, this is difficult to achieve. After all, how can one stop tolerating a government that one depends on for basic services? How can citizens fight back against a centralised power that seems to hold all the cards? How does one deal with reformists and career politicians who promise radical change but fail to deliver it?
These are valid questions. The point of this column is to answer them in more detail, beyond providing the general outline I’ve spoken about so far in previous articles.
After all, being intolerant of fascist behaviour is fairly straightforward. It starts with shedding all deference and respect towards an adversary that lacks a conscience and does not operate within the same parameters.
The second part of that process is the most challenging one: organising to fight back.
Let’s examine the local landscape for a bit. Given the proportionate level of commotion about it, the best example that is available to us is the backlash that swiftly followed the government’s proposed legislative amendments for magisterial inquiries.
Yesterday, five of Malta’s leading NGOs published a letter sent to the European Parliament’s Socialists & Democrats (S&D) group.
The statement directly countered misinformation that was being spread by the S&D group, an extension of the Maltese government’s ongoing campaign to abolish private citizens’ right to request a magisterial inquiry.
This was only the latest in an avalanche of statements made by NGOs, politicians, and legal experts.
On Saturday, over a dozen such individuals published a statement calling for the suspension of the government’s “reform” and urged the government to hold a public consultation – a call which was flatly refused by justice minister Jonathan Attard.
Within the past two months, NGOs also reached out to European leadership directly and organised a protest in Valletta calling for the legislative amendments to be scrapped. Separately, the Chamber of Advocates, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber of SMEs all criticised the proposed amendments to varying degrees.
The opposition has also invested significant political capital in taking the government to task about the proposed changes, pledging to reverse the changes if it manages to clinch enough votes in the next general elections.
In spite of this wide-ranging outcry, the government refuses to budge.
This is where the ‘stop appealing, start organising’ approach comes into play.
While the statements cited in this analysis vary greatly in terms of how severe each entity’s assessment of the situation is, the fact is that they are ineffective.
I hasten to add that this did not occur through some great fault on the part of the authors. Every statement I cited was written in pretty unequivocal terms, even those authored by business fora whose stances are typically far less radical than NGOs.
The error lies in framing the whole statement as an appeal to authorities that are either ignoring the severity of the situation or actively complicit in making it so.
The other problem is fragmentation, a long-standing issue within Maltese civil society.
While collaboration between civil society groups seems to be slowly improving over the years, the reality is that all these statements overlapping each other could have easily been condensed into one, solid text that is endorsed by everyone.
This doesn’t happen because most organisations prioritise their own narrow agenda above the pursuit of an overarching goal that everyone must get behind: defying the government.
Which brings us to the second part of this column.
Pulling off a feat as daunting as successfully setting up an anti-corruption coalition in a mafia state as hostile as Malta is just about as fun and enjoyable as it sounds.
It is messy, complicated work that involves factoring in dozens of varying opinions and ideas on how to best approach it.
Bridge-builders with the patience of a Starmerite are at their most useful for internal diplomacy rather than as front-facing representatives trying to sway the government during negotiations.
This website is of the firm view that the only viable approach is avoiding wasting any time on fruitless appeals to political and national authorities and focusing solely on becoming better organised.
This is the first step that must precede anything else. Any coalition that pauses vital grassroots work to write an angry letter is no coalition at all. At best, such correspondence should be a mere formality that is immediately followed up by action.
One entity cannot convincingly fight back against an entire government. Not even a handful of NGOs can do that together. In such circumstances, going it alone means bearing the brunt of the retaliation which will inevitably head your way.
That’s why an anti-corruption coalition is the only realistic solution.
This would involve bringing together all the individuals and entities who have rightfully voiced their concerns about the government’s legal amendments.
A clear separation of interests must occur. Elected representatives obviously have no place in a movement that would exist solely to hold them accountable.
Such a forum would need to be composed solely of civil society organisations and their members. If elected representatives and/or political candidates wish to participate, they should create a forum of their own. Politicians have their own platforms, and should keep themselves at a distance from platforms that are yet to be built.
The whole point of creating this coalition would be to level the playing field against a government that constantly abuses its position to sway the electorate in its favour. To fight a machine, one must create a machine of their own.
As sparse, isolated entities, the government is free to ignore all of us.
If everyone rallies behind bringing down the Labour government during the next general elections, we may have a shot in hell of making it through this mess.