The dominant idea in Maltese debate, politics and current affairs: “My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”
Published:
February 5, 2014 at 9:06am
That’s the fundamental problem, isn’t it? “My/his/her/our/their ignorance is just as good as your/their/his/her knowledge” is the unspoken belief which now underpins most discussion in Malta, whether televised, printed, broadcast on radio, or spoken in conversation.
It is the thinking, if you can call it that, which underpins the peevish assertion “But I have a right to my opinion.” Of course you have a right to your opinion. It’s not your right to an opinion that’s being questioned. It’s that opinion itself.
8 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Spot on. Or, even worse, in some cases it’s closer to ‘my ignorance is better than your knowledge because we’re in power and it’s our turn now’.
I’ve often thought that Joseph Muscat must be an admirer of Vladimir Putin and now I am convinced that he subscribes fully to the Russian President’s philosophy of elected autocracy.
Its disciples would claim that it is a democratic process, but it is not, simply because it is not based on the principle of pluralism.
It does involve winning elections, often convincingly, and it also requires that there is an organised opposition, since this gives a semblance of legitimacy to the political contest. In reality, however, it is all a sham.
Its main ingredients are a ruthless coterie of decision-makers, many of whom may not actually be in the limelight at all, with the addition of a gullible and/or mercenary population. Unfortunately we have many of both in Malta.
The gullible tend to have the attention span of a goldfish and they approach politics the way they approach the garbage reality TV to which they are addicted. There is no analysis, just absorption of meaningless sound bites.
Policy is just a word to describe the fad of the moment. This is the vast multitude of people (including a number who vote PN) who do not think that there is anything wrong with sweeping away a cadre of capable people simply because there is a change in government.
It does not occur to them that many of those getting senior jobs under Labour did not get those jobs in the past not because they are Labour supporters, but simply because they were not capable.
The Putin method is to counter every word of criticism with the accusation of negativity. This slowly, but surely, squeezes the space within which debate can be healthily engaged in. It isolates the Opposition and plays on the weariness of a population that only wants money in its pocket and doesn’t want to have to think about how it got there.
That’s why many would consider the citizenship scheme a stroke of genius; that’s why they would reason that the PN is against it just because they didn’t think of it themselves.
There is, of course, the fear that the gullible cannot necessarily be counted on all of the time, primarily because they tend to be fickle in their loyalties and will switch allegiance if they perceive a slight, especially if they consider it to be directed at them personally.
This means that this group needs to be bolstered by a few soldiers of fortune whose commitment can be bought or co-opted. Generally these would be interest groups whose focus is sufficiently narrow as to be able to appease them with a few token measures.
It may be individuals who may be able to influence others and who are softened by the allure of sinecures or treasure, in the form of lucrative salaries.
This approach creates a critical mass which is very difficult to dislodge, because its own fate becomes intertwined with that of the “movement” to an extent that its members have too much at stake to be overly critical of the hand that feeds them.
This, in brief, is how Mr. Putin is guaranteed to win any election in which he runs; he doesn’t even need to rig the polls, because enough people will always vote for him. Mr. Muscat seems to be taking more than just a leaf out of this book: we will continue to see the Opposition edged into a corner, out-witted by a cunning (not necessarily clever) and ruthless adversary.
As I’ve commented before, I do fear that the only path available to the Nationalist Party will be to out-Labour Labour. I also know that many believe that it’s got to be an eye for an eye when so much is at stake, but I still cling desperately to the hope that, as in the past, the Nationalist Party can come up with a new rallying cry with which to win over enough of the electorate.
That though, may take too long: even when it was advocating Independence, freedom from Mintoff’s brand of radical socialism and then EU membership, the PN could not command a huge majority, mainly because it does not pander to the baser instincts of the electorate.
Make no mistake: the Nationalist Party has had its fair share of nepotism and white elephants, but it has a far less dependable core of diehard voters. This plays into the Putin scenario, one that his disciple Muscat is clearly putting into practice.
People need to learn that their right to an opinion does not make it valid.
Xarabank. Ho. Hey. Ho.
Facebook and comment boards (of blogs and newspapers) is only worsening the situation. It gives people the false impression that their opinion is valuable, intelligent and right.
I liken the situation to going in a public place and everybody is shouting his opinion even though nobody asked for it.
Like “ghidut ghand tal-grocer” wrong opinions spread like wildfire. People repeat what they hear ad nauseam until they convince themselves that what they heard is right and truthful. And because “everybody” is saying it, therefore it can’t be wrong.
When people have access to more knowledge and have means to discuss their opinions, people are supposed to sustain and improve their intellect. But the opposite is happening. The more people repeat what they hear/read, they lazier they are becoming. Facebook and comment boards becomes a source of quotes and a medium to show off and the thinking process is simply bypassed.
People do not think because others do the thinking for them. People are happy to repeat what somebody say and take ownership of that thought or opinion no matter if it’s right, wrong or truthful.
To a certain extent this phenomenon won PL the election. The glitzy billboard and fancy adverts were simply reinforcing what was happening on the internet for months.
Everyone has an opinion on everything and anything. What is worrying is that there are those (a lot and from every sphere) who believe that having an opinion makes them an authority on each and every subject. What I feel and think is altogether different to what is true and right.
But that’s what we were fed by Lou and Peppi.
Our broadcasting so-called gurus insisted on using their interviewee’s Christian names even with cabinet ministers and union leaders: “Ton, allura int x’tahseb?”
And to make matters worse, Tony Zarb’s opinion is put at par with that of a specialist with a battery of university degrees.
Then there are the interruptions and the questions delivered from behind (Joe Azzopardi likes to stand behind the people he’s speaking to) and other uncouth manners. Then the specialist guest is presented with a book and a bottle of wine as thanks for being there – a book and a bottle of wine that the producers haven’t bought themselves, but have had ‘sponsored’.
They have sown the wind and reaped a whirlwind.
Once Dr Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici who is well bred, chided the ill-bred Dr Debono with a “Jekk jghogbok tinterrompinix, jew inkella nieqaf” on some discussion programe. He really took control of the situation.
“Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”