Complacency is not an option

A part of one of the most negative chapters in our country’s post-Independence history has now been closed with the laying to rest of Daphne Caruana Galizia last Friday following her barbaric assassination earlier this month.

You may have liked her or you may have hated her, but the reality of her untimely death has brought with it the realisation of the strengths and weaknesses of our rule of law.

While the terrible event has hit many people in their subconscious, many remain complacent or indifferent about their participation in what should be done, some because of apathy, some because of partisanship and others for lack of realisation about the seriousness of the current political situation.

The civil struggle for change which has followed Daphne’s death needs to be clearly defined as to what it is and why it is necessary. This is a people’s request for political change and has nothing to do with, and is not, a partisan political struggle. What benefits the country will always advance the country, irrespective of which political party is in power. People voicing and putting up civil resistance is not akin to mob rule, it is the manifestation of a fundamental human right, theirs not because any political party gave it to them, but simply by the fact that they are human.

Giving power to the people’s voice is not only warranted but also necessary at times and this is one of those times. The people have spoken and all are listening, irrespective of their creed; right-minded and impartial people realise that the clamour for change of the Civil Society Network is founded on democratic tenets which have all but disappeared in this country recently.

The breakdown of the rule of law however is not something that we have not witnessed before. Many may have forgotten, but the murder of Lino Cauchi back in 1982 and the many incidents that occurred in the years that followed are timely reminders of the stark reality that society should always balance the power it has temporarily handed over to its politicians.

While the cause is noble, many citizens remain either indifferent or sceptical about participating in such civil resistance and this begs the question why.

The struggle for good governance is not the underlying reason motivated by one event in society; it is the realisation, which admittedly usually comes to the fore in a time of crisis that not all is fine on the domestic front. The economy may be doing well and people may be in gainful employment, but for these to be secured, good governance structures have to be assured as they might need to be enforced by those same people in difficult times and will result in the practical shield of protection within our democracy of our fundamental human rights.

There is a feeling that people only react to situations when it hits them personally and not when they believe that things require change. This sense of acceptance of the situation around them is of great concern. The attitude of reacting only when it hits you personally is symptomatic of either egoism, which disappears only when it hits you, at which point in time you expect everybody to rally around you and support you, or of a cynical, defeatist attitude, which is of equal concern.

We the people must not bow down and accept everything that the powers be decide and impose; this is not a question of following our political parties, but of doing what is right and what we believe in, akin to our principles and not to our party or our pockets.

The struggle for institutional change is a struggle which is correct; it aims to redress the democratic deficit which we have in our country once our politicians failed to represent all the country through their choices and decisions and this is not a question of partisanship, however which way the political media depicts it.

The right to entrench the manner in which those occupying key roles are appointed, in a manner which reflects and represents the country and not the whims of the government of the day, is a must and not an option. The opportunity has arisen to make politicians realise that the people want democratic stability and they owe it to the people because the power they administer belongs to us, the people and not to them.

It is time to address this democratic deficit. It is time to entrench certain changes. It is time to widen our cause and to insist that those all-important appointments are elected either by a two-thirds majority or through structures which are independent of political patronage. It’s time to stand up and be counted – where will you stand?