[Analysis] Six months on: how a murder shone a spotlight on Malta

News that 45 journalists and 18 news organisations have collected over 750,000 files and official documents “to complete and publish the stories of Daphne Caruana Galizia” suggests that her greatest legacy was ultimately that of putting Malta under the international radar.

Malta may well have lost its ‘innocence’ on the international stage on that fateful day when journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was blown to pieces in an explosion six months ago. The murder has put Malta under the international spotlight. Will this trigger a frenzy of reactionary isolationism or will it lead to much needed introspection?

Caruana Galizia was a divisive figure in Malta

Our place in the world

For decades Maltese politicians were used to dealing with public opinion on a national level where it is much easier to manufacture consent through patronage networks. The international arena was at most perceived as a photo opportunity for politicos appearing side by side with world leaders to boost their image locally.

So far politicians and their henchmen have never felt accountable to international public opinion. But in the past six months Malta has not only been the subject of a rule of law investigation by MEPs but also of crass declarations by officials, like V18 chairman Jason Micallef, who have been censored by some of the world’s leading public intellectuals.

Sure enough, some did vote to join the EU precisely under the impression that this would add an additional layer of scrutiny on local politicians. But to a large extent this remained an illusion, at least till Daphne Caruana Galizia was brutally assassinated in an explosion, which sent shock waves across the continent.

The murder of a journalist in an EU member state was bound to put Malta under the gaze of the international community.

The ability to exercise journalism without fear is so central to European identity that a similar murder in Slovakia – a former communist state – led to the resignation of an entire government.

This is why the entire edifice of the Maltese economic and political system came under scrutiny after this murder. Being surprised at why this happened is another symptom of insularity.

Daphne Caruana Galizia

Connecting too many dots?

The international media and intelligentsia have pounced on only one significant aspect of the Caruana Galizia legacy; her scrutiny of the interconnection between the Maltese government and rogue international capitalism.

Recent revelations on Pilatus Bank chairman Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad fit nicely in Caruana Galizia’s journalistic narrative. This includes his creative use of offshore companies and citizenship buying to allegedly evade US sanctions on Iran, his close connections to Henley and Partners and the presence of the Prime Minister at his wedding.

In Malta international observers found in front of them all the ingredients needed to make a big international story.

These included a slain journalist who had recently denounced high level corruption, a government selling EU citizenship, a flirtation with Azeri kleptocrats, high-ranking officials kept in office despite being outed in the Panama papers and a financial services industry which attracts oligarchs.

Moreover, international observers also tend to place events within the context of their narratives.

For example, Roberto Saviano –himself a strong voice against organised crime in his own country and beyond was very quick to claim that she was killed “because she understood the illegal flows of money through Malta and she understood this was a question of someone or certain people doing wrong, but that it was an entire system designed for the flow of dirty money,”

Joining dots can be extremely problematic. The fact that these dots exist does not necessarily prove that they are connected together. But the fact that there is no proof of a connection does not dismiss the seriousness of the issues surrounding each dot. Moreover, any serious work in journalism rests on providing a context. This context must include the tell-tale trails left by the protagonists of any story; something which in itself provides circumstantial evidence. This also constitutes “proof”, one of the favourite phrases used by the Daphne bashing crowd.

It is also true that the edifice which is now under international scrutiny pre-dated Caruana Galizia’s murder by at least a decade and the rule of law problems which became so startling in the face of Panamagate, were rooted in an institutional set-up crippled by a winner takes all political system. It is a fact that this system largely escaped international scrutiny before recent events. Yet it was inevitable that all our deficiencies would come under inspection after Caruana Galizia’s assassination.

Thousands turnt up for vigils in Valletta

Selective gaze?

Inevitably this international narrative surrounding the murder was also selective, ignoring the less savory aspects of Caruana Galizia’s legacy which may be less relevant to the prevailing international narrative.

This included a harsh dose of antipathy against anything and anyone associated with the Labour party and sometimes a selective intrusion in personal life, which did not even spare loved ones and relatives of those involved.

For while Caruana Galizia performed another important function in a modern democracy; that of cutting to size the swollen egos of politicians and hangers-on, this role was performed in a toxic bipartisan political environment.

This may explain why some, including myself, are taken aback by what can be seen as a hagiography in the making, which in itself fails to do justice to Caruana Galizia herself as a consequential historical and multi-faceted figure who, like many others in her field, had a rough edge.

As often happens in Malta she performed a plurality of contradictory roles ranging from lucid analysis, witty commentary and investigations to vitriol, class prejudice and pure invective. Although in the moral order her darker side is incomparable to the evil of those behind her gruesome murder, it still left a trail of human suffering.

She also promoted a divisive and polarising world-view which failed to see nuances not just among the Labour leaning segment of the population but also among ‘in betweens’.

Yet in some ways she was more continental than some of her myopic critics. She gave historical personalities like Dom Mintoff, the same harsh treatment received by politicians like Margaret Thatcher in the UK after her death.

Journalists from all local media houses gathered in Valletta in October after her death

Lately she also targeted PN politicians like Adrian Delia but she largely spared the Gonzi administration from vocal criticism, mostly reserved to its critics, irrespective if they were Labourites, greens or non-partisan.

Moreover, a sober analysis has to recognise that the way Egrant allegations were presented by Caruana Galizia last year only served to push the Opposition in a corner, providing an alibi for Muscat to go for an election he knew he could easily win.

Yet the fact that Europeans – including intellectuals and media outlets and many with a left wing orientation – overlooked the second aspect to focus on Daphne’s journalistic acumen also speaks for itself.

It stands as a lesson for those in Malta who are immobilised by their inability to rise above the antipathies she herself triggered.

Many wrongly assume that foreign observers are unaware of the more sinister aspect of Caruana Galizia’s legacy. From what I gathered in the few exchanges I have had with foreign journalists and politicians in the past months, they are perfectly aware of the many facets of the DCG brand. But in the face of her assassination they consider her hard journalistic exposes as more relevant to the bigger picture than her fair share of gossip and invective.

A court sketch of the three men accused of the murder

Bipolar reactions

One disappointing aspect in these six months has been the absence of anything remotely resembling an analysis of Caruana Galizia worthy for inclusion in the obituary page of the Economist.

Such a task falls squarely on Maltese analysts and not on foreign observers who inevitably see Caruana Galizia in her larger than life persona as a ‘slain journalist’ whose legacy they feel duty bound to continue and honour.

As often happens Malta got stuck between two rival narratives of those who regard her as a martyr awaiting canonisation and those who are allergic to her very name. One also finds those who take a free ride on the wave of anguish among a segment of the population and those for whom her legacy represents a threat to a status quo in which they have already heavily invested in.

It is a legacy which has galvanised a vibrant civil society movement but which risks paralysing an Opposition which also has to appeal to voters who are more nuanced about her legacy.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat

It is here that the introspection of Maltese public intellectuals is severely tested. For while foreign journalists and analysts may have a habit of joining the dots without understanding the local context, they also have the advantage of operating at a safe distance from local power and patronage networks.

Keeping distances is simply difficult in a small country like Malta. This often results in a reverential approach to power.

Having the Prime Minister referred to as the “artful dodger” by James Sweeney in a televised BBC interview was in itself refreshing in a country where people defer to power. Daphne’s irreverence to power, albeit selective, was in this sense a rarity in the Maltese landscape.

The fact that Maltese politicians and appointees are now subject to international criticism for their dumb declarations is also very welcome news.

Valletta 2018 Jason Micallef came under criticism for messages posted on social media

An island full of bumpkins?

At the very least this should stand as a warning against putting incompetent inward looking people in positions of responsibility where they inevitably end up being scrutinised by their European peers.

People like Jason Micallef who have repeatedly mocked the journalist’s legacy and even called for the removal of her makeshift memorial; have been completely oblivious to the fact that their role in the cultural field makes them directly accountable to the likes of global authors like Salman Rushdie and Elif Shafak.

Yet unfortunately over the past months the increased scrutiny abroad has been met by a frenzy of inward looking isolationism and an attempt to transpose the Maltese partisan mentality to the international sphere.

In this grotesque narrative European politicians like Green politician Sven Geigold, left of centre newspapers like the Guardian and La Repubblica and global intellectuals like Roberto Saviano are all seen as pawns in the hands of a conspiracy against the Labour government fueled by jealousy over Malta’s economic success.

It is this narrative which risks undermining our country’s reputation further by making the whole country look like one big village inhabited by bumpkins.

A sign during the vigil marking six months since Caruana Galizia's murder

Yet there is a limit to the influence of foreign media outlets and representative institutions like the EU parliament have on events taking place in Malta.

Governments in Malta may well be comforted knowing that the opinion of the international media has not in any way eroded the popularity of governments in countries like Poland and Hungary.

While these countries are led by right wing governments which stand on the opposite pole of Muscat’s globalism, their reaction to foreign criticism has been similar. Such a response is all the more awkward in a country like Malta which thrives on foreign labour and which owes its current economic prosperity to its exposure to the global economy. But globalisation is not a one-way street.

Greater political scrutiny from foreigners is the other side of the coin of economic integration.

One can’t be a globalist when it comes to the economy and an isolationist when the shit hits the fan.