Bread, circuses and human rights

On 24 March parliament witnessed another match between the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader, from whose barbs one could only infer that they were making sure their tribal audiences were kept well satisfied by what they had to say, especially on Ukraine, the Middle East, and that age-old favourite – migrants and refugees. 

With the subject of migration there seems to be no end to the righteousness by which our dear politicians have come to love to express themselves. At this stage, they are telling us that we need to find a way of processing migrants elsewhere, and not on Maltese soil. 

It’s called ‘offshore processing’, and there are precedents, most of which were not as successful as their champions claim to be, starting with Australia’s Labour government’s 2012 resolve to send asylum seekers to Nauru in the Pacific Ocean; Giorgia Meloni’s detention centres in Albania; the Tories’ attempt to pay Rwanda to take Britain’s asylum seekers; and only last week, the US sending migrants to El Salvador whose notorious jails are now outsourced to the tune of millions of dollars. 

So, what is Prime Minister Robert Abela going on about this time? The PM seems to be making legal history by telling us that human rights “must be merited”.  

‘Baciamo le mani’ 

Repubblika came out crying foul. The Nationalist Opposition – not exactly a political foe when it comes to Italy’s leadership – tried to appear surprised and show dissent. While the PN are meant to offer an alternative to the PL, on this one, they don’t have a leg to stand on. One could hear them think: “Rather you than us!” It was easy for Abela to corner Grech: “When you’re in government”, he said, “if you want to open the doors to everyone – whether merited or not – do as you want.” 

Some of us will never forget how the late Muammar Gaddafi’s hand was amply and regularly kissed by many powerful lips, starting with Tony Blair’s, while others lined up to the Colonel’s tent. Former Maltese and Italian Prime Ministers of all shades have done their pilgrimage to the Libyan desert. Before the Colonel was deposed by his rival tribes, deals were made over just about everything; from oil to investment, currying favour, and holding back migrants in Libya. 

Nor should we forget how in that legendary Valletta Summit back in 2015, both Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil lauded what was then supposed to be a “solution” to migration; finding a way of keeping migrants and refugees from coming to Europe, while not exactly telling us how those unsavoury regimes with which Europeans love playing cat and mouse, will have a role in the sordid affair. 

‘Meriting’ one’s rights 

As expected, the Prime Minister and Opposition leader’s latest tryst was well covered by the press. The day before, MaltaToday got everyone wondering what the PM meant by his suggestion that the Human Rights Convention needed some adjustment to fall in tune “with the times”. The Times of Malta cited the PM’s now familiar legalese, reminding the House how “Malta would remain at the forefront of fighting for human rights, as long as they were ‘merited’. 

So how does one ‘merit’ a human right? Are rights now measured on a meritocratic scale? Weren’t human rights supposedly preserved and enshrined in a convention based on universal norms? 

We have long become used to talk of an ‘invasion’, a narrative by which politicians of all hues claim to prove their strong leadership and win elections. The bogeyman, which in the past used to be the devil, the infidel, the communist, is now the migrant who could well be a criminal intent on taking advantage of our “wokeness”, stealing our social services, raping our women and children, while destroying our identity, religion, and democracy. 

Apart from the crass ambiguity by which such a narrative is presented, there are indeed cases of migrants who are criminals, just as there are criminals amongst any population, including Malta’s. But while one could never say that all Maltese are criminals because some Maltese have indeed committed crimes, the idea that all refugees and migrants are all potential criminals is now stated with horrendous ease. 

Given this flawed logic, we are now told that “these people” don’t merit human rights. This is because human rights must be “earned”. By implication, according to this doctrine, human rights need qualification, and it is thereby acceptable to make them relative, and for their universal value to be contested.  

When “they” are “us” 

If the polity is a world of bread and circuses – panem et circenses – as the Romans used to say, then we are being entertained to death. It has become clear that certain politicians are choosing to sing from a hymn sheet that changes according to the circumstances that suits them and their vested ideological interests. 

Universal human rights do not only stand to be seriously compromised, but their validity is being questioned and dismissed. To make matters worse, this is claimed on behalf of the “national interest”. 

What was once founded on an understanding between peoples across nations, is now deemed as passé and therefore in need of change because, we are told, these universal principles have “loopholes”. 

Listening to the arguments put across, one wonders what happens if nations agree to go down the route that is being suggested. In a strange twist, we also hear strong leaders across several democracies telling us how the law should not stop the will of the people. Now, you’d think that this is an argument for democracy. But actually, the context of such talk turns out to be against the tenets of liberal democracy, whose rule of law is meant to be sustained by a balance of powers. Such a balance of powers is intrinsic to democracy itself, and it was designed to withstand external changes dictated by interest or circumstance. 

One hopes against all hopes that Maltese politicians have not come to that stage yet. Unfortunately, public opinion in Malta is looking more and more sympathetic to what one hears from populist politicians who seem to believe that democracy must simply heed to the strong. It has become normal for many in Maltese society to openly express their hatred towards anything and everything that looks different from “us”, even when “we” actually come as diverse as one can ever imagine. 

This culture of ressentiment also sustains the illiberal turns by which rights are now becoming qualified and deemed to be “earned”. This is justified by the logic of selective generalisation, especially when it comes to migrants, immaterial what their status might well be. 

If in Malta, we now want to “pass” as anything but diverse, and it has become acceptable to regard anyone looking or sounding different as potential criminals who by implication can only “earn” their human rights through some outsourced system of vetting, then we are heading to a very dangerous place which eventually will be used and will apply the same criteria of “merited” and qualified rights to us. 

Perish the thought that Maltese politicians ever want to foment such a situation. But if they are not careful, their rhetoric could easily lead to that. What many Maltese politicians don’t seem to realise is that when we speak of “us” and “them”, in other circumstances “they” are exactly like “us”. In fact, “they” ARE “us” and once we start qualifying how others “merit” their human rights, that same qualification for our own human rights will be turned onto us.