Do our commentators have to be so binary, so either / or?
Why is it, for example, that the 0 or the 1 which proclaims the absolution of Joseph and Michelle Muscat by the conclusions of the Egrant inquiry, do not modulate their emphatic triumphalism by pointing out that the primary witnesses in the inquiry pro Joseph Muscat are all suspicious, shady characters - some of them even in prison or facing prison sentences?
Or that the inquiry began a year after the Panama Papers revealed the presence of Egrant, Hearnville and Tillgate, set up days after the 2013 PL election victory?
Or that our Prime Minister - the accused - was able to choose the terms of the inquiry? Which may have meant that the magistrate had his hands tied re the scope of the inquiry? For example - why were the terms of the inquiry couched the way they were? Why wasn't it a priority to categorically find out who Egrant belonged to? That would have put paid to any doubts whatsoever. That would have justified the jubilant proclamations of innocence.
Why do these commentators not look at the entire context in which the Egrant inquiry played out?
Why do these commentators not discuss the ramifications of the seven defendants (including our Prime Minister), delaying the start of another inquiry instigated by Simon Busuttil more than a year ago? Not least, the recent appeal of some of the defendants and our Attorney General - our Legal Defender of the Republic - against the judgement of the Constitutional Court in favour of Simon Busuttil, that Judge Mizzi should recuse himself? Incidentally Judge Mizzi reaches retirement age in November 2018, as declared in our Parliament by no other than Justice Minister Owen Bonnici. Why is it so important that Judge Mizzi oversees this inquiry, even when he is about to retire?
It seems to me as though the Maltese toxic disease of political partisanship has infected even our commentators.
Do these think of the responsibility they have towards the greater good of our country? Do they really want to support PEPs like Keith Schembri or Konrad Mizzi who have admitted owning Panama companies Hearnville or Tillville, within days of PL winning the 2013 general election? Who did Egrant belong to? Why isn't the Prime Minister being held accountable for the lack of any action, for the institutional meltdown, even if it has not been verified that Egrant belonged to Michelle Muscat?
Do they understand that prime ministers, ministers, PEP all over the world... have resigned for far less, soon after their names were revealed by the Panama Papers?
Is it because they do not understand that political accountability demands a much lower bar for evidence than a court of law? Or is it that they have totally succumbed to the disease of political partisanship to become propaganda mouthpieces of a brazen corruption of our democracy?
The spinning of a universe of alternative explanations is certainly making me feel dizzy. I wonder, is there another Cambridge Analytica in the shadows, advising the government on propaganda techniques? Isn't it chilling that some elements of the fourth pillar of democracy help with the spinning?