Mnajdra: What should happen now?
Martin Scicluna
Following the wanton destruction of the World Heritage Site Temple at Mnajdra, we had the anger and hand-wringing of politicians. We, the people, the vast majority of whom care about Malta's heritage and are proud of our island's history, had hoped that the traumatic set-back which Malta had suffered would lead to a fresh political start. We wanted to see consensus, without the bickering and stop-go on the subject our culture, heritage and patrimony which has marred other aspects of our national life.
It is two weeks since vandals destroyed Mjajdra. But a week is a long time in politics. What we got in the debate in the House on Monday, which we all expected and hoped would lead to a common approach, to agreements on a national plan to save our heritage, and to a fresh start with a firm action plan showing that lessons had been learnt from this debacle, was instead the standard from of yah-boo politics.
This was precipitated by the publications of the government's "Cultural Heritage Strategic Plan", which was laid on the table of the House by the Minister of Culture, Dr Louis Galea. When I saw the minister on Wednesday, he gave Din L-Art Helwa copies of the document and invited us to a meeting of other like-minded heritage NGO's, scheduled for 10 May, to discus it in detail.
Din L-Art Helwa welcomes this approach. WE have long been urging the government to include the expertise of NGO's in any discussion on the environment or culture. We have a valid contribution to make. I stressed in my discussion with the Prime Minister on Monday, and with Dr Galea, Din L-Art Helwa's wish to work with the government of the day through dialogue and consultation. We are prepared to offer constructive criticism, while engaging in a partnership with government.
Din L-Art Helwa therefore welcomes the opportunity, which we are being given, formally to comment on the "Cultural Heritage Strategic Plan". Din L-Art Helwa is a studying the document and will give its considered views on 10 May in helpful, detailed and constructive manner. We want to help.
But I have to say that an initial reading of the document is disappointing. While it constitutes a first class wish list and checklist, sadly the "Cultural Heritage Strategic Plan" is neither strategic nor a plan. It appears to have been cobbled together in haste, from a host of existing papers in the hope that by a combination of smoke and mirrors the impression would be given to forward action. Sadly, it fails. Except for the exposure of the long awaited Heritage Act, which has yet to be passed and an indication of the future organisational structure, it produces little that is original and positive.
The government's strategic responsibility is for the application of national resources to achieve its policy objectives. Strategy - and by definition a Strategic Plan- is the art of creating a desired pattern of events, where the objectives, and the ways and means of achieving them, may be brought together.
The purpose of government strategy should be to direct and provide coherent to overall national policy - in this case our cultural heritage. From this, three broad responsibilities flow:
To lay down policy objectives
To stipulate any limitations to be imposed on those activities
To make available the requisite resources to achieve them.
The "Cultural Heritage Strategic Plan" falls short on all these counts. It fails to set clear objectives and targets. It fails to set the time-scale within which specific actions are to be completed. Except in the broadest sense, it fails to lay down the manpower and financial resources, which are to be made available for this purpose.
Worse, it take a sideswipe at the opposition for allegedly "showing little progress in the field of cultural heritage" during the years 1996 to 1998. This sort of commentary does not belong in a so-called Strategic Plan and it led inevitably - rightly or wrongly - to the predictable opposition reaction. We should have hoped for a more magnanimous approach by both sides. Instead of constructive dialogue between the government and the opposition - which is what we, the people, were looking for - we were treated to a slanging match. An opportunity for consensus has been lost.
Where do we stand today? We are told that security has been tightened up at Mnajdra and other major sites. This is welcome news. Government must decide on its priorities for guarding such sites. The full costs of guarding Castille this year will be roughly Lm110,000, of guarding Girgenti about Lm80,000, of the airport roughly Lm1,300,000. The Gozo Heliport is roughly another Lm110,000. The three presidential palaces is roughly another Lm250,000.
Given that we are spending these sums in this way, what priority should we place on guarding our World Heritage Sites? What resources should we allocate? It is not for Din L-Art Helwa to decide. It is for the government. But these figures expose, we think, the lack of comparable importance given to hitherto to the protection and safeguarding of our cultural heritage.
In the final analysis, it is all a matter of practical will. In our discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Culture we have urged them to seize the moment and to exercise the smack of firm government. They can do this in several ways:
- First, we want to see the Rule of Law applied. Illegal structures which litter the area of Mnajdra, a World Heritage Site which belongs to us, the people, should be removed once the time stipulated by law since the enforcement notices were issued by the Planning Authority expires. They should not have been there in the first place.
- Second, we expect action by the police to arrest those who perpetrated this barbaric act of vandalism. Some fairly fevered speculation is rife among ministers about "an act against the State". They may be proved right. But after more than 25 years in government, I am extremely sceptical of conspiracy theories, and a convinced advocate of the cock-up theory in government. A more likely avenue of approach by the police in this instance lies, we would suggest with those whose finger-prints are on earlier such incidents of protest and vandalism in this area.
- Third, we have urged the government to offer a substantial reward for any information leading to the arrest and prosecution of criminals. Money talks. Such a gesture would demonstrate the seriousness with which ministers treat this outrage.
- Fourth, we should expect by now, that the long drawn-out tender process for the protective fences at Mnajdra has been let, and the contractual work has been started on the ground.
- Fifth, a concerted campaign of education, through television and every available media, about the priceless value of our patrimony and the practical means available to each and every one of us citizens to preserve it, should be undertaken by government immediately.
- Sixth, the so-called "Cultural Heritage Interim Board" which the minister announced that he has set up, pending the passage of the Cultural Heritage Act, must meet and stamp its mark on all that is now happening and the change management needed. The Board must be properly staffed and serviced. It must have an effective "chief of staff" or "chief executive" to drive its work forward. And it must include active representation from NGOs.
In his eloquent address to the media by the President of Malta, His Excellency, Pro. Guido De Marco, after the remarkable public march, organised by Din L-Art Helwa's close colleagues, Fondazzjoni Wirt Artna, on 20 April, he said that never again should we allow what happened at Mnajdra to occur. He was right to say so with such passion.
The trick now is for ministers to turn passion and sentiment into action. Din L-Art Helwa wants Action Now. We shall continue to keep ministers' feet to the fire until we see that the President's message has sunk in - "Never again". But for that to happen we need a demonstration and act of political will which, 14 days after the obscene act of savagery at Mnajdra, still seems to elude us.
Martin Scicluna is the president of Din L-Art Helwa.
|
