Michael Falzon in The Sunday Times today
We'd rather have a Nationalist Party with a stance in favour of divorce legislation than a government with an electoral programme written by the man on the left.
The Nationalist Party supporters who Michael Falzon describes here below are people exactly like me, which is why they make up the bulk of my readership (the rest of my readership is made up of Labour obsessives, and for the very same reason).
The only difference is that the more intelligent ones will not act to give Malta a Labour government, by voting Labour, AD or not voting at all instead of voting PN, just because of divorce.
We know that it is preferable to have divorce delayed by a further few years (it can’t be put off forever, we know) than elect to power for five years a party with an electoral programme written by the man who was KMB’s minister of industry in the early 1980s.
The potential for untold damage in having an inexperienced man like Muscat with a cabinet of blasts from the past and new faces like Silvio Parnis, implementing a programme devised by Mintoff man Karmenu Vella, is great. Compared to that, the non-availability of divorce for a while longer fades into insignificance. When the economy is f**ked, intelligent people don’t look on the bright side and say ‘At least I can get divorced now if I want to.’
But not all of the PN voters who Michael Falzon describes in The Sunday Times today are able to allow their heads to over-rule their emotions. This is not surprising, given that key figures in the Nationalist Party, usually so clear-headed in their approach to policy matters and strategy, have allowed their emotions to take over. Those others will become incensed at a stance against divorce and will vote Labour or not vote at all ‘to teach the PN a lesson’.
The Nationalist Party knows that many of those who vote for it have precisely this propensity to teach it lessons, a malaise from which Labour voters don’t appear to suffer, no matter how many lessons their party desperately needs to be taught. I have no truck with such behaviour, which I equate with those women who slash their husband’s suits and tell the newspapers how bad he was in bed when he leaves them, but I know that it happens. The Nationalist Party knows that it happens because it has the numbers.
The one thing they should know is this: if they have any sense of responsibility at all – and we know that they do because that’s why we vote for them – then they should reach the conclusion that better divorce than a Labour government led by a charlatan like Joseph Muscat and an electoral programme written by Karmenu ‘Tunny Net’ Vella.
If we get the latter because the Nationalist Party has decided against the former, then we will find it hard to forgive them. I speak for most of my kind when I say that in 2013 we are not going to wake up to the spectacle of what we experienced in 1996, but with the added bells on of Mintoffian extremists, and tell ourselves ‘Ah, but at least the PN took a stand against divorce.’ No, not even PN supporters who are fervently against divorce will say that, because they are more against having a Labour government than they are against having divorce.
If the Nationalist Party takes a stand against divorce, it will be the first time it has made an error of judgement on a major policy issue within my memory at least.
The Sunday Times, today
Opportunity, threat beckons for PN
Michael Falzon
The divorce issue gives the Nationalist Party the opportunity to show that it is the open modern party it was always perceived to be whenever it was successful at the polls. The wrong decision could doom the PN to narrow its support, with Labour attracting liberals who have happily voted PN since 1981.
In their book published by the Institute of Economic Affairs in Britain in 1997, Beyond Left and Right, academics John Blundell and Brian Gosschalk argue that the popular ‘shorthand’ descriptions of left and right used for political parties and voters leave a lot to be desired.
They suggest there are actually four clusters of political opinion based on one’s view of how much government intervention there should be in two areas: economic choices and personal life.
They describe those who favour high or low intervention in both areas as “authoritarian” and “liberal”, respectively.
Alternatively, those who want high intervention in only one area are described as “socialist” or “conservative”.
I believe this is a much better way of describing parties and voters in Malta. Authoritarians and socialists have been happy together in the Labour Party since the 1950s, and it is a real pity that Labour’s inexperienced leader, Joseph Muscat, keeps harking back to Mintoff’s time when authoritarian socialism blighted Malta’s prospects for so many years.
The PN, on the other hand, has been a coalition of conservatives and liberals, particularly when it was successful at the polls.
Both wings agree on more freedom in economic matters. However, they disagree on personal freedoms, and this is the nub of the divorce issue bedevelling the PN at the moment.
Blundell and Gosschalk find that across democratic countries, 15 to 20 per cent of the electorate would be liberal, while up to 35 per cent would be conservative.
This does not mean they would always vote for parties describing themselves as such. I think these percentages apply for Malta as well.
The number of people who vote PN in general elections but do not bother to vote, in other elections gives an inkling of the number of PN voters who do not identify themselves totally with the party.
This is some 40,000 voters out of 140,000: 30 per cent of the PN’s share of the vote or 15 per cent of the electorate.
There’s no arguing that a majority of those who vote Nationalist are conservative in outlook. But the key to the PN’s almost continuous electoral success since the early 1980s has been the openness that attracted liberals and even some socialists to its fold.
In actual fact, the PN has since the late 1970s been a centrist party where people of diverse opinions felt welcomed, knowing that their priority aspirations would be catered for even though they could disagree on issues of lesser importance for them.
In handling the divorce issue, the Nationalists now face both an opportunity and a huge threat at the same time.
The opportunity is for the PN to confirm its openness and keep liberals who favour divorce still within its fold.
Playing its hand skilfully, the PN has the prospect of showing that, even after an almost uninterrupted 25 years in office, it is the party of rational discussion, democratic consultation and real change.
On the other hand, if the PN opts to be emotional and irrational, it faces the prospect of a meltdown, handing power on a plate to an inexperienced Joseph Muscat whose only aptitude is for political posturing but who is now talking about divorce with the same language used by liberals who have been voting Nationalist for three decades.
That would indeed be a pity; but so far I see the PN going down this ill-fated road.
The PN executive committee members, who are to meet soon to decide on the divorce issue, should in no way underestimate the huge responsibility that they hold both collectively and individually.
The choice they make now can catapult the party into power yet again if they endeavour to keep liberals within their party’s fold. Otherwise, they will bear the responsibility for several years in the wilderness.
There are between a quarter and a third of PN voters who are liberal.
These are not ‘religio et patria’ Nationalists but feel at ease in the PN because they hate socialist diktats.
They have a cosmopolitan mindset, feel absolutely European and disagree with compulsion by the state, whether it is in the type of toothpaste they buy or in the lifestyle they lead.
These are people who were in tune with the ‘Xogħol, Ġustizzja u Libertà slogan: middle-class and educated to a better-than-average level, who value free open politics, economic choice, and human and civil rights.
In adopting a position on divorce and the way the PN goes and talks about it, it is paramount that it should ensure liberals are absolutely comfortable voting PN in a general election.
This is the grave responsibility that the members of the PN executive committee have to carry in the next few days – a responsibility that can become an opportunity to consolidate the PN’s popularity.
28 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
It depends on what hurts you most ‘choice under uncertainty’.
[Daphne – Yes, well, for those sorts of people who voted No to EU membership to protect their own narrow little business and didn’t give a damn if the rest of the country was f**ked over for years to come. But yes, I’ll admit there are plenty of people like that around: l-ewwel jien, it-tieni jien u t-tielet jien ukoll, which is how they probably ended up needing a divorce in the first place.]
The thing is that some people believe there isn’t a snowball’s of PN winning the next election anyway, so divorce legislation might at least soften the blow somewhat. The hard part is convincing them that it can yet be turned around.
I personally prefer to vote for a party that loses an election because it stands on principle than one that makes popular decisions even if these are not good for the country. As much as Labour will f*** up the country I do not want PN to sacrifice its founding principles which I remind you are Christian Democratic values.
[Daphne – Might I remind you that one of the tents of Christian Democratic thinking is NOT religious fundamentalism but the opposite. Christian Democratic thinking is not opposed to divorce. If that were the case, the world outside Malta would not have Christian Democrats. It is not the role of Christian Democrats to run the country as a Christian state. By that same line of reasoning, the Nationalist Party should repeal our laws on civil marriage. It follows that if we have civil marriage, then we should also have divorce: religion simply should not be allowed to enter the equation. This is not s shariah state.]
Now again I do not say this because divorce is a religious issue, but PN has always fought for the common good. Do you think that Independence, as an example, was beneficial to many?
[Daphne – Of course it was beneficial to many. It was beneficial to all. Look at us now. Arguing against independence was short-termist thinking, just as arguing against divorce is short-termist thinking now. Even Austin Gatt’s articles in The Times are underpinned with the reasoning ‘we don’t need it….yet’.]
On the contrary many suffered including my family. But it was for the common good of present and particularly future generations. This is the single most important principle PN has upheld and should uphold. It’s a party of strong positions and strong convictions. If it believes divorce is wrong for society than it should stand by what it believes.
Again I say – I’d rather support a party in opposition that has strong principles than one that does anythign to claw onto power, irregardless of how much Muscat and his “new movement” will ruin the country.
If we don’t have values and principles than what do we have? I know such a take might not be popular, but this is what I believe, and like the party i admire, I am not afraid to make it clear and known to all. That is one thing that PN has fought to ensure we can do in this day and age and should continue inspiring us all to stand by our principles, WHATEVER they may be.
[Daphne – It all depends on what you consider to be a Nationalist Party principle and value. For you, it’s avoiding divorce legislation(while registering divorces obtained elsewhere) becuase of religious reasons. For me, it’s upholding respect for the individual and according adults the basic respect of being allowed to decide for themselves.]
1. You conveniently ignored the rest of the argument. I went on to say that PN’s values don’t mean that divorce should be debated as a religious issue but as a social one. I agree with you wholeheartedly, Daphne, on this one.
I am a firm believer in the separation of state from church. But that does not mean that the two have to part ways entirely. PN is still a party that was built on values similiar to Christian ones (and many other religions and even secular individuals for that matter).
It should fight for stable and healthy marriages and relationships. After all, both pro and anti-divorce groups want the same thing. They just disagree on which will bring the best results. I personally side with the latter and just because PN takes a stand on the issue on the side of the latter does not make it a religious zealout as much as siding with the pro-divorce lobby makes it anti-Christian.
This is NOT a religious issue, but a social one. Both cases have their secular arguments and it is these that I focus on. In fact, as much as I admire Eddie, I was completely against the way he spoke out against divorce. Religion should not be dragged into the issue. I’m not intending on dragging it into this argument and neither should you or anyone else to try and discredit my legitamite position.
2. It was not beneficial to all. There were people who went out of business over time due to Independence. My grandfather who was an eminent and wealthy businessman up till 1964 started to suffer on Independence. I do agree with you that Independence is now beneficial to us all, but don’t say it was immediately beneficial to all on 21st September 1964. Looking back we can safely say it was a good decision and I myself am proud that my nation is independent. Back then not everyone could say the same.
[Daphne – How can anything be immediately beneficial to all? Not even your grandfather’s business, when he started out, would have been beneficial to him. No pain, no gain.]
The same can be said with the divorce issue. You said opposing it is a short-term way of going about it. I have always taken it to be the opposite. Divorce is a shortcut way of solving the marriage crisis. It will help people get back together. But will it stop marriage breakdown? Will it strengthen a family that is plagues by the new greedy lifestyle we lead? No. Divorce is a short term solution.
Strengthening the value of marriage and family will hinder marriage breakdown – divorce merely facilitates it. And introducing divorce will make it useless campaigning in favour of marriage and family, just as a cohabitation law will.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with you at all. I think that it’s rather the opposite, based on my observations: that the absence of divorce allows adults to behave like children and not take responsibility for their decisions. Try thinking out of the box: it’s much easier for spouses to leave each other now and shack up with somebody else without giving it too much thought, because they never have to face the thorny question of commitment. They never have to ask themselves whether they want to commit through marriage to the other person because the question can’t arise. That’s exactly why you get the feeling – I don’t know about you, but I certainly do – that there is a certain ‘teenage air’ about many of these subsequent relationships. It’s as though they’re working out of their system the things they should have worked through when they were young and should have been trying out different relationships. I actually think that divorce legislation will lead, rather than to these people marrying, to the breakdown of their relationship under the pressure of facing – in cold, hard reality – the question of whether they do want to marry that person after all.]
3. You believe in individual rights. Fair enough. So do I. But I give more importance to social rights when a government is legislating for a state, especially one as small and crowded in Malta where society plays a bigger role in the individual’s life than perhaps abroad, and vice versa.
The state should protect individual liberties up till the point where they become a hindrance for a healthy society (again in my view). I believe that giving individuals the liberty to divorce will be detrimental to marriage as a civil institution and to familes. Abroad marriage rates are going down and cohabitation is on the rise. Divorce has rendered marriage a farce and people just don’t opt for it anymore, especially with a 50% divorce rate in countries with no-fault divorce like America (as JPO is proposing). Every single broken family is a tragedy but that is in individual case and should be handled as such without jeaprodising the society as a whole.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but I don’t go in for special case scenarios based on Malta’s size. We are not second-class citizens of the world simply because we live in a small island. This argument reeks to me of Alfred Sant’s stance on EU membership: we’re too small.]
1. Exactly my philosophy – decisions should be taken for long-term benefit not short term gain.
2. I also agree with you about the “teenage air” to relationships and lack of commitment. But I don’t think divorce will solve that. If people aren’t mature about relationships now, I doubt divorce will suddenly lead to an epiphany.
Regulated and with proper education it might be beneficial in the short term but I still think it will undermine commitment. Decent people who genuinely commit won’t be affected but those who find it difficult to commit I think will rush into marriage knowing there isn’t a life-long commitment. Again, strengthening the value of marriage and commitment is the way to go to solve present problems, in my opinion.
3. I honestly did not mean to imply that we’re too small for the introduction of divorce or anything like that. I was merely saying that I think we’re more of a closely knit society than in many other countries where population densities are far less.
It absolutely has nothing to do with the ability to introduce divorce or not. I was merely stating that I believe social rights are very important in Malta for this reason and hence we need to take care of the whole of Maltese society in deciding about divorce. It has nothing to do with thinking Malta is inferior or Santisms or anything like that I assure you.
I tend to agree with Loyalist’s arguments. The PN should not sacrifice its principles just for the sake of winning the general election. This was in fact Austin Gatt’s point earlier this week, that the PN should not be a “party of convenience”.
If the Christian Democratic parties abroad actively promote anti- Christian laws then their name is a dishonest misnomer.
Christian and democrat go together as Islamic democrat or whatnot.
If anything, the democrat is there to steer the party faithful away from the nightmare of rightwing, fascist authoritarianism…
Perhaps they take the second part as seriously as the first.
Do they? Let’s see how the divorce issue pans out.
Malta Today is alleging that you are in cahoots with the PN to assassinate the political character of Karmenu Vella.
My reaction: Thank God for that even if it were true.
My perplexity deepens when I ask myself: how do people like Vella feel no shame and face us to ask for our vote when they destroyed our lives and our country a mere 25 years ago? How on earth do they write publicly that those were golden times when they were Malta’s Dark Ages? I still get emotional seeing them (Vella and AST) knowing full well the untold suffering they inflicted on thousands.
I would bury my head in shame, keep a low profile, possibly disappear until old age or death mercifully draw pity on my sorry state (even though I feel no pity for Dom). These people, on the other hand, brazenly, tell us how Malta should be governed now that we are reaping the benefits of the exact antithesis of these people’s beliefs?
Kif ma jisthux? That is, perhaps, what hurts me most.
The old guard is still firmly in real control of the party. One can in fact argue that this is why their party opted for a young inexperienced leader like Joseph Muscat – one who can easily be influenced by that old guard – rather than appointing a more seasoned George Abela.
Daphne, in an earlier post you said: ‘My antennae tell me that the pro-divorce lobby is about to take one almighty knock as anti-divorce sentiment begins to crystallise.’ but now it seems that you’re afraid that the PN, by pandering to the crystallizing anti-divorce sentiment, will make a serious error of judgement.
How can you justify such contrasting statements?
[Daphne – They’re not contrasting statements. The anti-divorce people are mainly on the Labour Party side, where the social conservatives are gathered en masse. Very many PN supporters are against divorce, but most of them will vote PN regardless because it is not such a major issue for them and they have stronger feelings against a Labour government. The difficulty for the PN is with the segment which Michael Falzon describes in The Sunday Times today. He calls them liberal, but that is not quite accurate. They are not really liberal at all, and are actually ultra-conservative and intolerant in very many respects (the FAA sort of profile). They are the ones who are prepared to take risks with their vote and who experience a sense of detachment when voting: that the result has nothing to do with them. They are the sort who understand that Labour poses a risk, but who then don’t vote for the other party because it irritates them, or for some minor complaint like boredom. They stay at home and then, when Labour is elected and begins to mess things up, they say: ‘But it has nothing to do with me because I didn’t vote for them.’ These are the sort of people who will readily take the risk of electing Labour by default, or even with a direct vote, on something as largely irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things, as divorce. And this even when they know that Joseph Muscat has even less of a chance of legislating for divorce because more of his MPs are against it and certainly more Labour constituents.]
If the pro-divorce lobby is taking a huge knock, surely pragmatism would dictate backing the anti-divorce horse, especially in Malta where single-issue-sized minds predominate.
The fact is that your latter post is far more accurate. If the Nationalists come out against divorce they will be dooming themselves to a long term in opposition and Malta to a long term of mismanagement. Not only will people like you (and I) find it hard to forgive them but the younger and hopefully more aware generation will view their decision with disgust and it will take many years to repair the damage.
Many are writing about Christian ideals however it should read Catholic norms because other Christian faiths allow divorce – some even for three times as long as it is sought for very serious reasons.
And anyway, the government is legislating for cohabitation. So you can separate and go and live with somebody else but you cannot divorce. And please, if we’re talking about Christian values where in the gospel is cohabitation mentioned and endorsed?
> In actual fact, the PN has since the late 1970s been a centrist party where people of diverse opinions felt welcomed.
Agreed. but it still smeared the socialists coming into its fold with the God-infused superiority in the PN heritage as seen in the quote below.
> These are not ‘religio et patria’ Nationalists but feel at ease in the PN because they hate socialist diktats.
We hate diktats not socialists. This bogeyman attitude skims off young skins and irritates mine no end. Germany managed to be centrist for a long time and is very successful at that. They are liberal and have been so even in the darkest days of the Cold War. When the communist bogeyman could have frightened them into voting more totalitarian governments. Can we have a more inclusive society please?
> They are the ones who are prepared to take risks with their vote and who experience a sense of detachment when voting: that the result has nothing to do with them.
We are one of the countries that has consistent big turnouts come election time. The underlying problem is that the majority still vote by tribe. I take umbrage at Michael Falzon equating socialism with totalitarianism.
Fascism was a very far right phenomenon that infatuated many a monarch and bishop and was very totalitarian. Selective smearing will never get us out of this tribal polarization and start tackling issues head on.
I’m not inspired by New labour being propped up by old horses. Stagun politiku gdid my foot!
Regarding divorce: unfortunately the faithful cannot be bothered to understand that they are taking pride in using a prejudice instead of reason on this issue. The best they can do to save face is to refrain from voting in a referendum. I’m not holding my breath though.
I guess the PN has more options than just supporting or being against divorce.
On the one hand, it can take a position that it will not take a firm position on divorce. It can argue that this is a matter of individual’s conscience. Although this is still a position, and it would satisfy both Conservatives and Liberals (which is the essence to win an election), this would look a bit weak and it could be argued by the usual media who like to criticise the PN but not the PL, that it is not in substance different from Labour’s position, even if we have no clue what Labour’s position is on divorce (although we know Joseph’s position).
[Daphne – You can’t take the position that you’re not going to take a position. The prime minister has said already that the party will take a position.]
On the other hand, the PN can state that in principle, it is against divorce but then it qualifies very clearly that, in a pluralist modern society, there may be cases where it and society can accept, rather than support, that people, based on their conscience, can resort to divorce.
This can be for instance where marriage has broken beyond repair and a number of other conditions that will apply, like for instance, that the couple have been separated for 4 or 5 years, certain provisions are made for the children, and so on. This could be linked to the principles that underlie Pullicino Orlando’s bill and would relate to basis used in the Irish legislation, bearing in mind that Ireland is another Catholic country which adopted divorce not long before us.
Daphne, Your comment is noted. I believe that if the PN states that it is not taking a position, this would look weak. However, now that we know that Labour is not taking a position (it is funny they declared this before they let the PN come out with a position – thereby giving the PN an advantage), I am confident that the PN will not put itself in a straitjacket on one or the other side.
However, I believe that in life it is important to establish principles or rules. Then, once the rules are recognised, it should be possible to discuss exceptions, provisos – the so called “ifs and buts.”
I believe that a qualified position could support the conditions under which divorce can be granted by society and which, according to his claim, Pulliicino Orlando has included in the bill, or may be included by Parliament.
I believe even the conservatives will understand such a qualified position.
lomax
Kif tridhom jisthu dawn jekk dawn la ghandhom u lanqas qatt kellhom qoxra f`wicchom?
Where the f**k are you lot living? No one ever talks of “religio et patria” even among the most hardcore Christian Democrat parties in Europe.
It’s as if your only cultural references are Rajt Malta Tinbidel and endless reruns of 1940s Rediffusion. So stop talking Latin and look north to Europe.
Dr Francis Saliba, as someone who can actually spell and speak correctly (a rarity indeed in Malta) I expected better. Christian Democrat is a term very much like “Nazzjonalisti” – it is used for want of a better word.
It designates a right-of-centre party, and yes, such parties can and have proposed anti-Christian ideas, such as decriminalisation of abortion. And you know what? The world didn’t stop turning, and it was business as usual.
“Looking north to Europe” and doing things simply because that is what those superior beings up-North are doing is today’s variant of the inferiority complex in-bred in our subconscious by centuries of colonialist subservience.
Oh dear. It is not just those “superior beings” who have divorce legislation, but everyone. And emulating excellence is in no way an inferiority complex. It is simply a desire to improve oneself.
P.S. There were only a couple of centuries of colonialism in Maltese history, if you can call it that. You, of all people, should know better (I assume you’re Dr Saliba the diplomat).
It’s not “simply because that is what they do”. We do have to remember that we are a tiny speck on the atlas, however. There is no need for us to reinvent the wheel because others have gone through the same problems before us.
It is not an inferiority complex to look at such countries, admit that they are ahead of us in certain issue, and learn from them. For those who want to feel superior, you can always look towards southern Europe (not to mention Africa, Asia, etc).
Malta has been a colony at least since the time of Carthage and Rome – not only for the last couple of centuries. You seem to be under the wrong impression that there was no history before the days of the British Empire.
I am not any diplomat, but you do not have to be a diplomat to know the elementary Maltese history.
Not correct.
Malta was certainly not a colony in Roman times, and definitely not a colony when it made part of the Kingdom of Siclily.
Malta was a colony only in the British era starting at the Treaty of Paris in 1814.
What I think you meant is that Malta was never soverign untill 1964.
So if Malta was not sovereign before it achieved independence in 1964 and it was never a colonizing power what was it before 1814? What was it during the Punic Wars, what was it during the period of Byzantine occupation, during the period under the Arabs, the Normans, Swabians, Angevines, Aragonese, Castillians?
The answer is part of a bigger whole. Which is completely different from being a colony.
There was never an “occupation” be it Byzantine, Arab, Norman, etc. Malta was part of the territory of Sicily and so whenever the governing power of Sicily changed automatically Malta’s changed accordingly.
Malta was only a colony under British rule (I repeat), before that Malta was part of the territory of the Kingdom of Sicily or whoever ruled the area.
Malta is the name of an island, it only became the name of a state since independence.
The fact that the Maltese islands were a small part of the Kingdom of Sicily since the 12th century and that it followed the fate of that kingdom under the Bourbon and Spanish kingdoms does not alter the fact that it was a de facto colony even before it became part of the British Empire.
Can you stop this colony rubbish. It looks like you know nothing about Maltese history.
So Crete is a de facto colony of Greece?