Divorced from reality
This is my column in The Malta Independent on Sunday, today.
It is most unfortunate that Eddie Fenech Adami appears unable to retire gracefully.
First, he made himself President of the Republic, moving smartly into Guido de Marco’s shoes when the latter’s time as president was done. To do this he stepped down as premier just one year into his term of office.
When Malta joined the European Union a month later, it was Lawrence Gonzi who was prime minister, leading the celebrations, and not the man who fought the 30-year battle to get us there.
Back then, people were angry about it. They felt let down. They couldn’t understand why the man they had admired for so long had pretty much cheated them of the prime minister for whom they had voted, and made himself president, leaving his job to be done for the next four years by somebody they had not chosen, Lawrence Gonzi.
That was when the great hero of the 1980s and 1990s first sank in public esteem. That was when people began to wonder whether their political demigod might not actually have feet of clay.
When he left San Anton Palace two years ago – a figure of speech, because his wife refused to move the household there for the duration – Dr Fenech Adami told the newspapers that his only plans were to be a full-time grandfather. He said that he looked forward to not having to check his diary before going to bed.
Michael Carabott, who edits this newspaper’s daily edition, interviewed him just before he packed his bags for that supposedly longed-for retirement. Dr Fenech Adami told him that he would continue to keep up to date with events in Malta and Europe, “but I will not actively or personally get involved” (The Malta Independent, 2 February 2009).
For the last two years he has been more or less true to his word, but the prospect of divorce legislation has proved too much for him. It has turned Eddie Fenech Adami into a version of Margaret Thatcher, backseat-driving, second-guessing and trying to influence the Conservative Party she no longer led. And because her shadow loomed so large, because her stature as prime minister had been so great, Mrs Thatcher made her successor’s job that much more difficult. She couldn’t accept the fact that ‘her’ political party was being managed in a way she didn’t agree with.
Eddie Fenech Adami is doing the same now. He is retired, but still hoping to pull strings to fend off the divorce legislation that he refused to discuss for 30 years.
For the three decades he led the Nationalist Party, he had fought off all suggestions that perhaps, just perhaps, the time had come to talk about divorce, and maybe, you never know, just maybe, introduce it?
But he was so adamantly opposed to it, so unwilling even to consider it – because Jesus said No, making it, in his eyes, an absolute truth rather than a matter of opinion held by some of those of the same religious persuasion – that divorce became for the Nationalist Party the Great Big Unspoken Elephant in the room.
It became the cancerous tumour which, ignored in the hope that it would go away, instead grew to the extent that it now poses a real and looming threat to the Nationalist Party.
As Dr Fenech Adami insists on telling us repeatedly what he thinks about divorce, rooting his logic in what might well be a historic misinterpretation of a couple of lines in the New Testament, the rest of us out here have begun to get some idea of what it must have been like for anybody in the party machinery who even hoped to try to crack this one, knowing full well that it couldn’t be held off for good just by pretending that public opinion was Eddie Fenech Adami’s opinion.
It must have been hell, getting used to a sort of permanent state of denial and hoping that the inevitable would not happen and have to be dealt with.
Now the inevitable has indeed happened. Dr Fenech Adami told a radio interviewer yesterday that he was shocked by the referendum result because he thought that people in their great majority would vote against divorce legislation. Why did he think that? Simple, really: for years he refused to countenance any mention of divorce, and he made the great error of thinking – a common error, but very unusual for him – that if he refused to discuss something then it didn’t exist.
This supremely rational man slipped up because on this particular matter he prefers to base his reasoning on the irrationality of religious belief. And that’s dangerous for a politician because religious belief and dogma are not, as he says, absolute truths but personal beliefs and as such they are relative.
His truth is not my truth. Religion forces people to think in black and white, when the real world and real life are in multiple shades of grey.
As I write this, there are conflicting reports of what Eddie Fenech Adami actually told his interviewer. One newspaper’s internet version says that he hopes MPs will vote No and block the divorce bill, because the referendum is “only consultative”. Another online newspaper quotes him as saying that he does not suggest MPs should ignore the referendum result, but that they should vote according to their conscience.
I have been unable to obtain a transcript of the interview in time to meet my deadline, and am reluctant to rely on these conflicting reports. But if it is true Dr Fenech Adami said he hopes MPs will block the bill, then he should know that his shock at the referendum result will be as nothing compared to our shock at seeing the real and actual Salvatur ta’ Malta go down the very same path as the pretender to that title.
Dom Mintoff, too, was convinced of what he was doing, and felt justified in trampling on our rights, dignity and liberty to achieve whatever ideal or project he had in mind. The fact that Eddie Fenech Adami’s motivation is religious and Dom Mintoff’s was anything but does not make Dr Fenech Adami’s motivation better. It just makes it different.
The Moses who led us to the Promised Land of Europe is now very cross because we have begun to think like Europeans. There was more than a hint of ‘Ewropa ta’ Kain’ reasoning in Dr Fenech Adami’s quoted words yesterday. With all his talk of slippery slopes, gay marriage, abortion and the evils of secularism and thin ends of wedges, he sounded dangerously like the man whose nemesis he was: Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici.
Both Mr Mintoff and Dr Fenech Adami made the fundamental error of thinking that their truth was everybody’s and that it was absolute. Fortunately, they are both out to pasture and Malta has moved on.
I suppose it is a blessing that Mr Mintoff is not well. With Dr Mifsud Bonnici giving us his two cents’ worth on Gaddafi and Dr Fenech Adami doing the same with divorce, the last thing we need is a third former prime minister throwing bottles from the back of the room.
42 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I am angry and frustrated that someone like Dr Fenech Adami should encourage the government to trample on the will of the populace.
But I find it equally irritating that Dr Fenech Adami and people like him should say that this will lead us down the path of gay marriages and gay rights. WHAT IS WRONG WITH GAY MARRIAGES? WHAT IS WRONG WITH GAY RIGHTS? (sorry for shouting, had to let it out)
To people of one book, something is wrong because it is. No questions asked.
He’ll just throw a Bible at your head and say this is whats wrong. We shouldn’t let them marry, WE SHOULD KILL THEM, or shouldn’t we ? I thought it wasn’t ok to murder someone.
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.”(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.
Deuteronomy 5:17: Thou shalt not kill.
Matthew 5:21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.
Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
^Oh Spirtual leader, Fenech Adami what does God really want?! Send us mixed messages, he is.
[Daphne – The New Testament substitutes the Old. That’s what makes us Christians.]
[Daphne – The New Testament substitutes the Old. That’s what makes us Christians.]
God changed his mind.
I forgot that.
So the problem they should be having is with adultery in general and not only divorce. -_-
[Daphne – The New Testament substitutes the Old. That’s what makes us Christians.]
Oh goodie, then Moses’ 10 commandments are not mandatory? Only consultative?
The problem with gay marriages is that, once married, gays want to raise children.
That this is not according to the natural order of things stems from the fact that we are not asexual organisms.
The rest is rubbish.
@Min Weber
And what is wrong with gay people being able to raise children or adopt? As long as they can give the child a loving home, that is. Isn’t it better for a child to be raised by loving homosexual parents than to be left in an orphanage or with abusive parents?
@ Min Weber:
The natural order of things is to get an illness or disease, to suffer horribly, and to die. Yet most people who bring up the “natural order” in moral arguments usually take life-saving medicine.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature
Spot on –
I found nothing wrong with him becoming president. He was the best politician Malta ever had, so why not?
I agree with everything else you say though.
He should really have stuck to being a full time grandfather.
Daphne, that could not have been an easy article for you to write, especially as we all know the respect you have always held for Dr Fenech Adami.
However, as always you have said it as it is and who the heck can disagree with your logic.
I would have thought that Dr Fenech Adami, after all the crusades he has fought and won, would have known better.
Adrian Buckle: the word “populace” may sometimes carry a derogatory connotation of “rabble”, “mob” etc (in fact, it derives from Italian “popolaccio”) which I do not think is intended on your part. I suggest you use “people, population, public” etc instead of “populace”. Otherwise, of course, I agree with your argument that the people’s will should be respected when Parliament votes.
There is no need to worry about what Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami has said about divorce and the referendum result.
He is entitled to the freedom of speech for which he fought personally.
Our MPs have assured us that they are voting according to what THEIR CONSCIENCE tells them, so it is immaterial what Dr. Fenech Adami says.
A sad and humiliating end to an otherwise brilliant political career. What the hell was he thinking? Sadly, the PM and the Nationalist Party must now act swiftly to disassociate themselves from Fenech Adami’s fundamentalist, divisive and anti-democratic statements.
Who said we’ve seen the end of him?
“the irrationality of religious belief” Bah! Humbug ! I say.
I have nothing else to add.
Dr. Fenech Adami is someone who I considered to be a national hero, whom I have often compared to the Maltese version of one of the founding fathers of the US. Why such a rational man has chosen to blight his exit with such nonsense is beyond me.
Someone once told me that you are only as good as your last job and that in the shadow of a major blunder all your past heroics would mean nothing.
Today, 18-year-olds are quoting Dr Fenech Adami’s gay marriage position followed by ‘burn in hell, you old closed-minded bastard’.
Who would have thought that comments I so often passed about Mintoff would have been relayed by the next generation and addressed to Dr. Fenech Adami. So sad.
No doubt that people are unhappy with the way the PN handled the increase in utility bills, are unhappy to see a theatre built with no roof, are unhappy with the new parliament built in a small square, unhappy to see the MPs’ pay rise not properly disclosed to the public.
The people are disillusioned to see the constant infighting among the PN parliamentary group. And now are angry to see the PN hierarchy take an antidemocratic stand against this divorce issue.
One doesn’t have to be a prophet to see the inevitable in 2013. A tragedy of Shakespearean proportion is in the making, I am afraid to say.
So so sad. MLP will turn Malta back again to inefficiency again. Not mentioning KMB being the next president. God help us.
Margaret Thatcher was a strong leader and so was Dr. Eddie Fenech Adami.
They also both knew what they believed in. Eddie Fenech Adami is now seeing his party begin to lose its principles. He does not want that to happen.
After all, the MPs were promised a free vote and it is not Gonzi`s fault that Parliament voted to have the referendum before it approved divorce legislation. Had JPO and Mugliett not voted with the Opposition, none of this mess would have happened.
Loss of principles? A break from religious dogma you mean. The other day I heard the underwear salesman from Mosta holding forth about faith this and faith that.
At one point I thought that I was listening to a priest rather than a politician. He must have missed his vocation twice over. I am completely confused, are we being led by politicians or priests?
They are priests in underwear salesman’s clothing.
What Dr. Fenech Adami is seeing is the party evolving (or devolving depending what angle you’re sat at). Either way you hit the nail on the head when you said ‘his’ party.
It is not his party yet he behaves as though it is, just like Malta did not belong to Mintoff yet he seemed to think it did and that we should all be subservient to him.
Mintoff and Fenech Adami had strong priinciples and clear ideas. Today’s leaders don`t! I did not agree with what Mintoff believed in – socialism but he believed in socialism. I agreed, in part, with what Eddie believed in – Christian Democracy I (I am more a Conservative than a Christian Democrat) but he was and still is a convinced Christian Democrat! You tell me what Gonzi and Muscat believe in. Gonzi increased his and his Cabinet’s wage and Muscat and his colleagues accepted a raise in their honoraria of 10,000 euro. They then go on attacking the Government about its 500 euro increase per Cabinet member and argue that the average worker only has a 1 euro and 16 cents increase. All MPs have had a 10,000 euro increase as Joe Mizzi conceded in last Saturday`s debate: “Whereas the honoraria of the MPs of the last legislature had stood at 16,000 euro, Dr. Gonzi had upped the sum to 26,000 eurofor all MPs, a few wekks after winning the last general election.” THE MALTA INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY. COME ON – ALL MPs HAVE LOST THEIR PRINCIPLES. What do they believe in? What does Joseph Muscat stand for and what does Gonzi stand for? This is way the number of people voting in the next general elections will continue to decrease.
I grew up with an image of Mintoff as a hero and that image was shattered during that good old Cottonera yacht marina saga. It took a while to adjust to the shock of seeing that illusion being shattered but eventually I think it helped because I started seeing the Mintoff story in those cliched shades of grey.
I never liked Dr. Fenech Adami as a prime minister, or indeed as a person (well, that persona of a holier-than-thou family man – I never knew him personally). In the same way as Mintoff embodied a struggle (real or imaginary) against the ‘Catholic Church’s opression’, Dr. Fenech Adami emodied deference to that same establishment.
I can empathise with this feeling of disappointment and anger in some respect. As I grow older and more cynical I’m coming to realise no one is worth idolising – often the people I admire most end up becoming the worst disappointments.
Freud apparently suggested he could not promise happiness – only an acceptance of existential misery. In psycho-social terms, it looks like this could be a collective identity crisis happening back home – the so-called ‘primitive’ defence mechanism of ‘splitting’ (seeing everyone as good or bad) is giving way to the ‘depressive’ position (where everyone is a bit f**ed up in their own way – some a bit more than others).
Maybe Malta is growing up after all. And maybe it’s not thanks to the men who’ve led it, but in spite of them.
Some of the comments here are ridiculously over the top.
Regarding divorce, Fenech Adami has expressed an opinion with which most of us here do not agree, but this is hardly “a sad and humiliating end” for him and certainly does not put him anywhere close to Mintoff.
Why do Maltese always have to express themselves in melodramatic hyperbole?
As regards gay marriage, let us not forget that most EU countries, including the UK, do not recognise it, so Fenech Adami’s position is actually the mainstream one.
The UK, however, does provide the same legal protection (through civil partnerships) to gay couples that marriage provides. At the end of the day most gays don’t care (rightly or wrongly) what it’s called as long as everyone has equal rights.
His views on divorce, gay marriage, etc. identify him as a relic from a bygone era. That’s fine, and not especially surprising.
What is tragic is the disregard for fundamental principles of democracy that is implicit in his off the cuff, and ill-advised comments regarding what should now happen in the aftermath of the referendum.
This is EDDIE after all, and here he is stooping to the same level as Mintoff, Sant and Muscat.
If Eddie can play fast and loose with the very basic rules that underpin a modern democracy, imagine, just imagine what could happen when Muscat and his boys are at the helm.
Is there some kind of illogical fear that these so called leaders have of having a divorce law in Malta?
A fear that is only for the initiated, whispered in hush tones in secluded places to the chosen few to be in the know and they have to be very trusted and trust worthy.
“Today, 18-year-olds are quoting Dr Fenech Adami’s gay marriage position followed by ‘burn in hell, you old closed-minded bastard’.”
Today’s 18-year-olds don’t give a hoot about politics. They are too busy ‘socialising’ on the social networks.
Extremly well written. I think it is one of your best articles I have read. Well done.
The point is made here: Lawrence Gonzi is not just any old backbencher, but the prime minister. If he has trouble with his conscience, then his only option is to resign. He can’t credibly leave the room during voting or vote No.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110613/local/All-eyes-on-Gonzi-s-choice.370320
Well that’s faith for you. Eddie Fenech Adami shows us how pernicious and toxic religious convictions are.
Here we have an erstwhile rational gentleman who fought long and hard for democracy, hoping that parliament would ignore the will of the people and vote on religious lines.
Would Gonzi dare comment on what Eddie is stating?
What does divorce have to do with religion? If anything divorce is pro-religion because it allows for couples to marry. What is so liberal or modern about divorce? It as a spiritual evil being pushed by religious zealots for hundreds of years.
If people have a problem with marriage then we should do away with marriage.
But please do not impose divorce on persons who have decided to get married when divorce was not even an option.
The deal with marriage was clear, it was a life-long commitment that required a life-long investment.
If people getting married today do not want this type of commitment than let divorce apply to them, but divorce should not apply to marriages pre-2011.
Respect the rights of the minority, those non-believers who so not believe in remarriage. please let us be. Divorce yourselves but don’t impose divorce on others.
Well here’s a deal for you. I won’t make you divorce and you stay out of other people’s lives. Isn’t that charitable of me.
“Respect the rights of the minority”. Rich! Aren’t we getting told ad nauseum that Malta is a Catholic nation and the Maltese people are Catholic, dead set to oppose that great evil secularism?
It is utterly pathetic to see grown people grovel and victimise themselves and you would do yourself a service to just think through your arguments before posting.
[Lino Cert – What does divorce have to do with religion? If anything divorce is pro-religion because it allows for couples to marry. What is so liberal or modern about divorce? It as a spiritual evil being pushed by religious zealots for hundreds of years].
I see. So divorce has nothing to do with religion, and yet, it is a spiritual evil and pro-religion. Is this some kind of Newspeak?
[Lino Cert – If people have a problem with marriage then we should do away with marriage].
Sure. And if people have a problem with bad food, they should do away with food. Interesting logic.
[Lino Cert – But please do not impose divorce on persons who have decided to get married when divorce was not even an option].
Legal separation was once not an option, and yet, we have “imposed” separation. And what about people who do not wish their marriage to be declared null but their spouses think otherwise? Do these have annulment imposed on them? Please stop recycling long-discredited arguments.
[Lino Cert – The deal with marriage was clear, it was a life-long commitment that required a life-long investment].
Marriage is not a business deal. Its much more complex than that – unless, of course, you believe wives are property.
[Lino Cert – If people getting married today do not want this type of commitment than let divorce apply to them, but divorce should not apply to marriages pre-2011].
Why not?
[Lino Cert – Respect the rights of the minority, those non-believers who so not believe in remarriage. please let us be. Divorce yourselves but don’t impose divorce on others].
We’re not imposing divorce on anyone. You’re free not to divorce.
Lino, I a getting seriously concerned for your state of health.
“if people getting married today do not want this type of commitment than let divorce apply to them, but divorce should not apply to marriages pre-2011.
Respect the rights of the minority, those non-believers who so not believe in remarriage. please let us be. Divorce yourselves but don’t impose divorce on others.”???
What you are now also going to propose there should be laws for people born after a law was enacted??
As for imposing divorce, huh? who is imposing anything? The ‘deal’ as you so tactfully put it may have been clear to you, but judging by the many separated (pre-2011) couples, it may not be clear to them.
Can we please be serious and have some logical arguments before I conclude that there is something in the water and Malta has turned into a Mediterranean version of the Mad hatter’s Tea Party? Divorce a spiritual evil pushed by religious zealots ??? – I wish!
“But please do not impose divorce on persons who have decided to get married when divorce was not even an option.”
Who exactly is imposing divorce on who?
Divorce means simply that the state does not prohibit someone who was married to marry again.
Not disallowing something can hardly be considered forcing someone to do something – it is the contrary, the removal of an imposition.
But only Alfred Sant said NO THAT’s IT to his former leader ! Dik l-irgulia …Biex ma ninsewx Dr Fenech Adami kien ta xi 3 Hours mil-hin tieghu lil Dom Mintoff fil-parlament biex joghoqod jaghajjr Lil-Alfred Sant…Dik kuxjenza hallina Dr EFA
Here’s a sensible article.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110614/opinion/This-is-the-time-to-move-ahead.370490
The bottom line is that we need to move on.
Let parliament get the best possible law discussed and approved. How individual MPs vote is irrelevant as long as the divorce law is enacted according to the referendum result.
The difference between a thinker and a newspaperman is that a thinker enters right into things, a newspaperman is superficial.
Gertrude Stein