The loony Nationalist Party

The PN has made a deliberate political choice - that of abandoning the political middle-ground, and embracing an extremist confessional position.

James Debono 1 May 2011, 12:00am

2 min read

Lawrence Gonzi as portrayed by the European Voice (Marco Villard)

Just as immigration is bringing out the worst aspect of the Labour Party’s populist ideology, divorce has brought out the worse of the Nationalist Party’s confessional conservatism.

The PN has lost any claim of being an inclusive moderate party (which explains why the PN won so many elections) and is increasingly resembling a loony, confessional party whose identity derives from confessional beliefs rather than economic and social programmes.

This is a deliberate political choice made by a leadership which seems to have lost the plot. Tonio Fenech’s recent claims in which he referred to the Virgin Mary crying over the introduction of divorce in Malta was the cherry on the cake.

What makes me wonder is that there have been no wave of protests or resignations from within the party. Ironically the most offended should not be the liberals but the Christian Democrats, who are seeing their party hijacked by neo-conservatives who define their political identity on confessional grounds.

Historically, Christian Democracy was an attempt by centrist parties in Europe to depart from the confessionalism of clerical-fascist parties and embrace modernity, European integration and a social market economy. In post fascist Europe, the idea of the common good was mostly applied to social and economic matters. Christian Democratic leaders like Angela Merkel in Germany and Pier Ferdinando Casini in Italy are divorced. Nobody raises the issue. But judging by the PN’s billboards, the marriage of these fellow Christian democrats is tainted by an expiry date.

What has been remarkable was the lack of internal debate in the PN over this hara-kiri direction taken by the leadership.

Having never voted for the PN and not being myself a Christian Democrat, I should be the last one to speak about this.

Anyway, it is the only interesting thing and worthy of analysis which am finding in a divorce campaign which is bound to be stale and boring, considering that we are discussing a basic civil right which all countries in the world except two, accept.

James Debono is MaltaToday's chief reporter on environment, planning and land use issues, ...

More from James Debono

•

James. Actually, the PN was always a conservative party. now - as you said - we are seeing its loony side. In the 90s EFA rolled back the separation of State-Church by giving power to ecclestial tribunal coutrs over civil courts. If anything the fundamentalism started then.

Abdi D •

@ OBS and Gecko I do not believe the majority of people are looking at the divorce issue as you perceive it, especially those who are planning to vote YES. A YES vote would be a win for democracy in Malta, it's a pity that the PN opted to take a side on the issue. With regards to the PL, Joseph Muscat is in favour but others are not, it would have been very undemocratic for him to impose his point of view on his collegues. As thoings stand, both a Yes and a No vote will in the end harm the church, especially if the Bishop does not stop the extremist from using the church to impose a NO vote. Just like in the 60s when by using the excommunication Mons Gonzi won the election for the PN, but lost the church many faithful followers. It seems another Gonzi will be doing the same thing to the church in 2011.

•

The truth is that the PN has never been ' the liberal party' of the Maltese. Even Stickland's Party was more progressive than the antiquated and fossilised PN. I mean consider the role the PN took during Fascism; it sided with Franco Mussolini and indirectly therefore Hitler! Indeed, they still commemorates those Maltese who sided with the fascists during the Second World War and call them patriots: patriots for siding and cheering Mussolini who used to bomb Malta day and night? One can also consider all the social changes that Malta passed through; the PN voted against all these issues, one man one vote,votes for women, votes for youths, minimum wage, social security and pensions, children's allowance, free schooling and health, dicriminalization of gays,separation of Church and State ( reintroduced by PN in 1995) freedom for the arts and artists ( Vella Gera taken to Court) and, last but not least, the divorce issue! Even the so called PN intellectuals do not condemn the expulsion of Dr Deborah Schembri from the Church's tribunals! This is a clear case of a breach of human rights, but Malta is so conservative, that demeaning scandals pass by unnoticed because the Press and the Establishment, Courts etc are simply gate keepers to the established status quo. Being a Labourite in Malta is a revolutionary act in itself; its like being an anarchist, a radical and a liberal in the American sense, because being a Labourite means you are part of the history of change, against established norms, and therefore you and your family will be ostracised in a subtle way by the conservatives of all colours and shade, that have a hegemony, on condoms, embryos, stem cells, arts, education,divorce, faith and politics. This is not the result of a loony party James; the fault, lies not in the PN, but in the those psuedo Maltese liberals who vote the PN in, because the truth is, they are closet conservatives!

•

The PN is in hara-kiri mode and the approach to divorce just goes to show you this. The problem is that the leadership has no leverage at all and the last two years of fiip flopping on various issues just prove this. However the divorce issue has brought to the forefront the real power behind the PN. Whether one refers to it as the Church or Opus Dei or whatever the result is the same. The approach has only served to alienate those PN voters who until some time ago still viewed the party as a liberal/conservative party. Now the party resembles the Tea Party in the USA and basically a totally different party altogether - definitely not to to all the current PN voters liking. Ironically a resounding yes victory may prove to be a blessing in disguise for the PN to change course and retract from it's hardline position. On the other hand a no victory will prove to be a poisoned chalice for the party at the next elections. So far, judging by the MEP elections, lessons have not been learnt.

Joseph Sant •

@employee. I suppose you misread what I wrote. I did not say that PL chickened out but was rebutting OBS's assertion that most people are equating a Yes win in the referendum with a win for Muscat. What I was talking about was people's perception not fact. What the PL does or does not do is their business and I don't go into it.

•

@ Gecko. I beg to differ. Why do you say that the PL has chickened out ? Who says that the PL should have taken a stand ? because the PN did ? The tragic mistake was that the PN took such a stand, thus turning the whole exercise into a political debate. Moreover, confusion reigns as after taking a stand, it is allowing its members a free vote; a clear case of trying to please everyone. The PL was more mature in this issue. i don't know why we need to involve politics into everything.

Joseph Sant •

I think you are wrong on both counts OBS. Firstly the introduction of divorce legislation is not at all a moral issue but a purely civil one. The moral issue would arise if a Catholic were to make use of that divorce legislation not the legislation itself. It is dishonest for the No movement in general and the Church in particular to turn the referendum into a moral issue - it definitely is not. As for the perception you mention that a win for the Yes movement being a win for Muscat I beg to differ as well. I personally think the general perception is that Labour has chickened out by not actually taking a position on divorce.

•

...by the way, prova ta kemm id-divorzju gie politicizzat huwa l-fatt li hafna qed iqisu li jekk jghaddi hija rebha ta muscat u jekk ma jghaddix hija rebha ta gonzi!

•

Jien ma naqbilx mad-divorzju u ser nivvota le ghaliex bhala Kattoliku ma nhossnix komdu nivvota ghad-dhul tad-divorzju f'pajjizna. Pero, nemmen li l-partiti ma kellomx jidhlu fiha din il-kwistjoni ghax din huja kwistjoni morali l-ewwel u qabel kollox. Ghamel hazin il-PN li ha stand ghax b'hekk dahal fil-kwistjoni awtomatikament. Imma kif f'dal pajjiz ser nibqu l-istess, f'kollox irridu ndeffsu l-politika!

•

Well James. I know that you're intelligent enough to realise that it's all about political expediency and survival. Right now, the only way PN can survive is by embracing the church and its conservatives roots. There's also the problem of Gonzi digging himself into too deep a hole but it also shows that it's not about ideology but votes. For more info on divorce and church-state relationships in Malta log on: [email protected]