‘Consistency’ is not an end in itself

On Monday, the Opposition raised a number of questions in parliament about Friday's maritime rescue operation, in which 150 migrants - many of them from Syria - were brought to Malta, even though their vessel had capsized closer to Lampedusa.

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil prefaced his statement by declaring that saving lives at sea is an 'overriding concern'. He also went on to question what happens to people after they are rescued, pointing out that government's response last Friday was inconsistent with its previous stand vis-à-vis the oil tanker Salamis, when Malta stood firm and insisted that Italy had to assume responsibility for the stranded passengers. 

As Opposition leader, he is within his rights to raise such questions. But Busuttil's motives remain unclear. Consistency in such matters may be an important consideration, under ordinary circumstances. But given the sheer scale of the loss of life associated with immigration in recent weeks, it is fair to state that circumstances are very far from ordinary. Taking the Opposition's questions to their logical conclusion, one infers that Busuttil would have preferred Malta to precipitate yet another diplomatic stand-off with Italy on this issue. If so, it would be a very strange thing for the Nationalist opposition to expect at such a sensitive time.

Nor is this the only unusual aspect to Busuttil's parliamentary declaration on Monday. He also criticised the outcome of the recent EU relocation forum, querying how many migrants other member states had agreed to take from Malta - in what was effectively a direct echo of criticism levelled at the previous (Nationalist) administration over its failure to secure a mandatory responsibility-sharing agreement in the Asylum Pact of 2011.

Busuttil was himself an MEP back then, and should therefore know from his own experience that Europe has for years consistently rejected 'mandatory' burden sharing on principle. For this we have the recent word of EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, who made it painstakingly clear that other member states have objected to the concept of mandatory relocation on the grounds that it would act as a disincentive for countries to improve their asylum procedures.

From this perspective, one can only wonder what Busuttil was trying to achieve, by criticising government over its failure to obtain an agreement which he himself knows is impossible to obtain anyway. But his observation also illustrates the often blatant double lives political leaders so often seem to lead. The questions raised in parliament on Monday were almost identical to questions raised by the Labour Opposition in 2011, evoking the disturbing image of two parties which simply switch identities as they cross the floor from government to opposition, and vice versa.

But the real problem is another. The substance of the Opposition's attitude towards immigration, as displayed on Monday, also projects the image of a political party that seems to be astonishingly oblivious to the changing sensitivities of the time. Busuttil may have taken pains to couch his concerns as diplomatically as possible - repeatedly stressing the importance of saving lives as a priority - but the very suggestion that Malta should have forced Lampedusa to take responsibility for those migrants (when the same island had so recently experienced the chilling scene of literally scores of dead bodies washed up on its shores) can only come across as callous in the extreme.

Moreover, implicit in Busuttil's remarks was the tacit understanding that the Maltese public - already exasperated by the logistical problems associated with immigration - would automatically sympathise with his doubts regarding the present government's immigration policy. He may even be correct about a sizeable portion of the electorate, but there are two possible dangers in this approach.

The first and most immediate is that this simply smacks of political opportunism. Just as Muscat had done when occupying the same position, Simon Busuttil seems incapable of resisting the impulse to appeal to a groundswell anti-immigration sentiment... even to the extent of contradicting his former government's policy on the same issue.

The second danger is that Busuttil may not be reading the signs of the times correctly. The latest developments in the immigration saga - including the fact that many asylum seekers now come from Syria, making them culturally and ethnically closer to home than sub-Saharan Africans, and also victims of a much-publicised conflict for which there is much sympathy in Malta - may have had an impact on public attitudes towards immigration.

By insisting on 'consistency' without taking stock of the changing landscape - at a time when his own position is in any case woefully inconsistent with his own party's former policies when in government - Simon Busuttil can only come across as ill-informed, hypocritical and hopelessly out of touch with popular sentiment: all three being fatal flaws in any political leader.

Lastly, it must also be said that the entire logic underpinning his argument is also fallacious. 'Consistency' is not an end in itself. The Labour government's attitude towards this issue may indeed have changed; but if so, it is a change that also boosts Malta's international image as a caring, hospitable country.

Surely the Opposition should be applauding, not deploring, such a welcome change.