Facing a constructed crisis | Therese Comodini Cachia

Therese Comodini Cachia, a lawyer specialising in fundamental human rights, may well represent a rare and new breed in the Nationalist Party: she is a 40-year old professional woman with an affinity for the work that NGOs do, who has the knowledge and experience to back up a keen effort to confront misconceptions on sensitive issues like immigration.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, she does not shy away from confronting the migration issue head-on, despite her hunch that it will in fact be the big issue of next year's campaign.

In fact she has no doubt that immigration is being "built up into a national crisis" by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat as Labour's bête noire for the European elections, a fact she feels is, to say the least, "most unfortunate".

"It is unfortunate because the way political discourse on migration is being framed is perpetuating an 'us against them' scenario that is also creating a social divide. Even if you have two kids and you start comparing them to each other, you are bound to create an argument between them."

While acknowledging that migration poses logistical difficulties for a small island state like Malta, "it is not the big crisis that the prime minister makes it to be," Comodini Cachia says.

"Immigration is not tackled by simply using strong language, which only serves to unleash the racism which exists out there."

She points out that every population has a group of people who are racist, but warns that persons with authority are duty-bound not to legitimise these sentiments. "You cannot afford having a person in authority who unleashes these forces."

As an example she mentions the personal attacks on Cecilia Malmström's Facebook wall. "I cannot believe that we have stooped so low," she adds, before attributing a degree of political responsibility for this explosion of hatred towards the EU commissioner to the prime minister.

"For heaven's sake, it was also wrong telling Cecilia Malmström 'if you want them take them to Sweden'," referring to Muscat's first reaction to the commissioner's recommendation to Malta that it take in the stranded migrants aboard the oil tanker MT Salamis.

"He was also wrong in targeting Cecilia Malmström, who is not responsible for decisions taken by the Council of Ministers. He was addressing the wrong person. On this issue it is neither the commissioner nor the European Parliament which is not supporting us. It is the Council of Ministers, representing each and every member state, which is not entirely supporting us."

Comodini Cachia does not try to score points by giving the false impression that MEPs can solve the problem by simply stamping their feet in the European Parliament. But she praises Simon Busuttil's work as the European People's Party (EPP) representative in the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which covered issues that included the Common European Immigration and Asylum policy.

"We have managed to get from the European Parliament what we could possibly get... it is the nation states who are not convinced of the necessity of burden sharing."

She notes that many Maltese are failing to distinguish between the role of our MEPs and the role of our ministers in the European council. "Let's take immigration. As an MEP Simon Busuttil left no stone unturned... and if there is an organ in the European Union which is aware of our difficulties on this issue it is the European Parliament. But what is the council of governments doing? There you don't have MEPs, you have ministers, including our own."

So isn't Muscat justified in threatening the use of veto in the council of ministers where the decisions that matter are taken?

Comodini Cachia warns that this could be counterproductive. "How can you use the veto on something which endangers everything else? We have gained a lot from the European Union, not just financially, but also by raising standards affecting quality of life."

The problem would be on what occasion will the government use its veto. "Would you use the veto on social affairs, which is good for your own people? Why not get your ministers to instead lobby other ministers to influence decisions?"

When plans on implementing the pushback of migrants to Libya were being put in place before the government was stopped by an injunction by the European Court of Human Rights (a court belonging to the Council of Europe, not the EU) the Nationalist Party did take a stance against the pushbacks, insisting that this was in breach of international law. Yet at least to me, Simon Busuttil's objection was too legalistic to provide a sense of moral leadership on this sensitive issue. Shouldn't the PN take a more passionate stand and provide a sense of leadership on migration?

Comodini Cachia takes a step back, making a reflection on the way political parties are dealing with this issue, noting that by turning immigration into a political football the government had put the PN in a difficult position that risks creating a partisan divide on this sensitive issue.

"Immigration is a very sensitive topic and is becoming even more so as the issue has been politicised. When the PN rightly issued a statement against the pushbacks, a perception was created that government was at one extreme and the opposition was on the other extreme of the debate."

What is needed according to Comodini Cachia, is a qualitative leap in political discourse, which addresses both the concerns Maltese people have on immigration and the rights of migrants themselves.

"Immigration does affect us as we are receiving immigrants. But it also affects immigrants themselves. We need to create an awareness which addresses the concerns and rights of both groups rather than foster an 'us versus them' mentality. This can be brought about by integration."

I point out that the previous Nationalist government was not keen on implementing integration policies. In fact a commitment for such a policy was only made by the PN in its election manifesto. "Judging from my experience of working with NGOs on this issue, the blocking obstacle for immigration is the sense of fear towards African, black migrants. For those who know the facts this fear is clearly irrational. But people out there do not know the facts. "

Information is the key to combat this irrational fear, she says. "Many people out there believe that there are 16,000 immigrants living in Malta when we don't. In reality we may have a maximum of 5,000 migrants. That is the problem."

But wasn't the PN responsible for not addressing these fears in the past? Comodini Cachia agrees.

"In the past the PN really failed to tell the people out there the fact that although we were receiving around 2,000 migrants each year, many were leaving the island either through repatriation, re-settlement or simply leaving of their own volition. This was our major mistake: we did not communicate this well. That is what the PN should be communicating now: the correct facts on immigration".

Disseminating correct information is therefore the best antidote to contrast irrational fears.

"People out there are afraid of immigration and I think the prime minister is thriving on this fear. Every individual has a fear of the unknown and for us immigrants represent the unknown."

I point out that Simon Busuttil still supported Joseph Muscat's stance on the Salamis case, a case involving a ship's captain who apparently ignored instructions to take asylum seekers back to Libya, and proceeded in Malta's direction. On that occasion Muscat, with Busuttil's full backing, refused to accept the migrants in Malta insisting that these should be sent back to Libya. This resulted in three-day stand off, during which migrants were left on an oil tanker. All throughout the crisis the migrants' humanitarian plight was overshadowed by bickering over who should take responsibility for them. A humanitarian tragedy was only avoided after Italy finally accepted responsibility for the migrants.

She acknowledges that this case posed a major difficulty for her party, after it had invoked international law against Joseph Muscat's threat to push back migrants to Libya. "Strictly speaking, in terms of international law we were correct - the Salamis should not have brought the migrants to Malta. But this is the conclusion one arrives at when one's perspective is limited to maritime law. But there is also humanitarian law."

Comodini Cachia claims that when it issued its statement the PN was seeing things from the perspective of maritime law, simply because at the time it had issued the statement (on the first day of the crisis) at a point when the situation had not yet degenerated into a humanitarian crisis.

"Had the stand-off dragged on, I am sure the PN would have said, 'Look, there is humanitarian law as well and in such a circumstance you have to take migrants in and we are no longer backing you if you refuse to do this'."

I point out that in this case Italy saved Malta's face by accepting the migrants. Comodini Cachia disagrees. "Italy actually fooled us. It played a game. In the EU Italy has a very bad reputation on immigration. In this case Italy pushed up its reputation by making Malta look bad. This was really frustrating because for us having a good reputation is one of the best assets we can have."

Judging by the contents of speeches made by some MEPs and local politicians, the only European issue that matters is migration. I spell out the irony that the same politicians who bash Europe on migration are often the first to lash at the EU for over-stepping its remit when it talks of a harmonisation of taxation and a Europe-wide tax on financial transactions, which would negatively impact Malta's budding financial sector.

"We seem to like to send what we perceive as our problems to Europe but are not willing to surrender anything which is to our advantage... but we have to admit that every nation tends to be selfish, wanting the good things for itself while sharing the problems with others," Comodini Cachia says.

But she warns that to retain competence over sectors beneficial to Malta, we also cannot afford to poison the well with inflammatory rhetoric directed against the European Union and its officials.

"We also want burden sharing because we perceive immigration as a burden. Therefore we think that the EU is there to share our burden but not to share our pride and joy issues. But this is wrong. Because the EU is built on compromise, cooperation and persuasion. If you need to retain your pride and joy, you need to cooperate on immigration as well."

She fears that many Maltese do not grasp what the EU actually means, with some perceiving it as a cow to be milked. "We have given people so many 'numbers' of euros we obtained from the EU without explaining how this money was translated in their personal life."

As an example she cites the €85 million given to Malta on migration. "Do we know what these €85 million meant for Malta? A example was to buy better cars for the police. I don't think it was the migrants who benefited from this money. I think it was us who benefited the most. "

She observes that a lot of EU funding goes unnoticed because it is not specifically directed at individuals, but towards the development of society as whole, on issues like educating employers on EU regulations which are beneficial to workers and consumers.

So does Comodini Cachia favour a more united, federal Europe where more competences are shared; or is she a 'sovereignist' who wants to preserve the prerogatives of nation states - a question rarely posed to aspiring MEPs but which has great relevance in debates on the future of Europe. Comodini Cachia emerges as a very cautious federalist.

"I would love to see a better concerted effort for more cooperation which could possibly in the future lead to a federal Europe, but not necessarily at the moment. I think that people are quite happy with the current balance between EU competences and national competences. To have a federal Europe you need a lot of public support."

May's elections will not be the first electoral appointment for the 40-year-old candidate. Despite not being elected back in March 2013 and seeing her party trounced at the polls, she still describes her political baptism by fire as a "marvellous experience."

She won 846 votes in her first outing, even surpassing seasoned candidates like MEP David Casa, who contested the sixth district. "I did not have enormous expectations.... When after the election someone told me that I had got more first count votes than some of the MPs who were actually elected in parliament, I replied 'Really?' I did not even think of checking that out. "

But the election was a devastating blow for the PN, trounced by an unprecedented 36,000-vote margin. "It was a very big blow. But the present leadership is working through it, very strategically... for in order to recover you have to first set your house in order. What was really damaging was that certain aspects of our own internal affairs were not in order."

Simon Busuttil, who has still not left his mark as the new PN leader, has been busy handling matters internally, she says. "People out there may have the impression that nothing is being done. But that could be because we are embarking on first putting out house in order. When you are putting the house in order it is an internal exercise. I am sure that once the restructuring process is completed you will see the changes."

In the past two elections the party lacked an overriding battle cry like democracy or EU membership. By the last election it was very difficult to gauge what the PN actually stood for. So what does the PN stand for now?

"The party did not project its own values and principles. Now there is no major event, although this could change due to what is happening in Egypt and Syria. But we need to push forward the values and principles we stand for. We need to definitely explain what these values and principles mean to people in their own life."

What are these core values?

"One of the most amazing values of the PN is that whatever we do, we try to keep the individual at the centre of our policies."

But she admits that this is not easy, considering that there are so many individual needs and so many groups that have their own way of life. This is why, according to Comodini Cachia, the PN needs to have a picture of Maltese society and formulate policies according to its needs.

Comodini Cachia turns away from traditional politics, based on fixed identities like social class, without ignoring the disadvantages faced by lower income groups and realities like precarious working conditions  - lamenting her own government's failure to enforce the laws it enacted over the past years.

"Society has changed and people today have multiple identities. In one family one can find a business-minded investor, a professional and a manual worker living under the same roof.... Moreover people today identify with issues. That is why the PN needs to understand how Maltese society is changing."