|
interview
Photos by Paul Blandford
|
The
President: a unifying role
AS
FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER HE BOTH SUBMITTED AND REACTIVATED MALTA’S
BID FOR EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP. NOW, AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC,
PROFESSOR GUIDO DE MARCO TELLS MIRIAM
DUNN THAT HIS PRIME ROLE IS PROMOTING UNITY AMONG THE PEOPLE,
EVEN IN FOREIGN POLICY, WHERE POSSIBLE
What are
the prime responsibilities of the President of the Republic? And
what kind of adjustments does a politician need to make in the
transition from parliamentarian to President?
These were
just two of the questions I wanted to put to President Guido de
Marco when I interviewed him recently.
His answer
was straightforward, although he admits the role is far from simple.
"I believe
the main responsibility of the President is to try to bring and
keep the Maltese people together," he says. "The President
has to be united behind the Maltese flag and give the people a
sense of belonging. I believe this is my responsibility and my
major commitment must be to the role, whatever my personal beliefs
are."
Professor
de Marco admits that he believes the role of President of the
Republic is a very difficult one.
"One
of the most important points is respecting everyone’s views
and always ensuring I remember that I am President of Malta, not
of one section of the population," he says. "My first
priority is to keep consensus.
"Even
though there are issues that divide us, there is a lot that unites
us."
Surely it
must be difficult to try to promote unity in a country where politics
is so polarised and there is dissent on such a fundamental issue
as European Union membership?
But although
the President does not underestimate the extent of disagreement
on this issue, he says he believes it is his duty to focus on
the areas where there is accord and work from there.
"We
can work with major differences if there are acceptable perameters,"
he says. "We have some common perspectives, like the Middle
East and the role of Malta in the Euro-Med process, for example.
"There
is also consensus that we are European, that we are Mediterranean,
and that we are a member of the United Nations. Even that we will
benefit from having close ties with the EU, although what type
of relationship depends on the approach.
"This
linkage is common policy. It is up to me to do my best to bring
forth what we stand for in foreign affairs, even if it is lacking
in one area, albeit an important one."
I ask the
President whether he misses foreign affairs, having held this
portfolio before his appointment, but he stresses he is still
immersed in it.
"I believe
that as head of the executive and representative of the country
the President must be very active in foreign affairs, but it is
now, admittedly, a different type of activity," he says.
"I have to set certain lines and work within specific perameters.
"For
example, I’m very careful when it comes to EU membership
because if I am speaking on behalf of the Government of Malta
I have to reflect its policies."
And does
the President feel some regret that will not be foreign affairs
minister if Malta’s EU bid is successful?
"Emotions
do not come into the picture very much," he replies. "As
President I will, as head of state, sign the all-important document,
so there will be a role to play."
I wonder
what his perceptions are on the way the relationship between the
EU and Malta has developed, bearing in mind that it is now over
10 years since the application was first submitted.
"After
I presented Malta’s EU application on 16 July 1990, I think
it became evident that the Union obviously had its own political
problems," he admits. "Perhaps at that time the full
relevance of the Mediterranean was not completely understood and
it was also going through a difficult time with issues such as
Lockerbie dominating the news, while our applicant neighbour,
Cyprus, also had a lot of problems.
"I think
the great north-south divide and all the prejudices that come
with it were to the fore and the EU was looking at matters from
this particular angle, with the result that we did not make it
in 1995, with Sweden, Austria and Norway.
"Then,
when the PN was defeated in 1996 and the Labour government suspended
the EU application, there were other serious repercussions, namely
the dent to our credibility.
"When
the PN was re-elected, as foreign minister I went to Vienna and
revived the application."
Prof. de
Marco admits the reactivation process was not easy, especially
since there was a concern that Malta could be perceived to be
operating on a "switch on/switch off basis".
"We
were told we had to put things on track and on the fast track.
But after that was achieved I became President and my role where
the EU is concerned is obviously now completely different."
Obviously,
the President’s present position means he cannot comment
on certain aspects of the progress of Malta’s EU bid.
"We
cannot at present measure what we lost from the decision to halt
Malta’s EU bid, it will be one of those things that will
be up to historians to comment on and judge," he says. "But
I believe we are now at the second stage of membership.
"The
first stage was the political one, setting Malta on the fast track.
Now we are at the second phase; seeing how to adapt the Acquis
to Malta and setting timeframes for its adoption.
"Then
our membership will return to the political fold, in the form
of a referendum, when it will be up to the people to make the
decision of whether or not we join the EU."
Prof. de
Marco believes it is inevitable that the EU issue has, to an extent,
become politicised.
"By far the majority of voters will follow party lines,"
he says. "But then in Malta, much depends on that small,
thin majority which can be the deciding factor on so many issues."
Prof. de
Marco’s associations with politics stretch right back to
his student days, even though his family did their best to dissuade
him from entering the profession.
"My
parents were very much against me participating in politics, so
you could say I was a rebel," he says. "But I believed
very much in politics and its place in society, so I like to think
I was a rebel with a cause."
Prof. de
Marco recalls the influence that the Prime Minister of the time,
Enrico Mizzi, had on him in his younger days.
"When
I was a second year law student, the Prime Minister’s son,
Monsignor Fortunato Mizzi set up a meeting for me with his father,
knowing I was interested in politics," he explains. "The
Prime Minister told me that his other son, Natalino Mizzi, wanted
to enter the priesthood. ‘That is a vocation’, he told
me, ‘and politics is one too’.
"I think
these were the words that have, above all others, moulded my character
and my involvement in politics. I have always tried to think of
politics as a sense of service."
The rebel
in Prof. de Marco was to the fore during his university days,
since it was forbidden for students there to have any political
associations.
"When
I started ‘Centru Dar Universitarija Nazzjonalista’
as a student, we used to meet at Vanni Bonello’s house because
of the rules," he recalls. "Dr Borg Olivier also warned
me when I met him that there could be consequences because it
was forbidden to dabble in politics at university, but I was not
intimidated, I said I’d face it. I suppose that partly because
I was young I viewed it as a challenge rather than a threat!"
Prof. de
Marco became President of the Students’ Representative Council
and also President of the Students’ Youth Movement, which
at the time was issuing a magazine called ‘Encounter’.
"The
movement was very socially orientated at the time, and the magazine
reflected this, we were searching for answers to the problems
of the time," he says. "Unfortunately, the Nationalists
were not strong in their social message in those days."
It was this
lack of social conscience, Prof. de Marco believes, which led
to the split within the PN, spearheaded by Dr Herbert Ganado.
"Dr
Ganado had a great social conscience," he says. "And
I believe the purpose of the split was to motivate the Nationalist
party towards a stronger social conscience.
"That
is why I joined the Democratic Nationalist party for a while,
until Dr Ganado started speaking out against independence.
"I told
him that wasn’t democratic. I have great respect for him,
but I didn’t agree with him on that issue. So I rejoined
the Nationalist party."
Prof. de
Marco contested the election of 1966 and was elected every time
from then on until he was appointed President.
Unlike some
politicians, the President was never taken with confrontation.
He admits that his preference for "dialogue and a policy
of persuasion" was not one his colleagues always shared,
which sometimes left him feeling isolated.
"A person
with different views is not an enemy," he says.
And he believes
various moments in our political history, such as the discussions
that led to the Constitution amendment, are evidence that dialogue
is the best option.
"If
no solution had been found at that time, it could have lead to
the consecration of minority rule for Malta, or, much worse, a
war," he says.
I wonder
whether his political colleagues appreciated the efforts he made
to mediate between Mintoff and Sant during the 1998 crisis.
"I prefer
to think that I always tried to create an atmosphere in the House
that was conducive to dialogue, rather than helping Mintoff and
Sant to sort out their differences," he replies. "Whether
people understood is not for me to say."
Prof. de
Marco rises to the defence of parliamentarians when I ask him
whether he believes they are less committed to their role than
they used to be.
"I think
people sometimes have the impression that there are only four
or five MPs in the House, but there is often a lot of other parliamentary
business going on, such as committee meetings," he says.
"But I think we can forget just how active MPs are within
their constituencies, which I regard as very important.
"Many
politicians end up making sacrifices to their own lives and families,
so I feel quite compelled to defend them when they are accused
of not being committed to their jobs."
Prof. de
Marco confesses that he always think of a moment in his own life
when this topic comes up in conversation.
"When
my daughter Gianella was eight years old, my wife, Violet, asked
me to collect her from a school retreat," he reminisces.
"On the way home, she told me that she had had confession
during the day, so I asked her what she had confessed.
"And
I still remember her three sins; she said she had disobeyed her
mother, quarrelled with her sister and lied to the teacher.
"Rather
stupidly, I asked her ‘Didn’t you confess that you had
disobeyed me?’ And she answered ‘How can I disobey you
when I never see you?’
"This
story always reminds me that politicians with professions end
up giving the least time to their families.
"So
sometimes when I hear them being criticised I can really sympathise
with them."
|
