President of a changing republic

The role of the President has in a sense always entailed a slight contradiction. Technically, the office is supposed to be a figurehead for national unity: outside and above the partisan sphere, and the only Constitutional role which can speak in the name of the entire nation. 

Yet over the years, the choice of candidate has in most cases fallen on serving or retiring Cabinet ministers: whose previous role cannot, by definition, be considered ‘outside and above’ politics. 

This invariably creates a tension between the office of the Presidency and the person occupying it. In past years, this tension occasionally spilt out into the political domain: for instance, when the Labour opposition boycotted Censu Tabone in the 1990s (for which it very recently apologised).

But there is another side to the Presidency, and this apology in itself also indicates. The office still retains an aura of quasi-sanctity, in a political climate where personal attacks and mudslinging are otherwise considered the order of the day. And to a lesser or greater degree, past incumbents have mostly striven to retain the perception of the Presidency as somehow aloof and unattached from the political entanglements of the day.

There is, however, a danger that in so doing, the Presidency itself may in the long term become irrelevant. If Presidents desist from commenting openly on political affairs, or from having opinions on matters that directly affect the nation… how can they also live up to the second aspect of their Office, which is to serve as a beacon point for the entire country? On issues where the Republic of Malta is divided or concerned, can the President of that Republic afford to remain silent and detached? 

Can the person acting as a figurehead for this ever-changing nation ever really claim to speak on its behalf, if he or she is not likewise immersed in the social and demographic upheavals of their day?

All Presidents have had to contend with this apparent contradiction, and all have to date set some form of personal stamp on the role. President Marie-Louise Coleiro-Preca’s stamp has perhaps been somewhat different from the rest; and this in itself as an indication of how fast the pace of change in Malta has become.  

In her Republic Day speech, Coleiro-Preca seemed to acknowledge the difficulty of acting “as a bridge so that people with diverse aspirations, desires and visions, come together and translate their differences into collaboration based on dialogue and true respect for each other.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given her insight as former Social Policy Minister, she also demonstrated a clear grasp of specific social problems undermining the fabric of social unity. 

“Forty years ago, we pledged that our Republic would be founded on work… However, we are still far from fully realising the oath we made to each other then. This is not only because there are still thousands of unemployed people, but a number of workers are being exploited, working in hazardous or precarious conditions…”

However, there was an unusual note of urgency and political involvement in her speech that set it apart from all its predecessors.

“The social welfare system is crucial for people in this situation, and in no way should we allow our discourse to minimise their dignity, by depicting these people as parasites and therefore must not be aided by the State.

There can be little mistaking the direction of that comment, given that single mothers had been ‘singled out’ in the discussion leading to Budget 2015.

Nor did the President steer clear of more controversial issues such as immigration: for which she even received hostile reactions.  

“The movement of people around the world is not novel to our region… my thoughts are with the thousands of people who lost their lives along a difficult journey, which was meant to give them a better life...

What unites the various targets of her concern is also an underlying recognition that the Republic of Malta can no longer be measured by only one yardstick: her message seemed to be that ours is a changing society, and we must prepare for a very different Malta in the future. 

“The Catholic religion is no longer central to cultural activity because of the vast changes happening in our society. On such an important day, we should be questioning what is secular process and religious diversity, and how to act in this context.”

This observation (and the criticism it elicited) illustrates another problem with the role of President: it also seeks to emblemise a nation that is in a constant state of flux. 

Coleiro Preca is undeniably right: Malta has clearly changed beyond recognition since Independence, and the rate of change has been exponential in the last few years. Today’s Malta is considerably less homogeneous than it once was. There are racial, religious and denominational differences that never really existed before. The socio-economic realities people face in their daily lives are also considerably different from those of three or four decades ago. 

Clearly, not everyone has welcomed Coleiro-Preca’s intervention on these and other matters. But who is better positioned to ask such questions, if not the President of the Republic of Malta?