Citizenship, the EU, and social justice

There is always a risk that when debates become overheated they race to the bottom, thus gaining unpalatable results. This is mostly caused by a combination of intransigence, filibustering, and stalemate. Any compromise is botched and no one really wins because everyone stands to lose out. The debate on the IIP scheme-what some call the Maltese government's "citizenship for money" scheme-is a good example.

It seems ironic that while both political leaders welcomed 2014 with a call for the celebration of Independence and Republican status in national unity, the IIP debate has now broached into the delicate matter of sovereignty. After 50 years of Independence, what some would regard as a Maltese matter is now being discussed in another Parliament, that of the European Union-which is where the decision of a sovereign State is being placed under the scrutiny of others.

Love it or detest it, the IIP scheme is driven by money, or to be less vulgar, investment. While its critics focus on citizenship, other issues are either ignored or badly conflated. A conveniently forgotten critique of these kinds of investment comes from a discussion of social policy and its dependence on the whims of an uncertain (and often unbridled) market economy. Some might take this dependence "as read". They would claim that there is no alternative and anything that comes our way will be very welcome.

Not unlike many of its European partners, the Maltese Establishment does not seem perturbed by where the money comes from. We never hear any argument for an ethical economic policy-as once, the late Robin Cook argued for an ethical foreign policy (which was to spell the end of his political career when he resigned protesting the British involvement in the Iraq war).

While one might take umbrage to (or feel confused by) "another Parliament" (to which Malta sends six MEPs) discussing what many would regard as a Maltese issue, the economy is hardly touched. Just to put things in some perspective, both political parties support Malta's online gaming industry, whose ethics leaves much to be desired. Also, rules have been systematically relaxed when it comes to foreign investment. Markets know no boundaries. No residency issues can restrict them.

I do not say this in any way to defend the IIP or ignore the citizenship and residency issues. My question lies beyond the debate itself and considers the effect that recent developments within the EU might have on how Malta perceives its own political and economic affairs vis-à-vis its membership of this political and economic union.

During the EU referendum the debate was very much focused on performativity-or to put it simply, on how much do we get from the EU. There was far less discussion on the very core of what EU membership would entail in terms of its responsibilities towards the Union, and more so whether this affects citizenship and sovereignty as we've known it since Independence. This problematic legacy is now emerging to the surface with various issues, such as immigration, refugees, civil rights, sexuality and fertility, taxation and social policy, and schemes like the IIP.

In the IIP debate one could sense the same attitude that shaped the referendum. Reinforced by a nationalistic rhetoric, this might well be expedient but it is also misleading. Some say in all honesty (and with a straight face) that what really matters are the potential millions that will go to Malta's economy. Ten years ago the same argument was frequently made in the EU referendum. So it is not surprising that Malta's mainstream political disposition remains quite populist, simplistic and rather colonial. One hardly hears the question: What does citizenship and sovereignty mean within a EU context and how does that affect the way we do politics?

Recent debates involving the EU have revealed the strong colonial legacy (and nature) of Maltese politics. We are hearing the same rhetoric used when Malta was a British Colony. The Opposition wants to be seen as more European than the Government, while both parties play the card of the "national interest". Interestingly the Opposition upped the ante on citizenship by claiming its nationalist credentials while lobbying the EU parliament against the IIP scheme. In response, the government often resorts to old rallying cries that recall Labour's anti-colonial struggle while frequently arguing for its own Europeanist credentials. Yet when feeling back-footed, both political parties resort to their old instincts. Thus one wonders whether in Malta the EU is mostly regarded as a colonising power rather than a union of independent and sovereign States to which Malta sends its MEPs and in which it claims to have an equal say.

As if this were not complex enough, a number of MEPs objecting to the IIP have converged in a somewhat unholy alliance. Some of them hide their own nationalistic agenda by indulging in dubious "Europeanist" declarations. While I give much credence to Hannes Swoboda's critique of the IIP and his social democratic argument on solidarity and the concept of a citizenship that moves beyond the simple boundaries of a member state (see MT's reports online), I cannot imagine conservative and right wing MEPs taking the EU solidarity ticket seriously. Their real qualm with the Maltese government is that it is undercutting the price of EU citizenship. Commentators across Europe have already argued that Malta is offering EU citizenships at a lower price.

So this begs the question: is this a debate on European solidarity or a price war? This depends on how one regards the EU as a community of sovereign States that secures solidarity, civil rights and social justice. Beyond the socio-economic outcome of the IIP (which only time will tell what it will look like) and apart from the ways by which social policy is being conflated (or even sponsored) by dubious markets, an even graver concern lies in how Malta has evolved (if at all) within the EU and how other EU member States interact with Malta.

In Malta, centuries of colonialism left its deep scars. Nationalism is quite raw. What does this really mean to a people that must move beyond old notions of nationalism? Does Europeanism have any real effect on the Maltese political imaginary? Has it changed it? More importantly what does this IIP/EU debate tell us about Malta's and the rest of the EU's democratic agenda? How could the Maltese secure a viable social policy that is moved by emancipation and social justice? Does an ethical socio-economic policy matter, or is it just pie in sky?

As I say this, I see some solid reforms and action in social policy happening in Malta. There is more attention paid to poverty and there are some bold moves. With some enthusiasm I greet radical changes in civil rights, and I welcome those tangible improvements and a change of emphasis within education and health. But while I am encouraged and energised by these changes, I also see a political disposition of many colours where populism remains rife and where many seem eager to slip into nationalistic habits of old, albeit played in a different arena and wearing different masks.

For a comprehensive discussion of sovereignty, performativity and the challenges that Maltese politics face vis-à-vis Malta's membership of the European Union, see John Baldacchino and Kenneth Wain's book Democracy Without Confession (Allied Publishers 2013).