The bright side

When historians leaf through the reams of articles and editorials written in the run up to Malta’s 2011 divorce debate they will, perhaps, conclude that something wasn’t quite right with the country in that key period of its political history. That for all its apparent calm and tranquillity, there existed an underlying, ill-defined tension in that society.

Tucked away between printed religious sermons masquerading as newspaper editorials, the researchers will come across some exquisite examples of hyperbole, several over-the-top descriptions and, generally, a cloud of negativity. The label ‘hypocrisy’ will feature prominently, as will the words ‘insulting to’ (followed by a host of nouns: ‘men’, ‘women’, ‘children’, ‘gays’ – indeed practically everyone appears to have been insulted at some point in the past few weeks), ‘disgusting’, ‘wretched’, ‘shameful’, ‘fiasco’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘dirty tricks’, ‘sabotage’, ‘Taliban’, ‘intolerant’, ‘deceitful’ and so on and so forth. 

The sharper historians studying the post-referendum period might make out, however, that for all the bluster, impressive words and striking language, there wasn’t any real action ‘on the ground’, as a CNN reporter might put it. Perhaps someone will call it a tsunami of words or a modern tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

This will certainly be the case if the momentum gathered in some quarters on the back of the divorce debate simply dissipates into thin air once the referendum comes and goes. This might well be what actually happens, for we are a rather pragmatic people, preferring to forge our own individual niche rather than get caught up in something which takes time and energy with no guarantee of ultimate success or profit. But we should be aware that if things do simply unravel without any real follow-up, irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, it will be back to business as usual.

But the eternal optimist in me tells me that with the right ingredients and if the right people remain focused, something truly politically innovative can come out of the energy, anger and – finally this is the key factor – heightened awareness that the divorce debate brought out.

Awareness that Malta isn’t a secular state simply because we wish it was; that we might pretend that we don’t care much about politics until it comes back to bite us; that the people who govern speak in your name and define your country’s identity. Awareness that several thousand people in this country don’t actually feel represented by the highest institutions in this land because those institutions are based on an exclusionary premise (however benign that exclusion might be).  

Awareness, finally, that politics matters and that ideology is still alive and kicking in some parts of the globe, including our small corner of it, and that the people we put in power determine what sort of society we live in, what sort of discourse becomes predominant and what sort of institutions and networks are endowed with all sorts of privileges.

My colleague Mark-Anthony Falzon has summed it up extremely well in point five of his wonderfully clear Yes manifesto which goes way beyond the limited scope of the divorce issue itself. “A belief that a fair and forward-looking society,” Mark-Anthony writes, “should be based on laws and structures that seek as far as possible to include rather than exclude.”

Mark-Anthony’s crystal-clear manifesto, so refreshing after the mealy-mouthed reactions of some of our more well-known intellectuals, also convinces me of another factor which has become increasingly clear over time. The energy and impetus required to bring about the next important steps in this country’s development, beyond the strict confines of the divorce issue, can only emerge if an altogether new breed of Maltese citizen puts its mind to the task. It’s high time our generation stood up to be counted.