Republic Day celebrations have turned into a PR disaster for our President. Her remarks about Catholic culture in Malta were out of place. Unknowingly, our beloved President put herself on an automated slide towards failure. It was a speech loaded with assumptions. Her words are prone to being interpreted as violent threats to our culture and identity. Part of the social media reacted negatively to her speech. This reaction reflects the thoughts and preoccupations of a transitional generation. Unfortunately, for the President, she touched an exposed nerve, one that is termed identity politics.
The person or persons who prepared her speech lack knowledge of the deep recrudescence contained in this genre of discourse. I am sure that this was done with good intentions. But as the saying goes, hell is full of individuals who died of good intentions. Instead of enhancing the diversity principles, such a statement brought about the issue of globalization. While states are preaching cultural diversity, globalization forces the integration of world economies, industries, markets, cultures and policy-making. For this reason, it is understandable that cultural globalization is instilling fear and causing the opposite effect.
Malta is not alien to this reality. More and more people in Malta are asserting their ethnic identity. Religion and politics still have a part to play. Labour rediscovered Mintoff. Catholics are parading their traditional rituals. This is a how individuals assert what they perceive as their rights versus the others. Economic growth will not stop these claims. The world of finance is a messy one. In this scenario, religions are destined to triumph. This explains why Pope Francis is an international success.
Such a statement requires the redefinition of what is culture. I think that Catholic culture is still a central element in Malta. I have no problem, however, in accepting the President’s statement. But by her tautological statement, the President has opened Pandora’s box, which in normal circumstances is followed by a soul-searching exercise. If Catholicism is no longer central, then what is or should be the new dominant culture?
The social media had no difficulty in identifying the new culture that this Government is pushing forward. The President’s references to diversity and integration have led to a vivid discussion and accusations that the President is joining hands with the Government in promoting Islam. Ironically, this debate was not sparked by Nationalists supporters but, once again, is coming from the grassroots of the Labour Movement.
More importantly, by such a statement, the President has not solved the current challenges deriving from multi-culturalism. Unwittingly, she has only heightened them. Honouring a Saudi Sheik was the cherry on top of the cake. Her statements regarding Catholicism were interpreted by many as a way to please and appease this Muslim billionaire who came to Malta in his private Boeing plane. Ironically, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive a car, show their face or go out alone. Imagine, what type of rights homosexuals and all people of other beliefs have in this country! In fact, in Saudi Arabia, a Christian is not even allowed to wear a cross.
What does this Muslim Sheik have to do with Malta? Why was he honoured? What has he done for our country? These are questions for which we need an immediate answer. If not, the Republic medals will soon risk devaluation and people will start hiding them for shame. No one would be proud to possess or wear one of them as had happened to the honours be stowed in the early Eighties by our past Presidents to dictators like Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 1975 and Kim II Sung, President of North Korea in 1985. The law was emended and new “honorificenza” titles were introduced after 1987. To use a phrase of Dom Mintoff, these medals once again risk to be equivalent to a piece of paper that ourgrocers of the past used to wrap up anchovies in. The expression he used was“karti tal-incova”.
What the Government failed to gauge was the popular and media reaction to the giving of a Republican title to this Sheik. Journalistic stories about him are not inspiring. They only arose antipathy. More importantly, such stories will not help the image of Islam for obvious reasons. This will lead to further misunderstanding of this religion but for many, all this is now irrelevant.
Whatever the reason behind such a statement, the President’s speech will be read and interpreted as an attempt to please a Saudi Prince who forms part of a state that hates all types of religions except for the Sunni version of Islam. What an irony! In a few days’ time, the President will be kowtowing to the Christmas celebrations, which in turn are the central activity of all her office. But is not Christmas a Catholic and Christian festivity? Without realizing it, the President has lost the central cultural force of the Presidency. Again, if Catholicism is no longer central to Malta’s cultural life, why does the President go about, “bħalmejdatal-qubbajt” or “like a nougat seller’s stall”, and attend our feasts and Catholic celebrations? Isnot her presence a public manifestation of the centrality of Catholic culture in Malta?
But more importantly,the President spoke about culture and not religion - which are two separate things. Sucha statement brings more confusion to the public. It represents a sweepinggeneralization about Malta’s Catholic culture, which iserroneously translated or mixed with faith, a mistake also committed by Jeremy Boissevain40 years ago.Therefore, the problem with her statement goes beyond cultural inclusivity and diversity. She has brought cultural politics into the affray. This is going to do more damage than good to the issue of diversity and cultural inclusivity.
As a citizen, I would have appreciated that in the wake of the Malliagate, the president should have taken the cue for her discourse from whatParalin, the Secretary of State of the Vatican, had to say when asked about a scandal that has rocked the political parties in Rome; “Una società che non cura la legalità è una società destinata a lasciare il predominio soltanto al più forte e a calpestare il più debole”.
By this I am not implying that the President should have gone into the affray, far from it. But a word in support of the return of legality and seriousness in our public institutions would have definitely helped.
Within this context, her reference to Catholicism may appear to be a diverse tactic to divert the attention of the public away fromMalliagate. What better weapon than starting a debate about religion? I am sure that this was not her intention. However, this is how her speech ended up being interpreted; as an attempt to divert the attention of the public from this issue.
The political dynamics of the presidency are different from those of a government minister. The least that the President should do is to appear as part of the established structure to thwart political attention from the current situation. On the contrary, her office is there to oversee the wellbeing of the state. Once this function has been fully achieved, a President can start making humanitarian activities. The people themselves want the President to run a charity and not a political party.
Here is where Ms. Coleiro Preca has failed. Her actions and speeches give the impression that she still thinks in terms of a government minister. She is doing the mistake of Benedict XVI who continued seeing himself as a University professor instead of the head of a religious organization. Anything she says can be taken out of context, twisted or interpreted differently by the media.
In other words, through her addresses, the President is navigating, more and more through the media minefield. In my humble opinion, the President should tread with care, in particular with issues that can be read as determining the local political agenda. By showing ‘carelessness’ on her part, she would be putting herself into a corner. As the President is from the party in government, she does not have the comfort, which the previous President George Abela had, of having the implicit or explicit support of the Opposition besides the full support of government. At least, Abeladid not run the risk of compromising the impartiality of his office through his speeches.
Politics is unpredictable. For this reason, the President needs better advisers tohelp on how to proceed in her post. This is a learning experience, which does not come out of protocol but by learning how to rule with action. In the case of the president, it is commendable that rule with action lies in the humanitarian fold. In Malta, humanitarian aid is of Catholic inspiration. For the last 1000 years, these humanitarian values were inspired by the Gospels.
However, not everything is lost for the Presidency. On the contrary, there is more to be gained through this experience. I suggest that the President gets rid of the person who is preparing her speeches. I have been present for two of her speeches, given at Embassies on the occasion of their respective country’s National day. Both talks were peppered with historical mistakes. I think that the President is still in time to save her office but this requires a lot of soul-searching from her side and the humility to include into her entourage individuals of opposite views to help her reach national collegiality.
It is hoped that, in the future, the President will avoid similar situations, whichat the end of the day can only please the few. Political history shows that whenever this has happened, the majority gets alienated. This advice becomes even more pertinent in the wake of criticismthat the presidency is costing too much. My humble recommendation to our beloved President is that the presidency is not a position to be enjoyed but a task to be endured.