From Mr M. Alexander

In about 400 BC, a Greek delegation from the city-state of Athens explained to Persian Emperor Darius the wonderful new idea of democracy, which allows people to vote for candidates to govern them, instead of hereditary rulers. Darius was not impressed and, according to Herodot, said so in no uncertain terms. “Your city-state has many inhabitants, but not all are eligible to vote, such as slaves and servants, all women, all who do not own property. That leaves only property owners. And even those you have to bribe. You have to promise that they will have good fortune voting for your candidate, that they will prosper – the candidate, in other words, corrupts them. Your ‘democracy,’ therefore, is corrupt.”

Several centuries later, the Roman Republic was no different, as Virgil in ca. 18 BC said Operibus credite, et non verbis (Believe deeds, not words).

The electoral system, as in use today, is still not the best system because, as J.G. Vassallo correctly mentions (TMIS, 17 April), unless there is not only voting procedure but also the governing aspect to be considered, that is, unless there is direct participation, it cannot really be called democracy, the rulership of the people.

There is only one country in Europe where direct democracy is present: Switzerland. Very often, sometimes months, the people cast their votes to voice their opinion, their no or yes to relevant questions of parties, laws, by-laws, regulations, and other topics the Cabinet (the government) is taking up. They have to go to the polls; they are, de facto, the Parliament.

And what about freedom?

“Real freedom only exists in the land of dreams,” wrote the German poet F. Schiller in 1801.

In 1766 an interesting discussion took place between Madame de Pompadour and her two advisers, which was protocolled. She had asked: “Should the citizen love or fear the government?”

The philosopher Malesherbes, her political adviser, answered as follows: “They should love their government. Love, as you know, makes people blind. And that, in turn makes it easier to govern.”

The second adviser, her father confessor, the Bishop Radomsky gave the following answer: “I think the people should fear the government. Only fear keeps them in order and lawful.”

(During the revolution, Malesherbes was executed, the Bishop escaped to Poland).

“Politics is not dirty,” stated Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, “but some politicians are not always clean.”

Dr Jose Herrera, in his contribution “A Man for all Seasons” gave an excellent account on loyalty, but did not mention some historical background facts regarding Henry VIII and Thomas More (TMIS, 17 April). Henry applied for divorce from his wife Catharine of Aragon, which was denied by the Vatican. Henry, who knew that it would not be granted, wanted this split between him as ruler of England and the Pope, because he needed the land that belonged to the Catholic Church, at that time four-fifths of his kingdom.

After breaking with the Vatican he confiscated all that land and founded the Church of England. Thomas More, a devout Roman Catholic, felt he owed primary allegiance to the Pope and refused allegiance to the king, who had been his friend and to whom he has been an able adviser. Not being able to serve two “masters”, he resigned and was executed.

So far so good. But, in my opinion, Thomas More made a mistake. One can serve two masters if the interpretation is correctly observed. The Pope, rightly so, is considered to be head of the Roman Catholic Church. As such he is the spiritual leader, and all the faithful accept that. On the other hand, the Pope is also ruler of the Vatican State, meaning that he also is the political, secular Head of State.

Thomas More should have considered: To have allegiance to the secular king of England as well as allegiance to the spiritual Pope of the Church. This latter interpretation we have witnessed recently. So many Heads of State, especially from non-Catholic countries (Muslims and north Europeans), attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II in Rome.

He is acknowledged in both aspects: as a great statesman as well as an outstanding religious leader.

Michael Alexander

Ta’ Xbiex