The decision of Prime Minister Gonzi to nominate Dr George Abela as President of the Republic on the retirement of President Fenech Adami next April has stirred a hornet’s nest within the two major political parties.

This decision was however welcomed by public opinion as a positive sign of maturity, being considered a step away from the rabid polarisation which has characterised the relations between the two political parties since the 1980s.

This difference of opinion is not the re-emergence of political polarisation – the quest “for political power for my party ” of old – but is intra-party – a questioning of the role of the state as such.

Now Dr George Abela has been a Europhile in the EU debate for the past 10 years or so and in my view this is the real reason for his appointment. He will, as President of the Republic, project a national consensus on the EU issue, which goes beyond the consensus already reached between the two political parties in parliament. The effect of this appointment is the frustration of any popular opposition to the EU project that may still exist in the country.

Such popular opposition to the EU project exists in European countries and has resulted in the defeat of the EU constitution/ treaty project in three referenda in France, Holland and Ireland.

Although in Malta such popular opposition is not part of the mainstream and is subdued, it is to be expected to emerge and obtain visibility in a time of crisis. So any such possible popular opposition is considered by the EU elites as a factor to be faced head-on. The scheme of the EU elites is the creation of a neo-liberal economic project in a post-national democracy. In such a political project, the allegiance of the people is to be transferred from the traditional political parties to European political parties. These European parties would then play a role to place Europe high in the global table.

In my opinion such a strategy has been consistently followed by the Nationalist Party for the past 30 years or so with the result that the national interest has not always been pursued first and foremost.

Examples of this strategy is Malta’s relations with Libya. The PL in government had developed these relations in a positive manner in the national interest. The PN in opposition and in government also took a similar positive attitude towards these relations but the question to be answered is whether the justification for such a policy was European or national. To my mind the justification for such a policy was the European rather than the national dimension. Now it is to be understood that these different dimensions – national and European – are not to be construed as antagonistic but different. Also the PN did not hide its European vocation, although by desisting from a change in name to, say, Popular Party, it continued to appeal to a nationalist sentiment which it no longer represented.

In the relations of the Nationalist Party with Libya – in and out of government – the European dimension is very evident. Where the national interest would have involved the taking of a strong position to protect Malta’s interest, the European policy involved the taking of a soft position not to alienate Libya from Europe. This has meant that offshore oil drilling has been postponed indefinitely and we are now landed with a 10,000 irregular migrants in our midst.

Mario Mifsud

Hamrun