My position on the now aborted project to put the tapestries of St John’s underground is a matter of record; I publicly expressed my opposition to it both in this newspaper and elsewhere. My views are unchanged. I am not writing on this occasion to discuss the pros and cons of putting the tapestries underground. In the final analysis there is only one way of establishing whether the concept is a good one or not, and that is by actually proceeding with the project. That is not going to happen now so we will never know the answer and, as in all debates, there are losers and winners. Personally, I think the decision to abort was the correct one – others will disagree no doubt.
Most of the dramatis personae in this debate have paid a terrible price in terms of being subjected to veritable tsunamis of innuendo and character assassination.
Malta being small, it is not surprising that I know many of those who have been deeply involved on both sides and I must say it saddens me to see the degree of personal pain suffered by some of my friends and acquaintances. As far as I was concerned the debate was one between friends trying to get to grips with a very difficult problem. Disagreement, profound disagreement even, is inevitable in cases such as these. The common theme driving the robust debate should have been a basic understanding that it was all in the best interest of St John’s and its treasures. Sadly, this worthy goal often sank beneath the waves of verbal abuse.
I point a finger at no one in particular, or to one side or the other, and I apologise unreservedly if I too unwittingly overstepped the line between civilised debate and low personal attack. In the future there will, inevitably, be many more issues like this one, which will be fought tooth and nail (and so they should be), but we have to preserve common decency and respect for the opinions of others if we expect our own opinions to be taken seriously. Those who disagree with a particular proposal (and vice versa) should not be vilified as obtuse or perverse (or both). That does not strengthen the case against a point of view, indeed it strengthens the resolve of those held up to public ridicule and it encourages retribution in kind while the real issue fades into the background.
One person who has suffered probably more in this debate than any other is Richard Cachia Caruana, chairman of the St John’s Foundation and Malta’s permanent representative to the European Union. He has been portrayed as a Rasputin-like character plotting and scheming behind the scenes. Of course RCC like anyone in his position knows that whatever he does is subjected to close scrutiny – and criticism. That is as things should be. In the debate over the tapestries he has certainly and inevitably come under intense attack – again nothing wrong with that, it goes with the job. However, much was said that is unfair and personal and that is to be condemned, as it is in the cases of others who have been similarly vilified.
I write to call for fair play for RCC because love him or not he deserves well of his party and he deserves well of Malta. His is an extremely distinguished record, which should be publicly acknowledged and one day should be written up. Few on either side of the political divide will dispute the importance of his role in the election victories of the Nationalist Party over the last two decades (he was not involved in the 1996 election disaster), as also his contributions to the policies and programmes developed to take Malta out of the mire it had been thrown into during the 1970s and 1980s.
Today we enjoy unparalleled personal and other liberties because of the way the Nationalists re-established respect for the rule of law.
No one can dispute that. Nor will anyone who followed the negotiations for Malta’s entry into the European Union dispute his magnificent work in making it happen – literally. The odds against meeting the deadlines and meeting the requirements were prodigious and he must be given credit for his role in successfully steering Malta’s application through the extremely complex and difficult process.
Of course his sort of work required him to step on many toes and ruffle many feathers, and he would probably be the first to admit that maybe some things could have been done differently – with hindsight we all have 20/20 vision. He has also had to endure an attempt on his life that nearly succeeded and to suffer the stress of never being able to enjoy a relaxed private life (as the rest of us do) in case another assassin lies in wait.
The failure of the tapestry project is certainly a major setback for him and some will lay at least some of the blame at his feet, but this must be set against the undeniable successes of the foundation under his chairmanship. Important restoration works have been carried out and further programmes are presumably in the pipeline.
The cathedral is now one of Malta’s premier attractions and that is no mean feat. I hope, as the dust settles, that under his chairmanship the foundation will develop a new plan for housing the cathedral’s treasures. Possibly it too will be controversial, but is it too much to hope that the participants in that debate will respect each other and dispute with dignity and good will?
Roger Vella Bonavita
WESTERN AUSTRALIA