In the bad old days of politics, I was always taught that even if one did not agree with what other ministers and MP on your party ticket did or said, there were ways and ways of tackling the differences. First, take it up through party avenues and structures. Secondly, if you were not satisfied with that and decided for your own reasons to carry out a public criticism, there were ways of doing so that included a basic modicum of decorum. This included first, to always argue against an event or an idea but never belittle personal attributes. Secondly, when justifiably criticising a member of your own party, you always kept in mind the collegiality that bound the political parliamentary group into one unit and therefore you went ahead and did it, but did it gently and with class. It would have been very rare to find the display of aggressive rhetoric against a member of one’s own party at the level at which it is being seen in our Parliament today.
I feel I must stand up for the personal political integrity of both the Minister of the Interior, Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, and our Ambassador to the EU Richard Cachia Caruana. I must say that even if one were to disagree with them on certain issues – which is possible, as nobody is perfect – I believe that they are both men of great integrity and effectiveness who have always carried out their duties as they saw fit, to the best of their abilities. It is becoming virally expedient today to microscopically examine people for the slightest personal defects and blurs and falsely project these as a complete picture of their global performance as public servants. This is ethically unacceptable and throws dark shadows on the motives of the person making these belittling accusations
Collegiality in politics is a very important aspect of political action and sacrificing this for any motive other than to expose serious political crimes and misdemeanours, which is obviously not the case, is really in bad taste and short-sighted, to say the least. People elect one to a party to work as a whole in the interests of the common good. Looking for ways to split hairs on the most ordinary – even if important – issues, is a rebuff to the personality of the one making the accusations, particularly so for openly siding with the Opposition in making these accusations and betraying the principle of collegiality.
Today is Pentecost Sunday. On reading through the sayings of St Francis de Sales about the criteria for the discernment of spirits, I came across the following quotation which should be read and understood very carefully.
“One of the best signs of the goodness of inspirations in general, and particularly of extraordinary ones, is peace and tranquillity in the heart that receives them: for though indeed the Holy Spirit is violent, yet his violence is gentle, sweet and peaceful. He comes as a mighty wind and as heavenly thunder, but he does not knock the receivers down, he does not upset them; the fear they had in hearing the sound was momentary, and was immediately followed by sweet assurance...On the contrary, the evil spirit is turbulent, rough, disturbing; and those who follow infernal suggestions, thinking that they are heavenly inspirations, as a rule are easily identified, because they are loud, headstrong, proud, ready to undertake or meddle in all kinds of business, men who under the pretext of zeal turn everything upside down, censure everyone, scold everyone, find fault with everything; they are people who will not be directed, will not give in to anyone, will not put up with anything, but gratify the passions of self-love under the name of concern for God’s honour”.
Food for thought?