This week saw our country’s heart beat faster, perhaps for more than one reason – mine surely did beat faster waiting for the vote on Dr Tonio Borg’s nomination as Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner. While wishing him every success in his new political experience at the Beaulieu, my observations for this week, though stemming from the appointment procedure, concern other than highlighting his capabilities and his rising to the occasion so successfully during the three-hour grilling by the European Parliament.
The procedure followed at the European Union requires the sanctioning or otherwise of nominated members of the Commission by the European Parliament. We are all aware by now that such grilling is no formality or walkover and that some have fallen by the wayside during this procedure.
My concerns highlighted by last week’s parliamentary session arise from the fact that while we knew that all commissioners-elect have to face this stern test, we were, most of us at least, were under the impression that a good show made the grade. This is what Tonio Borg did and for such delivery he should have been past the finishing line like a shot. The ensuing developments are what bothered me.
In a Europe of diversity, or rather, in a Europe which is meant to be based on diversity, respect for different political ideologies, on tolerance and solidarity, on respect for one’s principles and fundamental human rights, it results inexplicable how the members of the European Parliament, the people who we elected to represent us, shy away from the very ideals of the European Union, from the very fabric on which it is created, and rather than reflecting and embodying these principles, become an example of intolerance and of disrespect for one’s principles.
The fact that Tonio Borg gave a more than convincing display with his mastery of the portfolio, for which he had to prepare in such a short period of time, was not enough for some parliamentarians and raised many an eyebrow in political quarters and beyond. The reasons given by the Greens, the Liberals and many of the Socialist group for not supporting the nomination are, to me, completely unacceptable; they smack of intolerance, hypocrisy and prejudice. These members, who undoubtedly preached for respect, for social well being and enhancement of our European ideals when striving for election to the EU Parliament, in the moment of truth, instead of exercising with responsibility their duties in approving the nomination of a commissioner on the basis of merit, decided such nomination on their predetermined prejudices; this is pitiful to say the least.
The very fact that, while they declared that the hearing was well received and that Tonio Borg was fit for the post of commissioner, they still had reservations about the principles to which Tonio Borg subscribes shows lack of credibility and is their undoing. In a multicultural, pluralistic and ideologically diverse Parliament, do these members believe that there is only space for people who subscribe to their beliefs? Do they really believe they will be deemed credible when they act as though only their ideals and ideology should exist and prevail over that of others; that there is no space for tolerance and diverse views and principles?
The outcome fortunately saw common sense and tolerance prevail over the attempt spearheaded by a substantial number of irrational and intolerant members of the European Parliament. However, the simple fact that the resolution for confirmation was voted through does not close the chapter of this unfortunate and negative experience for the European Parliament. What went on in this past week is a red flag, which should not go unnoticed, a red flag that has to be addressed by the very same Commission. If Europe is going ahead with integrationist policies, diversity should be considered a strength, not a cause for division. Europe would do well to invest in the education of the promotion of its ideals among its own members, rather than merely among its European citizens after such a vote.
The support this nomination received from all Maltese MEPs should not be ignored; they worked hard to ensure that if the Maltese nominated candidate did not make it, it would be through no fault of his. The way our members of the European Parliament cooperated and worked together is once again something that made us proud; their efforts shine even brighter when compared to the way some of our local parliamentarians behave in parliamentary debates and even beyond. It was a question of collaboration and persuasion of colleagues, which unfortunately seems to be, at times, missing in local politics. What has now become embedded in the Maltese MEPs, that of being all Maltese and always pushing the national interest, something which has now become an expected mode of conduct for them, I feel we are many light years away from achieving it in our local parliament. Why is this?
Does it suit some of the parties to maintain a certain kind of status quo? Does a particular breed of followers who pursue such confrontational politics hijack our parties? Has local media contributed to this confrontational style? We must surely agree that Maltese politics needs to mature and that politicians should pursue a modern style of politics, and I feel I can convincingly state that the general public is currently not happy with the way local politics is conducted and carried out. The question is whether our local politicians are cognisant of this popular feeling and if they are, this begs the question as to why they are not addressing it to improve it. Is it perhaps a question of convenience?