In the last few days, there were two news items which interested me. The first one was the General Workers Union’s proposal expressing the need for the Maltese to start procreating again if we want to keep the level of our pensions as it is today. The second news, which is somehow related, came from the Nisa Laburisti asking Government to adopt legal measures allowing for surrogate mothers.
Archbishop Charles J Scicluna soon made his voice heard on the second issue, but failed to pronounce himself on the General Workers Union stand. One could agree or disagree with Archbishop Scicluna’s statement but definitely one cannot accuse him of sitting on the fence where social issues are concerned.
Through its female section, the PN issued a statement lambasting the PL proposal as amateurish. I would have preferred much more rapid reaction from the PN. The fact that the statement was issued after Archbishop Scicluna’s statement risks to be interpreted suspiciously in politics. In today’s world, this type of approach leads to a critical mnemonic disjunction.
Yet, I did expect Archbishop Scicluna to have issued a statement lauding the stand taken by the General Workers Union encouraging procreation. After all, the General Workers has expressed a view that, in the past, the Catholic Church harped on a lot. Partial reactions from Archbishop Scicluna will be interpreted as partisan. While I support his declarations, as a leader of the Church he should give praise where it is due – irrespective of the party or organization and criticise those that go against the Church teaching. I do not think that the Archbishop went on twitter when someone within the PN party made a statement in favour of abortion.
I will not enter into the merits of whether we need more children or not. The choice is simple. The economic level that Malta and the rest of the European Union enjoy – cannot continue if there is not an increase in fertility or immigration to counter what is known in demography as the ballooning demographic effect. The concept of pension, as conceived by the German Chancellor Bismarck, was based on the ratio of five working individuals for one pensioner. Such a ratio is now a dream.
Yet, the local discussion generated by the General Workers Union on the need of a higher fertility and the Nisa Laburisti’s position in favour of surrogate mothers addresses another important issue – the rise of the individual as the central focal point in the Western society.
From a political point of view, the present scenario was already identified by the great French political thinker Tocqueville when he discussed the rise of individualism. He viewed it as a direct result of the French Revolution. He thought that such a rise would slowly put all forms of conformity into question. Perhaps, there is no more truth in Tocqueville’s statement than in the rise of Neo-Liberalism. The Neo-Liberals have transferred responsibility from the State onto the individual. This policy started with Ronald Reagan. He was the one who abdicated the State’s responsibility and shifted all responsibility onto the individual. What we have today in part results from such a policy.
For example, this made possible the change in the concept of the family. It made possible gay rights and same-sex marriages. It diffused the concept of abortion. The whole debate in Malta in favour of divorce was based on the concept that it is the right of an individual. The same holds for issues related to LGBT rights. The passing of the divorce legislation in Malta would not have been possible without Reagan’s Neo-Liberal shift.
If one looks at the arguments appearing in the local media in favour of surrogate mothers and euthanasia, these all hinge on one simple factor; the rights of the individual. This explains why many on the Left, who may appear at first hand to be against neo-liberalism are truly ending up the greatest fans of these neo-liberal theories. At the same time, these are choices that are being made on the premise of consumerism. To defeat them, one needs first to defeat uncontained consumerism. Perhaps, at this stage, this is not only improbable but impossible. It is very clear that our economic system, based on never ending consumption, is not sustainable forever.
In Europe, Reagan’s policy helped shift the responsibility of pensions, free medical care and other important elements related to the welfare state onto the individual. Ironically, Reagan’s policies were at first backed by Pope John Paul II, as they were seen as tools to defeat Communism. It was very late in the day when the same pontiff realized that such support relegated his Church to historical irrelevance.
It has to be a Pope from Latin America to show the world that these neo-Liberal policies hinge on the sole issue of inane consumerism. And this explains his success. He brought his experience of witnessing masses of indigents who suffered at their expense the vices of reckless consumerism.
As a result of lack of money these indigents have lost all hope of being able to purchase and consume, thus relegating all theories of individuality to a world of absurdity.
Thus while the scenario appears to be a complex one, it is extremely ironical that both Right and Left-Wingers today are expressing the same views when it comes to issues related to individual rights. This explains why the PN is finding it more and more difficult to come out with a firm stance on such issues. It will soon pay dearly for such failure. Finally the Neo-liberal predicament about life, religion, God, procreation and the family are not much different from those held by the Soviet Union and its satellites in the 1950s and 60s. These positions came crushing down in the East when the whole system supporting the Communist consumption system stopped functioning.
What might come of interest for Archbishop Scicluna is that with his use of twitter, he is succeeding in putting the local Church back at the centre of debate. My humble advice is that he needs to show more courage and express his frank views even on controversial issues originating from the Conservative right. Perhaps Tocqueville’s view will come to his support. Tocqueville remarked that in those societies where individuals are relinquishing their sense of belonging to an established system, and as a result they stop recognizing any authority, these same individuals are becoming more prone to relying on the opinion of others, which then makes them in turn more receptive to conformity.