Simon Busuttil’s decision to include the issue of same sex marriage in the PN manifesto has imploded and exposed the flaws within the Nationalist Party. Many MPs were not even consulted on such an important decision before it was included. On this matter, Busuttil ended up binding the Party to such an extent that there are now members who are equating the lack of free vote with totalitarianism.
The sociological concept of "liquid modernity" has now entered the domain of gender studies. Rather than discussing or speaking about LGBTIQ, scholars now prefer to speak about gender fluidity. By this concept, society not only recognizes the different typologies within gender but more importantly, concedes that sexual gender is in a constant state of flux. This concept ceases to promote a sexuality that is based on a binary concept which was asserted by Christianity in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Modern society is now acknowledging other forms of sexuality which go beyond the concept of equity, which this new marriage bill seeks to establish.
I have read this new law, and, in truth, it contains nothing much that is new, which has not already been established over the past years. Perhaps, the most significant innovation is that a man can take his wife’s surname. As one who studies family history, I can foresee that this will complicate the lives of those, who in the future wish to study their family tree. Beyond this, except in name, same sex marriage is already being implemented in Malta.
Yet, the local political debate about same sex marriage is confirmed what Jacques Foucault wrote on this subject: sexuality is a construct. Until recently, European sexuality was constructed on a unique model by Christianity. What we are experiencing today is a slow deconstruction of this model without knowing what type of model Europe and the rest of the modern world will be embracing. We are still in an experimental phase.
It is not my intention here to discuss this change or to pass moral judgement. I am no moralist but I cannot refrain from making political observations in the light of a number of declarations made by the Nationalist Party in the run up to the 2017 election. After its defeat in 2013, the Nationalist Party embarked on a mission to be part of this new fluid society. In the process, the administration turned the Party into one of political irrelevance. The question here is not whether the Nationalist Party wants to cease being a conservative party in order to take up the cudgels of the progressive Marxist model. The issue is more complicated. The problem here lies in the fact that the Nationalist Party attempted to embrace all types of minority groups and in the process, estranged itself from its core voters.
On the one hand, we have Simon Busuttil declaring that he wants the Party to stick to its ideals. On the other, he uses the power of his incumbency to show that the Nationalist Party is in favour of same sex marriages. The reality is that by opening up to fringe groups - at the expense of the conservatives – he did not earn the Party any kudos. On the contrary, the Nationalist Party ended up losing voters.
Personally, I only agree in part with those within the Party who are claiming that the roots for this catastrophic defeat lie in that unorthodox Convention that took place way back in November 2014, when all sorts of speakers turned up and addressed the participants, excluding those who represented the mainstream Nationalist voter. I can still recall having written a very strong-worded piece about this convention when I realized that the convention did more harm than good to the party.
Clearly, the Nationalist Party’s leadership had failed, or worse still did not want, to dialogue with its grassroots. Those organizing the Party’s strategy wanted to ignore the traditional voter. They merely played the party song to alienate the conservative voter. Furthermore, there were individuals within their team, in particular, the former European Commissioner Joe Borg, who wreaked havoc to the Nationalist Party’s historic ideals with disastrous consequences.
In truth, the Nationalist Party began having trouble much earlier. It all started with the introduction of gay marriage in Malta. I am going to mention the following case because it was amply covered in the media. After the introduction of gay marriage, the former EU Commissioner Joe Borg’s daughter went public and gave an interview to the Labour portal, INEWS, declaring how happy she now was with the introduction of this law, as it helped her to achieve her dreams. Nothing abnormal here. But the story does not end here. Ms Borg made sure to be the first person to celebrate a gay marriage in Gozo, which was followed by a lavish reception. This event was used to pass on a political message.
What I am questioning is the political message that Joe Borg and his family wanted to convey to the Nationalist Party. Borg’s daughter has every right to express her gratitude to Joseph Muscat on INEWS. But in politics, one cannot ignore the fact that her father not only was a former EU Commissioner but he continued to hold positions of trust within the Nationalist Party. The worse thing that could happen at that point was to alienate the traditional voters. Joe Borg has had a strong say in the choice of Nationalist Party candidates who, as correctly defined by Adrian Delia’s wife, were many in number but they lacked substance. The truth is that valid candidates were isolated. They were not allowed to contest because they represented the Nationalist Party’s historic Christian ethos. The only Christian candidates that were kept were those who led a double life and/or were members of fraternal masonic organizations. They backed and thrust a minority to the forefront of politics with the disastrous consequences we have witnessed. Despite all the overtures to gays, lesbians, transgender etc, the PN still failed to attract their vote. This minority group voted Labour and rightly so.
Furthermore, despite all the efforts to win in Gozo, the Nationalist Party managed to lose Gozo, one of its strongholds. But was not this the tortuous message that Joe Borg and his daughter were sending out to one and all? Like Joe Borg’s daughter, the Gozitans voted for that person who is making them happy. I am sure that the majority of the Gozitans did not vote Labour because of this party agenda on gender issues.
I am sure that even the rest of the population argued in the same manner as Joe Borg’s daughter. The population voted for the Party, which as far as they are concerned, was keeping them happy.
It could be argued that Joe Borg is not his daughter. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that his daughter went public on such a sensitive issue concerning the Nationalist Party, I feel that it was no longer appropriate for Joe Borg to remain as Chairman of the Select Committee of Nationalist candidates. Far worse is that now, he is also Chairman of the Electoral Processing Board for the new PN leadership.
Joe Borg should have acted responsibly and resigned. Whether one likes it or not, it is he who ended up sending out the wrong political message. At the end of the day, to its Christian voters, the Nationalist Party is appearing a party run by a hypocritical team only prepared to use Christianity to gain votes and win elections. Once Christianity started to appear irrelevant to win elections, Joe Borg and his team had no problem to bin the once historic ideals of the Nationalist Party. Many Catholics and Christians ended up doing the same in respect to their origins. Like the PN leadership, they too learned how to become fluid in their vote preferences.