There is an important interface between Government and Society: public thinkers. We sometimes refer to them as ‘journalists’ but, in reality, the interface consists of ‘opinion-makers’. Historically, they were known as ‘pamphleteers’ and today as bloggers or columnists and to some, the public thinkers, people are useful to help the public analyse the changes underway.

Ordinary changes underway

That the country is undergoing profound changes is undeniable. Some of these are good: even though it still looks shabby and is so hopelessly disorganised, the country is getting a facelift and this is welcome. After all, as somebody recently put it (and I must say I liked it a lot), it’s useless having 5-star hotels in a 1-star country.

General maintenance of public spaces is a duty of the government which derives from the basic principles of governance, and even from a certain reading of constitutional provisions. An administration would be guilty of dereliction of duty if it did not devote part of the country’s resources to the upkeep of public buildings, spaces, etc. So no particular applause for simply doing one’s duty.

Needless to say, having the vision and the energy to carry out one’s duty is something that voters might wish to reward. But my point is that a Party that promises the electorate that it will carry out its duty – for instance by carrying out proper maintenance of the country – is actually a Party that’s taking the electorate for a ride. General maintenance is nothing but an ordinary duty of the government of a functioning state, so it’s no big deal to promise it and keep one’s word.

It’s like parents who take care of their child. It’s what’s expected of them. If they don’t take such care, they are condemned, but there are no special commendations for parents who do their ordinary duty as parents. Even though I must say that once – in a flea market – I discovered an old certificate dating from the 1920s, I think, given by the French Republic to a family for having had a particular number of children and for raising them. Nowadays I think we would consider the award of such a certificate as an unwelcome manifestation of Fascist or étatist ideology.

(I am obviously leaving out the aspect of the extraordinary in the ordinary, by which I mean the enormous sacrifices parents make for their children, which their children then appreciate, or at least should appreciate, as they grow older.)

Extraordinary Changes Underway

But then there are the extraordinary changes which are taking the country by subtle storm: subtle because they are changes carried out by politicians in business suits wearing blue ties.

Blue ties have nothing to do with the colours associated with the parties. I’m thinking more of one episode from that vintage British sitcom, Yes, Prime Minister, in which Sir Humphrey, the Machiavellian Permanent Secretary, advises Jim Hacker, the clueless Prime Minister, that if his message to the nation is sheepish but he wants it to appear strong, he should wear a red tie, whereas if his message is revolutionary but he does not want to upset people, he should wear a blue one.

The country is undergoing revolutionary upheavals, at a fast pace, but politicians are not wearing red ties. They are wearing blue ties, and manipulating minds.

These current changes remind one of that decade in France, between 1789 and 1799, when the French revolutionised their entire society, breaking family ties in the name of free enterprise and individual freedom. Ultimately, they had to rein in their unbridled enthusiasm and restore some sort of social order. The pendulum always oscillates back, in its endless quest to find the position of equilibrium.

The French Revolution was a time of hopes and dreams, but also of chaos and destruction. The dream was that the people would leave the darkness behind them and embrace the light. The truth was that the highly imperfect former system, which had matured over the centuries, was swept away in one go, and instead of applying slow, ordered reforms, revolutionary ideas were experimented with and imposed on a population that was, by and large, mostly unprepared for them, and chaos ensued.

During the last election campaign, the Labour Party used as one of its slogans Il-Ħolma Maltija, the name of one of my father’s novels. It is a fictional autobiography of our greatest patriot, Mikiel Anton Vassalli, who was much influenced by the same intellectual currents which, in part, brought about the French Revolution. I am sure that the same revolutionary spirit animates this government, but it is subdued, because it is aware that if the Revolution is spelled out, people would open their eyes and there would be unrest. So, essentially, it’s Revolution by Stealth.

I think the spirit of this ongoing revolution was laid bare last March when that video went viral showing Minister Dalli chuckling while she told an international delegation about the successful introduction of gender-related innovations in our legal system. On that occasion the Honourable Minister could not hold back her amusement at the incredulity of the Maltese people, who had been misled by Labour’s election programme that had promised ‘equality’ without specifying the details.

The values of Maltese society are being changed in an almost underhanded fashion. The less intelligent take longer to realise this; the more intelligent realise early on but they are also aware that they are a minority and it might not be gainful to say things explicitly. Then there are the public thinkers, who might even support the changes and therefore turn a blind eye to the indecent way things are being done.

Ideally, in a democracy such changes take place following the direct expression of consent by the people. The only time this has happened in recent times was the introduction of divorce. (And even there, I would argue that if we are to be honest with ourselves, the figures did not show a majority of all eligible voters. That said, the formality was at least followed and the people were asked for their opinion.)

If the people – and not the politicians – are sovereign, then extraordinary (or revolutionary) changes should only take place with popular consent. And public thinkers have a duty to point this out: for two reasons.

The first is because the form by which a people is governed is important. Form is as important as content. By this I mean that a good decision is good not only because of what it should bring about, but also because of the way it is made. This is why we have democracy – that is, decisions taken by the people because, let’s be frank, dictatorships also do good things, but they do them the wrong way. If our public thinkers stop making the distinction between the democratic and the dictatorial way of taking decisions, we risk losing democracy.

The second reason is because whether revolutionary, or extraordinary, changes need to be publicly discussed, given that their implication and conclusions are far-reaching. Changes in ‘morality’ not only affect the sector they directly regulate but they have a spill-over effect. Compartmentalisation does not exist; everything is interlinked. ‘Morality’ is like an ecosystem: one small change impacts on everything else.

The duty of public thinkers is, first and foremost, towards the public. Their personal convictions have to take second place. Their first priority should be to think on behalf of the public, which is absorbed in its everyday chores and worries. Otherwise, those who pretend to be public thinkers end up being just private thinkers who express their thoughts publicly.

My Personal Library (23)

A friend has given me an incredibly good book entitled The Great Partnership: God, Science and the Search for Meaning (2011), written by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, who at the time was the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth. This collection of essays puts forward arguments which, even if you are not Jewish, you end up agreeing with – not just due to their persuasive style but mostly on account of the force and clarity on which their reasoning is based.

I’d like to quote a brief excerpt: “A free political order is possible only when the fundamental political act is a mutual promise between the governor and the governed. But no human being can be trusted to keep his or her word when he or she has access to power – a power not available to opponents. Sooner or later... there is an inescapable risk of tyranny” (p. 133).