Since leaving the EU, the UK has remained in a state of flux. Meanwhile, the disaster that some Europeans were evisaging would follow on Brexit did not happen and likewise the revival that some in the UK were predicting. Although in the fields of defence and security the British showed themselves more ready than the Europeans to launch major initiatives (as in Putin’s war against the Ukraine), in economic terms prospects are still unclear.
For too long a period disagreements and uncertainties prevailed regarding how Northern Ireland should be treated as both part of the UK and part of Ireland. Supposedly that problem has now been resolved. Also the two sides seem to have realized that an antagonistic competition between them would do nobody any good. They have every interest to remain close to each other by using ways and means that are different from those which were previously in force.
That would be of benefit to all, Malta included.
***
TURKEY
It is difficult not to interpret the results of the Turkish elections last Sunday as a victory for President Erdogan. In Parliament his party and its ally secured an absolute majority of seats.
Public opinion surveys of the past months had shown Erdogan as well behind the candidate of the united opposition. The European media in the main latched on to this and focussed largely on Turkish politicians who were anti-Erdogan militants.
It seems that here we have another example of the Western (European) mentality understanding “others” from the perspective of how it understands its own way of life and state of affairs. It arrives at conclusions that draw too much on its own yardsticks. This is not the first time that analysts who relied too much on “European” criteria to assess what was going on elsewhere discovered they had made gross mistakes.
***
POLITICAL CHANGE
Announcing and launching political changes, true reforms, in a democracy is not an easy undertaking. Even more so in a parliamentary democracy.
In the case of a democracy structured around an executive presidency perhaps matters might be easier. The President is elected by a direct mandate based on clear lines of reform announced beforehand. Once elected, he/she can move forward strongly on the lines that were set out. Still, one had better say “perhaps”, since as happened in France with President Macron’s plan for a pensions reform, turmoil on a national scale could also ensue.
In an adversarial parliamentary system, if the need emerges to introduce change, there has to be a political party able to agree about it and carry it forward. Likely in the party itself, there will be those who do not understand the change and disagree with it. If this disagreement breaks out in the oopen, it undermines the efforts being carried out to convince all the people about the usefulness of the proposed change. If it is kept hidden, it will still act like a poison to damp down enthusiasm for the reform. And this before the party or parties which will oppose the reform start having their say.