Dom Mintoff's mythical "Malta first and foremost" might have been a political slogan in his heydays. Since his disappearance from the local political scene it has not been heard. Not coincidentally.

The political scenario took quite a different twist since then. At the time the sharp distinction between our major political parties was evident in the promotion of the respective ideology: Socialism versus Christian Democracy. Nowadays, our major parties are forming part of the European political blocs that embrace the same ideologies but in a much different manner.

It is now the Centre Left against the Centre Right. The difference between the two is not clear cut. Social safety nets do not pertain to the socialist parties any more and liberal policies encouraging the free market and entrepreneurship have not remained the prerogative of the right wing parties.

The era of globalisation has drastically changed the whole concept of political ideologies. The benefits of capitalism and the rights of the proletariat are theoretical issues of the past and have no significant relevance to our way of living, except for our history, political science and sociology students. It has become evident that our political parties do fight their cause on the basis of pragmatism rather than on the grounds of ideology.

Within this context, Harry Vassallo, of the Green party, is correct to hammer home the message that our major parties are threatening our democratic credentials as they are fostering the same policies to safeguard their own interests within a duopoly parliamentary system.

It's not only Dr Vassallo who claims that the distinction between the major parties is practically cosmetic and essentially non-existent! The citizen knows for a fact that our foreign policy is determined by the European Parliament and, whether we like it or not, we have to follow suit. A Labour Foreign Minister would not do anything different from the present Minister of Foreign Affairs. Unavoidably, this would have a direct bearing on our foreign direct investment initiatives.

Likewise, the basis of our industrial policy would still be the same except for some touches or polishing of its enforcement.

We all remember the initial furore expressed by both parties on the issues of the local councils, the introduction of VAT, EU membership, the environment and, recently, our application to join the eurozone. But don't we realise that what was yesterday's controversy is today's consensus? Do we have any choice in terms of the political parties' vision on taxation, the social security system, housing, pensions, education, health services and employment policies? Not that I know of. Would there be any significant overhaul in our monetary and fiscal policies should there be a change in government? It all boils down to how much pragmatism trumps ideology.

Take the current saga of spring hunting and trapping. The major parties are taking us for a ride. The Nationalist Party is now quoting its commitment prior to the EU referendum implying its consistency in terms of their electoral promises. "Spring hunting would not be abolished" was its solemn declaration at the time. However, it fails to admit that, according to EU regulations, particularly according to the Birds Directive, hunting and trapping is not allowed in spring once there is an alternative available, that is, in autumn.

Notwithstanding the risk of having to pay hefty fines for breach of EU directives, the PN government is adamant to go ahead and allow conditional and restricted hunting and trapping during this season. The Environment Minister tried to hit two birds with one stone but instead he was caught with his trousers down to his ankles. He was showered with severe criticism by both the Federation of Hunters and Trappers and the anti-hunting lobbyists BirdLife Malta. Both organisations are accusing the government of gross deceit.

On its part, the Malta Labour Party is practically washing its hand and is continuously reminding hunters and trappers that the party had repeatedly warned them that spring hunting would not be allowed once we join the EU. The Labour shadow minister said the party would try to find some form of compromise on the basis of our particular circumstances but always within the parameters of the EU directive. Rightly so, the hunters would like to hear specific and concrete alternatives and they asked the MLP to clarify their ambiguous stand.

BirdLife Malta would not abjure their strong position on the issue and they would eventually knock on the doors of the MLP to air their views in no uncertain terms.

Alternattiva Demokratika is sticking to its guns. They said it before and they are saying it now: Hunting is nothing but environmental dumping. Hunting and trapping are non-issues all year round, not only in spring.

Irrespective of our personal bias on hunting, in this case our political parties had demonstrated how they conveniently use their power to accommodate themselves in compromising their ideology with pragmatic assertions aiming at vote catching.

Perhaps this is the danger of applying the modern way of doing politics. Ideology alone does not lead to practical reform in the socio-political environment. On the other hand, pragmatism alone cannot bring about the radical changes that our politicians aim to achieve. We need to focus on the interplay of these two dynamics. We need to have morals, goals and a vision to strive to, before we can actually be pragmatic about the solution.

Once we have that vision, pragmatism kicks in.

matyas@maltanet.net

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.