Democracy vs life

In his contribution Let There Be Democracy (February 21), Kenneth Wain takes Ivan Padovoni (February 3) to task because the latter argued that he is not impressed by arguments against entrenching the anti-abortions laws on grounds that such entrenchment is anti-democratic.

While making the case for the safeguarding of human life, which is the substance of the whole debate, Dr Padovani may have made some sweeping statements of the sort quoted by Prof. Wain.

I feel, however, that while Dr Padovani may have erred against democracy to champion life, Prof. Wain's main concern seems to be to champion democracy, an instrument of governance, which is a means to an end. He extolled "tolerance, respect for persons, solidarity and civility" as "virtues of democracy" but failed to proclaim them as values and rights pertaining to human life in the womb.

Prof. Wain gives me the impression he is juggling with concepts. Is he pro-life? I put the same question to myself when Prof. Wain took part in the Bondiplus TV programme on abortion some months ago.

Prof. Wain seems to be still looking at human life as a relative thing, as a "culture-specific" as he called it, when "western society", also according to him, is supposed to have reaped the "fruits of experience and political maturation". It seems his zeal to defend democracy is superceding the view about the sacredness of human life, the gift of life to man by the Creator. Or is this view just a theological perspective with no place in a very secularised world? His views on the unborn child, or what seems to be the total lack of them, seem to fall squarly in what Lino Spiteri described (February 26) as "the practice of disregard".

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott (February 24), who is pro-life, thinks also that entrenchment is anti-democratic. In fact, he cites former Prime Minister, today President, Eddie Fenech Adami saying many times he had trust in the Maltese people. "So", says Fr Serracino Inglott, "by trying to entrench it is a bad sign because it seems as if one wants to use means of compulsion when these things should rest on conviction".

Unfortunately, western society has not always reaped the fruits of experience especially on matters, literally, of life and death, and has not always decided on "these things" out of conviction but out of convenience. In spite of the holocaust of the 1940s, just witness the present holocaust of the unborn throughout the western world and, for good measure, now add Portugal as well. That is surely "the tyranny of the majority" referred to by Prof. Wain but, this time, against a defenceless and voiceless minority of unborn children all over the world. It is the "slavery" and torture of modern times, sanctioned by democratic means. So far, proudly, with the exclusion of Malta.

Democracy, in spite of its great merits, can also be very fragile as to be a casualty to the tryanny of the minority. Even a minority of just one member of Parliament, either if s/he happens to be a despotic, or, worse, a dictatorial, Prime Minister leading a government with a comfortable absolute majority of seats in Parliament (this has happened already!) or the odd member of Parliament in a coalition in government with a very slim majority.

In fact, lately, we have had the leader of the Green Party of Malta (AD) already threatening the other two big parties that if AD obtains even just one MP in the coming election and has to join a coalition to form a government the party with the big majority in government will have to give in to the introduction of divorce in Malta. No conviction here. Just the force of blackmail. The same could apply to abortion (Editorial note: AD has declared it is against abortion). Hence, the need for entrenchment.

Furthermore, if, in 1964, it was considered good, and not anti-democratic by the people of Malta, and our legislators, to entrench provisions in the Constitution to safeguard the Maltese language and the Maltese flag, besides other matters, why should it be considered wrong and anti-democratic to make provisions in the Constitution, in 2007, when we are supposed to have reaped the fruits of experience and political maturation, to safeguard human life, the essence of human existence.

Ironically, the western world seems also to be gradually realising the mistakes of its recent past and is starting to rediscover what is emerging as the urgent need to value more and protect human life. So far, however, it seems it is doing so, again, because of convenience - because of demographic deficits and unsustainable pensions schemes - and not because of "rational persuasion". In the process it still displays a crass lack of a sound ethical base.

Lately, the new president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Poeterring, spoke against the death penalty but kept silent, as far as I am aware, on the killing of the unborn. He did make reference, if I recall correctly, to the need to help Europe rediscover its roots. So did Angela Merkel, the current president of the EU.

These are indicators, I think, that western society, eventually, will go back in search of an ethical base, but not before, it seems, it has run the full circle! This is typified in the story of Tony Levantino (Pink Magazine - December 2006) the American gynaecologist and one-time abortionist - "I carried out thousands of abortions" - who was in Malta lately, and who turned pro-life after making hugh financial profits from abortions and when the tragic death of his adopted daughter made him realise that he, also, after all, like the driver and car that killed his daughter, was a killer and an instrument of death. "It really hits you that this is a real person you're killing".

In the meantime, on this matter, tiny Malta seems to be wiser than the rest.

Finally, if I, or perhaps others like me, might have misunderstood Prof. Wain it will be good if he now pronounces himself clearly on the rights, protection and development of the unborn child on the local and world scences.