Illegal immigration is getting on our nerves. Not unreasonably so. It is a phenomenon where size does matter. We simply cannot afford to sustain thousands of immigrants who happen to reach our shores unexpectedly and unintentionally. It is causing us frustration, perhaps not yet to the extent of justifying racism, but certainly due to its adverse consequences caused by its own nature - an unbearable economic and social burden on our people and our future generations.

It was therefore a sign of relief to see our government taking a hard stand at European level and insisting that our country is not prepared to budge from strictly honouring its humanitarian obligations within the designated search and rescue zone in order to safeguard the lives of illegal migrants.

It was not a matter of reacting to the unfair criticism levelled at the Maltese by European members of Parliament, following the sudden tragedies that occurred in troubled seas within our vicinity. It was the right move made at the right time by a responsible government. Let's face it, the European Union left us floating on our own on this issue. There were no signs of support or solidarity towards this European small state. At some stage the EU pronounced its preoccupation but it was only talk, talk and talk. No action had been taken and no particular interest was shown notwithstanding our country's repeated pledges for immediate assistance. The Frontex involvement was simply a meagre attempt resulting in total failure.

The Maltese government's burden-sharing proposal is therefore more than commendable. It is a fair, practical solution that would eventually mitigate the perilous impact we have been experiencing through the invasion of illegal immigrants. It gained the support of the whole population thanks to the responsible and politically-mature public declaration made by the Malta Labour Party. The opposition deserves our appreciation for unequivocally extending its unconditional support to the Maltese government on this issue.

Unfortunately, this is a rare occasion but it is a breath of fresh air witnessing our major political parties collaborating together on issues of national concern. Surely, it is a case of political maturity in the making. The parties had demonstrated that political mileage out of dilly-dallying tactics won't pay in the long term, especially when the national interest is at stake. One hopes that for the coming months, during the peak period of electioneering, our politicians would keep on promoting this spirit of mutual respect and collaboration in the collective interests of the citizens.

Within this context, it was not surprising that the leaders of the Catholic Church had their say as well and decided to exert their influence on their European counterparts in an attempt to consolidate the initiatives taken by our political parties.

The bishops admitted that this was not essentially a moral issue but more of a humanitarian and political matter. Our bishops took the opportunity to inform the public and the faithful in particular that, unlike their predecessors, their communication with the community would not be restricted to the publishing of pastoral letters or just out of their moral obligations.

Through their proactive stance they demonstrated that the issue of illegal immigration was a matter of serious concern to the Church as well. But one might argue, however, that the Church reacted once it was known that the two major political parties had practically adopted a common stand, as if not to get involved in a controversy. The Church credibility rating would certainly increase if in the future it would pronounce its declarations or beliefs irrespective of what line of action the political parties would take. If this were to happen, would it be criticised for interfering in the political sphere? Or would it prove that the level of political maturity allows the public to tolerate the views of the Church as an influential institution even on non-religious issues?

With the public still discussing the setting up of the new political party, its impact on the political system, its ideology or the lack of it, its officials and their speeches... it was a breath of fresh air watching the Prime Minister and the Labour leader on TV last Tuesday. Both of them were well groomed and projected themselves as mature politicians who know their staff as much as they know how to behave in front of a camera. They were strong in most of their arguments and they avoided the customary noisy interruptions to ensure an interesting debate and a decent performance. Both of them opted for evasive replies when confronted with questions on their respective internal party affairs or frictions.

Alfred Sant was the more convincing when he spoke about the future and his party's determination to bring about change and the modern way of governance. He would have gained more points had he polished his explanations on his concrete proposals on the reduction of the fuel surcharge, his taxation policy and his plans for education.

Lawrence Gonzi was reassuring in his boasting of the present government economic and financial record as confirmed by the statistics endorsed by the EU. He was more concerned with defending his record in government rather than emphasising his vision for the future. It was a good move on his part when he accepted to forward to the Leader of the Opposition sensitive commercial information on the Malta Shipyards.

In my view, there were no "walkovers" in terms of partisan performance but what struck me most was the sense of political maturity expressed by both leaders. They conveyed the message that politics is not about blaming the other, attacking the person, rhetoric and propaganda.

Over the past days I could see the light at the end of the tunnel as far as political maturity goes. It may not have been intended by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the bishops... but the seeds are sown!

matyas@maltanet.net