Joseph R. Aquilina, Balzan.
A President to unify (1)
Malta is a very young democracy, and The Times editorials have always striven to lead it on the way to maturity. Its recent ones have excelled. The editorial Shaky Start (March 25) was indeed eminently courageous. I urge the paper to continue on the moral high ground that it occupies to foster the sense of national identity and unity. Sadly it appears that a considerable part of the citizenry still have a long way to go to overcome partisan instincts, as some deep wounds are still painfully open. The Times' beneficial efforts to pacify, conciliate, and guide to national reconciliation will bear good fruit.
I am personally convinced of the benefits of the Partnership for Peace decision, which broadens and increases the standing of Malta in the international community. However, we will need to be careful in how to put the decision to work into practice. So far we have avoided problems of international terrorism and we have to deftly manouevre to maintain this status.
It is probably the method and the haste of the communication process with the opposition rather than the actual decision itself that leaves room for improvement - consultation processes between the government and opposition need to improve for the common good, and for the post-electoral divisions to heal. Some policies, essentially of their very nature, require to be based on platforms of consensus, to assure continuity even if governments change.
The Times' suggestion to have a President from the ranks of the Labour side merits serious consideration. The narrow margin of the electoral result indicates that there is no time like the present for adopting this approach. The Presidency in Malta needs to be used to unify the nation further. We are now a respected player in the EU and on the international scene, and we cannot be seen to be divided.
Sadly, perhaps Malta may not yet be quite ready for the adoption of this suggestion, which would be such a conciliatory step. If, given the divisions, the nomination of any politician or ex-politician from any side, whichever, of the political spectrum for Presidency will not find the desirable and requisite national consensus, there could be an alternative. In which case, perhaps it is time to find an upright man or woman. There must be one citizen in Malta worthy of this, from outside the group of serving or ex-politicians, who could become the head of family of all the Maltese in one united nation, as Sir Anthony Mamo was singularly considered by all to be.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Martinelli
Apr 1st 2008, 19:38
Mr. Sammut, first of all the election has nothing to do with the appointment of a President.
Secondly, the party in government received the highest number of preferred (Number 1) votes and by right and by the amendment to the Constitution which your party also voted for, it obtained the right to govern. Had there been the slightest injustice, I am willing to bet you, we would have heard the largest outcry from your (defeated) party.
It's time to move on.
Saviour Sammut
Apr 1st 2008, 17:51
Mr Camilleri just mention one country where you have a ruling party winning a slim majority of less than a local quota on a national level? I can mention a country which chose a non-politician as President, Vaclav Havel comes to mind. Should we copy others when it suits us best and disregard the fact, for example that a 1% national quota can get you Parliamentary represented whilst in ours no!?
Charles Camilleri
Apr 1st 2008, 15:27
Mr. Aquilina just name me one country where the President has not come from the political spectrum and not from the ruling governing party.As far as anyone knows all our Presidents included the present one have carried on their duties with dignity and did nothing to divide the people. What guarantee do we have that non political persons will make a better President. After all what have these persons done to earn this post. Why we are always a special case. It seems that many do not follow foreign news. I see no country that is not divided between the political left and the political right. If there is no different opinion there is no democracy. So why ask the impossible from the Maltese. One can only follow the political campaigns in USA and Italy to notice that all countries are the same. And Malta is no exception.
Joe Martinelli
Apr 1st 2008, 13:13
Truth is, Mr. Aquilina, that since Sir Anthony Mamo, we have been accustomed to seeing a politician or ex-politician being nominated as President of the Republic and coming from the ruling party.
For a government to select someone from the 'other side' would be like jumping from a speeding train.
The best we can hope for is a 'neutral' person, neutral, of course until an aggrieved side manages to find out and publicizes the candidate's political leanings. Then we are back to square one.
The fact remains that in the final analysis, all Presidents who served in that capacity have done a good job. Some better than others, showing particular strengths but nonetheless we were well served.
The common denominator is that their previous political experiences helped them carry the burden of their job and the efficiency of carrying it out, much easier and with more positive results.
Alfred Sacco
Apr 1st 2008, 11:47
I am in full agreement with Mr.Aquilina's comments. We need a unifying force now more than ever. The only part of his letter with which I have my reservations is that where he said that "So far we have avoided problems of international terrorism..." Have we forgotten the Egyptair hijack and its heart-rending tragic end? This happened during an administration which prided itself in being neutral! Terrorism has no respect for neutral, non-aligned, aligned, misaligned, firmly-aligned.....states.