Beyond taboos

Unfortunately, over the last few years it has been considered somewhat of a taboo to discuss certain important national issues politically. I was gladly surprised to hear the Acting Leader of the Opposition, Charles Mangion, openly declare that the Labour Party would, at this stage, be willing to hold talks with the government regarding Malta's entrenched constitutional provisions regarding neutrality. Since the inception of the relative clauses in our Constitution, for various reasons, some very profound and of an ideological nature, the MLP has been hesitant in consenting to discuss possible amendments in this respect. However, circumstances change over the years and most certainly the international scenario is far removed from what it used to be when our Constitution was amended in order to perpetuate Malta's already declared neutrality.

The relative clauses were inserted in the Constitution in 1987. Little could the then Maltese legislators imagine how, within the space of just a couple of years, the entire world order would change so drastically. In terms of neutrality, the constitution was tailor made to accommodate the then prevailing reality, which reality, however, no longer holds sway.

When we examine article one of the Constitution we see that, when dealing with the concept of neutrality, our supreme law defines this in the shadow of the then existing super powers. The so-called Iron Curtain, however, has long since been lifted. We no longer find ourselves in a Cold War between the western democracies and the Soviet Union as we had been for the best part of 40 years. It is therefore anachronistic for our Constitution to persist in interpreting neutrality as meaning intrinsically equidistance form the two super powers and dictating the relative outdated measures in this respect.

Our Constitution further mandates the government of Malta to a policy of non-alignment. At the time this was taken to signify that Malta had to partake in the non-aligned movement.

This loose alliance embraced within it those countries which, like Malta, shied away from Nato and the Warsaw Pact. This movement included foremost among its members Josip Tito's Yugoslavia, which had been the driving force behind it. Today, however, even this alliance no longer holds any significance and it has been donkeys' years since Malta has partaken actively in any meeting of the movement in question. This notwithstanding, our Constitution still emphasises Malta's direction in a now defunct brotherhood of nations. Undoubtedly, all of this no longer makes sense. No responsible political party today should therefore shy away form discussing this important issue on the pretext of ideology and the fear of being misinterpreted by some party diehards.

The other face of the matter is that, in truth, by persisting in this present attitude we are merely paying lip service to our Constitution because, in practice, we are no longer in a position to fully adhere to the stringent provisions of our law. Furthermore, clinging on to redundant bits of our supreme law will eventually lead to the devaluation and irrelevance of the Constitution itself. Thus, to my mind, the stand taken by Dr Mangion in the light of all this is highly commendable.

Emending and upgrading our law with regard to Malta's neutrality does not have to imply that we are retreating from our stand in favour of neutrality. This principle is a noble one indeed and in the past has served us only too well as is evidenced by Malta's standing in the international community. Times, however, dictate that we have to find a way of redefining neutrality in the world today.

The MLP has always considered itself to be progressive and pragmatic. This means that the Labour movement has always been forward looking and in the past has been a catalyst for change.

This surely has to apply also when it comes to fundamentals. Therefore, undoubtedly, new Labour should not have any quibbles or fears about taking the bull by the horns and partake wholeheartedly in any discussions aimed at updating the relevant constitutional provisions. If we fail to do so, time will pass us by and we will surely be criticised for failing to take a stand.