On more than one occasion in this column I referred (though not in these same words) to the need to make compromises in the political and public spheres. One can also call this bridge-building. This skill involves searching for common ground instead of demonisating one's adversaries.
Common ground will hopefully be followed by common action. In a pluralistic society, this strategy is essential, albeit risky. There is need for such a strategy, especially when values are translated into public policy and legislation.
The greater the differences among various Catholic groups or between Catholic and non-Catholic groups, the greater the need for the skilful use of this strategy. Society has to move forward and it should wisely choose prudent and practical compromise over confrontation.
Let me clarify by examining the pro-life and the pro-choice groups, where differences are so great that compromise seems to be far-fetched and, for some, not even desirable.
Rocco Buttiglione, the eminently Catholic politician, has shown shrewdness and wisdom when he recently proposed a compromise and a common action between these two groups. His Catholic credentials are too well known for anyone to even dream of challenging them.
He is a member of the Communion and Liberation movement and was rumoured to be the Pope's favourite politician. In 2004, Buttiglione was rejected as an EU Commissioner because of his Catholic beliefs on homosexuality, abortion and the family.
His compromise is not about principles. Buttiglione believed and still believes that abortion is wrong. He would prefer that abortion be declared illegal. However, as a practical politician, he knows that in many countries it is difficult to make abortion illegal.
Faced with this reality, he embarked on a campaign aimed at building different alliances to try and make abortion a rarity. He announced plans to form an international network in favour of reducing the actual number of abortions, beginning with a global moratorium on compulsory abortions in nations such as China. He is also calling for greater efforts to help women facing problem pregnancies - efforts that might make abortion less commonplace, even if it remains legal.
Buttiglione's proposals should not, in principle, be opposed by the pro-choice group. They are against compulsory abortion and in favour of helping women face problem pregnancies.
Buttiglione said the debate about the legalisation of abortion has changed since the 1970s. He quoted Italy's current Minister of Health Livia Turco, a centre-left politician and advocate for women's rights, who has defined abortion as "not a right, but a frightening necessity". Buttiglione is trying to make abortion unnecessary.
If such bridges can be built between the pro-life groups and the pro-choice groups, cannot they also be built in Malta between the pro-divorce and the anti-divorce lobbies? What should unite both lobbies is the conviction that happy and stable marriages are beneficial to society. Since such marriages develop into stable families, they are a sine qua non, more than beneficial to society.
I would like to make a proposal to the members of Proġettimpenn and of The Today Public Policy Institute (also keeping in mind that not all members of the latter think-tank agree with Martin Scicluna's position that divorce should be introduced as soon as possible).
I suggest that they should put their heads together and come up with a document outlining concrete changes in present legislation and policies, which should lead to the strengthening of marriage and the family.
Is it too difficult to build such a bridge?