1972. Richard Nixon becomes the first United States President to visit arch-enemy Communist China.
1977. Anwar El Sadat officially visits Israel and addresses the Knesset. This first visit by an Arab leader paves the way for the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty.
1989. Mikhail Gorbachev decides not to intervene in East Germany, making it possible for the Berlin Wall to fall. This symbolic event heralded the unification of Germany and the collapse of the Soviet system.
Three defining moments. Like Saul on his way to Damascus, each leader chose to break with the past. Many, at the time, did not understand. All three leaders made it into the history books, their vision duly acknowledged.
In journalistic jargon all three events were authentic political u-turns: a favourite catchphrase of the mass media. Journalists love u-turns as they provide unique grist for their mills. Politicians are not meant to change their positions or opinions as this evidences sheer incompetence or unacceptable weakness.
For their own reasons, fellow-politicians are equally intolerant when it comes to u-turns. Little do they care that what goes around comes around. Margaret Thatcher's words at the 1981 annual conference of the Conservative Party still reverberate on the virtual planet: "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning." That same year, in her confrontation with the miners, she did U-turn. Then, at the right moment, she struck back and the rest is history. Years later, the Iron Lady came to believe her own words; her persistence over the poll tax led to her losing control of her party and the government. Leading economist John Meynard Keynes is quoted as having said that "When the facts change, I change my mind".
In public life, consistency may be a virtue but it is surely a grossly overrated one. There is a lot to be said in favour of U-turns. Defence is as important as attack. What is the sense of continuing to drive into a brick wall?
The important thing is to be able to tell U-turns arising out of changed circumstances and leadership from Machiavellian ones resulting from sheer opportunism.
Ultimately, political credibility is the differentiating factor. Credibility is about voters' belief in the capability of politicians to implement pre-electoral promises. In the democratic political process there is often a time gap between promise and fulfilment. Credibility results from track record and reputation and is a relative perception. Character assassination and mud-slinging are ways of blackening opponents so as to enhance one's own credibility.
What is the situation in our own country? Is our democratic system being consistently abused so as to fudge issues? Transparency and accountability are critical for political credibility. But do we really need Transparency International to read the writings on the wall? Are we that blind or is it just impotence? The credibility-building process can be hijacked by media clutter and spin doctors. For a while, voters can be fooled. At the end, truth will out.
The real damage is in undermining people's trust in the political system. Malta is not the only country suffering from a growing credibility deficit, which is partly reflected in a creeping lower voter turnout. (This despite the fact that, for a number of reasons, Malta still registers the highest non-compulsory voter turnout in the world). Over the last 40 years, voter turnout in Western democracies has been falling. Their citizens are increasingly feeling that politicians are solely interested in feathering their nest. They are fed up with empty talk while they toil to make ends meet. In the US, the champion of modern democracy, on election day, one in three eligible voters prefers to stay at home. Younger generations are the most absent; it is their way of rebelling against the system.
The political class is generally failing to uphold democracy's most holy promises of fairness and equality. Politicians are no longer seen as bearers of the truth. The issue is not one of human fallibility but rather of self-righteousness and misjudged pride. Voters accept that politicians, like all other humans, can make mistakes. What they cannot understand is why politicians find it so hard to admit their shortcomings. Admitting a weakness, a failure and changing one's position can be disarming in its own right. Having campaigned intensively against premature EU membership, the PL decided to accept the people's decision. And it was rewarded in the two MEP elections held so far.
Perhaps the biggest U-turn of all in Maltese politics remains to cross from one party to the other. Recently we had one such example. The likelihood of it happening again in the future increases as the ideological divide between the two main parties blurs, ancestor-conditioned political allegiance weakens and political credibility falls. Our political parties will do well to soul-search as to what they really stand for and whose interests they have at heart.
Most voters are not interested in the finer points of U-turns. For Joe Citizen what matters is getting there. So let us have more U-turns. Often they are manifestations of democratic maturity rather than political weakness. What should never be "for turning" are principles and values.
May the festive season and the new year bring serenity and prosperity to all.