Did we achieve reconciliation?

Last week you took part in the first of a new series of talk shows on One TV run by former minister Joe Grima. The topic was whether the reconciliation proposed in the Nationalist Party electoral programme of 1987 had been fulfilled or not. What do you now feel after the discussion with your fellow panel members (Michael Falzon, Evarist Bartolo and Reno Calleja, all three former ministers) and clips and phone-ins that also formed part of the programme?

My strongest feeling still remains the first that I confessed in vision, regret at my own failings on the matter. I was an adviser of Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami, but I was not wise enough at the time to suggest the method that was adopted almost 10 years later in South Africa when, after the end of apartheid, the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation was established by law, with Bishop Desmond Tutu as its chairman.

The key to the success of this commission was that culprits were given the opportunity of confessing their guilt, asking pardon and receiving it there and then.

No similar procedure was set up in Malta. Instead, there were a few instances in which action in court was taken, but there was the obvious intention of avoiding anything that might have seemed to resemble a witch-hunt and the astonishing phenomenon that even the killers of Karin Grech and Raymond Caruana have got away scot free. The result is that a lot of deep resentment still persists in many people's hearts.

In retrospect, a true catharsis is more likely to have occurred had there been the possibility of a quietly-conducted ritual of confession and forgiveness such as has been afforded to whites and blacks by the Tutu tribunal.

Instead, here in Malta there has been a quite understandable reluctance on the part of practically everybody to recognise his or her share of guilt, large or small. Fear of being penalised is no doubt part of the explanation for the incredible self-white-washing that so many honourable gentlemen still indulge in.

On the contrary, among our politicos, there persists an unceasing readiness to keep rolling out reciprocal accusations marked often by a tendency to grossly exaggerate the ugliness of some of the alleged offences, especially lately. I was particularly aggrieved by those who kept picturing Fenech Adami as a hypocrite or as a cold-hearted beast because they did not see him generally wearing his heart on his sleeve.

The continued use of this type of language, over-charged with highly coloured metaphors, considerably reduced the degree of my persuasion that we had indeed moved significantly towards reconciliation, also thanks to Alfred Sant, even though we had certainly not reached its fullness.

Was there any general agreement on steps that might help to bring about progress in the direction of reconciliation?

A suggestion was made by Lou Bondi in a clip. He prospected the closing down of the political party television media. Their habitual presentation of events in ways that make it difficult for a viewer of both versions to believe that they referred to the same happening was a major factor in the perpetuation of the division of the population of our islands into two tribes.

I myself have been urging the two parties to agree on this course of action. Of course, some agreement on the running of the Public Broadcasting Service to better ensure its independence is a prior requirement. For years, as readers of this column may well remember, I have been advocating this course of action, mainly for other reasons as well. First, there is better quality. Secondly, it brings relief from the pressures of both parties to collect money to subsidise their unviable stations.

I had particularly hoped that the idea would be taken up by the parliamentary committee made up of members of both parties and chaired by the Speaker. The enthusiasm with which Bondi's suggestion was greeted by Labour Party stalwarts gave me new hope of a positive outcome, even though it was somewhat ironic that consensus on this particular item of reconciliation was being so loudly voiced on One TV.

Was that the only terrain on which you all agreed?

That would have been indeed sadder than I must admit the experience of this discussion about reconciliation turned out to be.

The rest of us concurred with Bartolo that a radical review of the Constitution could be very helpful, provided it was not conducted, as its major amendments have so far been, behind closed doors between small party delegations, but with the involvement of all citizens.

Everybody agreed that an enhanced role for the President was needed, although not everybody went as far as I did in opting for an executive Presidential system, somewhat like that of France.

A different way of electing the President would have to be adopted, and other structural changes could be made to better ensure non-discrimination. Even more important is a change in political culture.

Policy decisions at the European level (for instance, affecting the value of the euro) now tend to affect our personal life-possibilities even more than the favours that are obtainable through our present clientelistically-oriented electoral system.

The realisation of this historic change would be a decisive factor inducing us to overcome our tribal party loyalties.

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was talking to Miriam Vincenti.