The halo party

Every time I hear Lawrence Gonzi talking about values and projecting the Nationalist Party as being the only Maltese political party having any, I am reminded of John Major's ill-fated 'Back to basics' campaign.

Remember Major? The 'Grey Man' who was lampooned mercilessly for tucking his shirt into his underpants (a story which originated from spin doctor Alistair Campbell)? The man who succeeded Margaret Thatcher and who headed the Conservative Party in the days before Tony Blair's New Labour?

Having won the 1992 election unexpectedly, Major looked around for an initiative to relaunch the Tory brand. He seized upon the uneasiness that many voters felt because of the way they believed that society was changing at an alarming rate.

Major realised there are many people who fear change in whatever form, be it in the way of variations from the traditional family model, changing societal make-up, or technological advances.

He knew that people who were worried about what they perceived to be momentous shifts in the world they lived in would be drawn towards that political party which presented itself as being a consistent upholder of the traditional values which many British people felt they were losing.

Major appealed to the people who felt the old certainties were crumbling and that traditional values were falling away. In a much quoted speech during the Conservative Party conference in 1993 he said: "It is time to return to those old core values, time to get back to basics, to self-discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting a responsibility for yourself and your family and not shuffling off on other people and the state."

Now this may not have originally been meant as an indication that Major was going to ban all bedroom activities barring those between married adults, but it was interpreted as the Tories' moral crusade against sex, sleaze, and single mothers.

And, the tricky thing with moral crusades is that you can't head one without being absolutely blameless and incorruptible. It is impossible to thunder on about traditional family values if most of your ministers are rolling about with people other than their lawful wedded spouse. That would lay you open to charges of hypocrisy.

Major found that out to his own detriment as one Tory MP after another floundered in the quicksand of sleaze. David Mellor, "the minister for fun" survived being exposed as an adulterer who wanted to get his jollies in a Chelsea kit and having his toes sucked, but had to resign after he was caught accepting freebies (maybe a lesson for Tonio Fenech there?).

The minister for the environment, Tim Yeo, went from lamenting the consequences of marital breakdown and warning about the number of broken families and single parents, to having his very own love child.

Then there was Stephen Milligan who died accidentally by auto-erotic asphyxiation while dressed in women's stockings and with a satsuma in his mouth. A host of other high-ranking Conservative politicians were having affairs, and those who weren't were embroiled in "cash for questions" scandals.

The whole 'Back to basics' campaign was submerged by the sleaze of the politicians who were meant to be championing a return to decent, ethical behaviour. They were rightly pilloried for not adhering to the moral code they were promoting.

This is where I see similarities with the PN. The parallels do not lie in the likelihood of Nationalist heavyweights being exposed as having a fetish for having their toes sucked or disporting themselves amorously in football kits, but on the monopolisation of the moral high ground, of being the party which upholds traditional family values.

The issue has come to the fore with the re-ignition of the divorce debate, as certain factions within the PN claim that the party's resistance to divorce is largely based on its observance of traditional family values.

However, this is not the first time that the Prime Minister has referred to the upholding of values as the PN's distinguishing criterion. Before the last MEP elections, he was reported as saying that he was worried about having Labour MEPs represent the values of the Maltese public in the European Parliament. Gonzi declared that the PN had always been open and proud of the values it upheld and concluded by saying he was proud of the 10 candidates his party was presenting for the EP election because they were each backed by a strong moral fibre.

The insinuation being made here is quite clear the PN is the only party which upholds the values dear to the Maltese. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, it is not clear whether the so-called traditional values are still so widely adhered to in Malta - the increasing number of separations and family breakdowns are proof of this.

Then there's the fact that if the PN is going to be the party which champions clean living, ethical behaviour and family values, it has to be sure that it fields candidates who incorporate these values. How is it going to continue in its anti-divorce stance if it fields a divorced candidate? And how is it going to insist on the importance of family values, if it promotes candidates who ignore them? I can't see why the inherent hypocrisy of such a position hasn't been commented on.

Some people will argue that the PN is a broad church and that it can include those who hold divergent views. This may be so, but if the PN maintains that certain values are intrinsic to its identity, hadn't it better make sure what those values are and that its representatives uphold those values?

If it doesn't do this, the PN cannot expect voters to regard it in a different light than Joseph Muscat's 'all things to all men' Labour Party.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt