Frank Psaila
Social liberal agenda for PN
I absolutely disagree with those who argue that following the divorce referendum result the Nationalist Party is the biggest loser. I would say that the result benefited the PN in many ways, provided it takes some sensible decisions in the coming days and months.
The way forward for the PN is clear. The party has always been a broad church – a Christian democrat party under whose umbrella social liberals and moderates find their natural home. It can’t afford not to remain so now. If the PN really and truly wants to remain a broad coalition of Christian democrats, social liberals and moderates alike then it needs to put a social liberal agenda on top of its priorities.
I chose the PN because I am a social liberal by instinct, a firm believer in social justice, solidarity, free trade, social market economy and environmental sustainability. These principles are enshrined in the basic principles and beliefs of the PN.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s the likes of Eddie Fenech Adami, Guido de Marco, Louis Galea and Ugo Mifsud Bonnici transformed the PN, radically shedding its much perceived confessional image and embarking on a fast- paced reform towards a social liberal agenda embedded in Christian democrat thinking. The PN went on to transform the country: democracy, pluralism, a social market economy, dialogue, solidarity, a revolutionised education system and Malta’s EU membership, you name it, the PN achieved it and the country benefited from it and prospered.
Forward that to the present. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi did and is doing an excellent job despite the fact that the world is still recovering from the worst financial meltdown in the past 80 years. Jobs have been saved thanks to the government’s sensible economic policies while thousands of new high quality jobs have been generated.
When Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando came along with his divorce legislation Bill he caught everyone by surprise, not least the PN – his party. Divorce was not on the PN’s cards but the party leader took the sensible decision to allow his MP to go ahead with his Bill and immediately made it clear that the issue was to be decided by the electorate in a referendum.
It was a bold decision by Dr Gonzi despite his genuine objection to divorce.
The PN unanimously, through its executive, took an official stand against divorce. This seems to have taken many social liberal PN voters by surprise apparently disenchanting many in the process. Divorce, they argued, was a civil right, a personal choice and their party was wrong to take an official stand against it. They openly declared their intention to vote yes in the referendum even if that meant going against the party’s stand and despite the fact that Labour leader Joseph Muscat was vociferously in favour of divorce legislation.
Dr Gonzi did not render their choice difficult. He made it clear from day one that a free vote would be given to his MPs and that everyone was free to vote according to his/her conscience. The rest is now history. Many PN voters said no to divorce but a significant number of Nationalists (very significant to swing the pendulum either way in 2013) voted yes, clearly influencing the outcome of the referendum.
There is no denying that the Yes vote won the day thanks not least to thousands of Nationalist voters who said yes while thousands of Labourites did not bother to vote. For many Labourite voters it was a choice between Archbishop Paul Cremona and Dr Muscat. They chose none.
Perhaps it is still early days to decide whether the party did the right thing in adopting an official position against divorce legislation but right now what matters most is that the many social liberal PN voters who felt disappointed by the party’s stand return to the fold without undue haste. For this to happen the party needs to forcefully put forward its social liberal agenda and urgently take up some very important issues that need to be addressed, namely IVF legislation and cohabitation laws, that would be the first step. Following that, more concrete measures need to be taken, not least legislating some much needed and long overdue civil liberties the country can’t afford to postpone any longer.
In no way does this mean that the party alienates its grass roots who tend to be more conservative by nature but it is a given that unless the party caters for many a social liberal it will have a difficult task come 2013.
The PN is synonymous with liberty, free choice, respect for human dignity and, above all, solidarity. A healthier social liberal agenda benefits the party but above all the country. The PN needs to win back the trust of many social liberal voters and it needs to do so now.
Dr Psaila is the Nationalist Party’s information director.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
alfred agius
Jul 20th 2011, 00:36
As long as the Pn lives and acts by its motto `RELIGIO et Patria ` and is led by a leader with a taliban streak, it can never adopt a liberal social agenda. Ours is now a multicultural society. Dr. Cassar, Minister for Health , rightly chose not to follow the no vote to divorce and thereby distanced himself from the position of the pm. So did Dr Michael Gonzi and other mps. But these were individual decisions taken against party lines and some of those who were brave enough to take them are already being threatened by pn party members. Such threats are so serious that it is not wise to reproduce them here. Shame!
Ms Monica Muscat
Jun 9th 2011, 16:03
I know of many youngsters who did not go to vote because of pure indifference, seeing that they are completely cut off from both Church Teachings and Politics - and, at this point in time they do not envisage getting married or getting divorced! Others kept away for another reason. Their Church Leaders or Leaders of their Political affiliation kept pressuring them to vote against their personal belief - so they just kept away. They just could not envisage going against their Leaders.
But now, let us PLEASE close the case, let the Politicians work - and pray for a just law with not too many loopholes which encourage abuse and create injustices. Ideally, the Divorce law should still be in favour of the Unit in the Family. And the greater protection should be in favour of the most vulnerable - the children.
Ms Louise Galea
Jun 8th 2011, 21:15
Well done Frank! The PN needs many more people like you and Cyrus.
Ms Lina CARUANA
Jun 8th 2011, 19:43
Being a christian democratic party ,the PN could find no objection into receiving social democrats whose objective was the well being of the working person. No problems there. But the PN cannot be a liberal party without a radical change which will make the party lose its identity. If one speaks of an emergent liberal party, yes,And these come from the main political parties, given the chance even the PL may lose some of its voters to the liberal party if there is one.. Yes times are changing. The liberals can have a place but The PN cannot accomodate them just for their vote. We have to face the truth. A defeat may be the price we have to pay. But conservatives can never be out of date and sooner or later they will be needed as they are now in parts of Europe. The liberals are already using their influence in all government issues even if the electorate is not well informed of what a liberal party could be . Let us say that for a long time we have dragged on three parties,conservative ,labour and liberal but the sooner it is done by transparent means instead of stealth, the better for the country. Voters are free to choose and re choose and that will be more in tune with political morality. No one can doubt that the PN has changed the face of Malta for the better including liberty. So now let us not use a screen to say that some are conservatives, some are liberal and some are labour,because objectives are not always convergent.. The beauty of it is that everyone can feel comfortable in the party he chooses without having to mince his words all the time. I never considered myself conservative but definitely not liberal for valid reasons.
emmanuel scicluna
Jun 8th 2011, 17:58
Let's call a spade a spade. The Nationalist Party was NEVER a social liberal party. On the contrary, deep down it was always a conservative confessional party mired in iots fascist past. This came all out during the divorce referendum runoff. PN is not the party of social liberals. Fullstop. Social liberals were used only to put the nationalist in power. That's all. When the time came to prove their worth, everybody knows what happened.
Philip Serracino Inglott
Jun 8th 2011, 16:14
Dr. Psiala, trying to re-claim the Maltese liberals for the PN is a good move, since their (our?) only 'home base' right now is online, but making up for several years of alienation will require much more than addressing the 2 issues you casually mention above. Consider this partial list (in no particular order) of issues that are important to liberals and must be addressed ASAP to ensure the liberal vote:
The extremely low level of investment in R&D
The low percentage of 'working women'
The illegality of the 'Morning after pill' (which should be a distinct issue to abortion)
The de-criminalisation of soft-drugs
Same sex marriage
The legal status of people who undergo gender reassignment
Censorship regimes, particularly towards the liberal arts
The Church-state relationship, including Article 2 of the constitution, and its influence on Sunday shopping rules
and this is a disordered list of things that popped into my head right now. There are many more 'little things' that irk the liberals and are even more significant, I'm sure.
Then there are the really taboo issues, namely abortion and euthanasia. I do not expect these to be addressed any time soon, but minimally, the PN ought to break the taboo of discussing such issues. Invest in public consultation and scientific and sociological research, before these issues explode onto the political scene just like divorce did.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jun 8th 2011, 15:58
"It was a bold decision by Dr Gonzi despite his genuine objection to divorce." I think that the decision to have a referendum regarding divorce was the easiest decision Dr Gonzi ever made. He, like everybody else in Malta thought that the no vote was a cinch and it would only reaffirm his reelection, you know the kind like "I told you so?" Even the Yes vote Movement wasn't so optimistic of the end result. Dr Gonzi and the church were, as Mr Zammit used to say in his cut and paste. "Victory is ours, it is guaranteed." And if I remember correctly, my response to that was " The only guarantee in life is Taxes and Death". I stand vindicated. I don't think it would have been so bad for Dr Gonzi and the PN if certain mouth pieces kept their mouths shut after the final results came in. These mouth pieces is what is damaging the PN Party and GonziPN in general. The referendum is over, the Yes vote won, honour thy neighbor, the voters and move on to the next agenda. respect the will of the people. Nobody cares about your personal feelings. Dr Gonzi can make amends and be true to his word that he will honour the will of the people. He gambled and he lost. He knows that, now all he has to do is convince his mouth pieces to shut the hell up and stop making negative comments in order to make themselves look good. These Ministers are still in denial and they refuse to honour the will of the people. WHY? Some of these ministers don't even plan to run in the next election. Having Dr Mario De Marco as the PN leader sounds better and better by the minute and I will vote for him in no time and so would a lot of others if he is nominated to be the PN Leader in the next general election. Malta needs a new sense of direction and it needs to stop doing business "the good old boys way". Dr Psaila we need change and the change is coming.
Joseph Meli
Jun 8th 2011, 15:05
Recently a writer namely Pacifico Scicluna stated that, [to which many agree with]...........“face-book voters they cannot in conscience vote for certain candidates in an election to candidates who promote lifestyles or opinion that go against the teaching of Christ and His Church!” Others also stated that........“John Paul II clearly taught in his Encyclical “Evangelium Vitas” that an elected official who is absolute personal not in opposition to the procured abortion, euthanasia or divorce, they should be well know to us and if they do support such proposals (by voting or accepting such laws) which could be aimed at limiting or permitting such laws and lessening its negative consequences at such level of opinion or public morality have to be noted.
Others on face-book stated that they want to change the Constitution so that the Church won't have a right to teach us what is right and what is wrong" For this reason this writer stated "we expect to elect such members in parliament that hold good christian morals and that they do support christian values and avoid those that could be considered to be none-believers."
If this is in the picture or what they intend to do in the future, then we must choose the right parliamentary members to represent those who believe in God that are true Christians or Catholics that would represent the 47% and much more.
These candidates should clearly declare before hand that they are/where against divorce, Abortion and Euthanasia too, and we expect them to keep this right always, and they are not to be in favor of abortion, euthanasia etc.etc., and to state that they are ready to keep the same Constitution of Malta as regarding to the protection and rights of our Catholic faith of religion and work for better and with solid formation or foundation for local families that are created between man and woman.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 8th 2011, 16:05
No way, Jose. Not a chance.
Secularism isn't the picture of what Maltese intend to do in the future, silly man.
It's already happened. It's been a long time coming; but it's here at last.
Malta catholicissima never was; it was a ruse by people like you. This is the age of secularism.
People like you will have nowhere to run except to their churches; and that's fine. It's where you belong.
The PN as a Jesuit Catholic Junta is finished and the PL won't have a bar of being a proxy for the Catholic church.
Well done Malta.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jun 8th 2011, 16:20
Mr Meli the first thing that politicians should promise is to delete the #2 amendment in the Maltese constitution. It is about time that the Maltese government learn to separate Church from State. This is part of what brought us to the mess we find ourselves in today. It happened before and it is happening now. There is nothing wrong with government, and there is nothing wrong with the church, but when you mix them both together they don't fare well. It never fared well before and it is not going to fare well now. History is proof of that. The #2 amendment in the Maltese constitution adds more fuel to the fire. I still believe that the final vote in the last referendum was not all about accepting or rejecting divorce, the people are sick and tired of the power in which the government and the church rule this island. Religion should be a matter of choice and for the government or the church to tell you that you that you have to stay married even if you don't want to is wrong. One stays married because they want to, not because they have to. Why can't the government, the church and the holier than thou get that through their heads?
Kevin Saliba
Jun 9th 2011, 15:53
Favur l-emendar tal-Kapitolu 1 Artikolu 2 tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Favur-l-emendar-tal-Kapitolu-1-Artikolu-2-tal-Kostituzzjoni-ta-Malta/219316378087386#!/pages/Favur-l-emendar-tal-Kapitolu-1-Artikolu-2-tal-Kostituzzjoni-ta-Malta/219316378087386
Din il-paġna twaqqfet bil-ħsieb li tqajjem diskussjoni u sensibilizzazzjoni dwar l-implikazzjonijiet legali u soċjali tal-Kapitolu 1 Artikolu 2 tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta.
Dan l-artikolu jgħid hekk:
(1) Ir-reliġjon ta’ Malta hija r-Reliġjon Kattolika Apostolika Rumana.
(2) L-awtoritajiet tal-Knisja Kattolika Apostolika Rumana għandhom id-dmir u l-jedd li jgħallmu liema prinċipji huma tajbin u liema huma ħżiena.
(3) It-tagħlim reliġjuż tal-fidi Kattolika Apostolika Rumana għandu jkun provdut fl-iskejjel kollha ta’ l-Istat bħala parti mill-edukazzjoni obbligatorja.
L-għanijiet ta’ din il-paġna huma li jqajjem diskussjoni dwar:
1) Jekk dan l-Artikolu tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta huwiex konsistenti mal-Kapitolu IV Artikolu 40 tal-istess Kostituzzjoni li jiggarantixxi l-protezzjoni tal-libertà tal-kuxjenza u tal-qima, u mal-Artikolu sussegwenti tagħha li jiggarantixxi l-protezzjoni tal-libertà tal-espressjoni.
2) Jekk dan l-Artikolu tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta huwiex konsistenti mal-Kapitolu 2 Artikolu 10 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem tal-Unjoni Ewropea li jiggarantixxi l-libertà tal-ħsieb, tal-kuxjenza u tar-reliġjon.
3) Jekk dan l-Artikolu tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta huwiex konsistenti mal-kunċett ta’ soċjetà pluralista magħmula minn ċittadini li llum iżjed minn qatt qabel iħaddnu spettru wiesa’ ta’ djien differenti. Dan jinkludi i) ċittadini li minkejja li jidentifikaw ruħhom bħala Kattoliċi, ma jridux li l-Knisja tagħhom tinterferixxi iżjed milli jmissha fil-ħwejjeġ ċivili tal-Istat, ii) ċittadini li minkejja li jidentifikaw ruħhom bħala Kattoliċi ma jħossuhomx parti mill-Knisja Kattolika Rumana, iii) ċittadini li minkejja li trabbew skont il-Katekeżi tal-Knisja Kattolika Rumana, għażlu minn jeddhom li jħaddnu twemmin reliġjuż differenti, iv) ċittadini li minkejja li trabbew skont il-Katekeżi tal-Knisja Kattolika Rumana, għażlu minn jeddhom li ma jħaddnu l-ebda twemmin reliġjuż.
4) Jekk dan l-Artikolu tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta huwa konsistenti mal-ispirtu sekulari tal-Konċilju Vatikan II, li jistqarr illi l-Knisja u l-Istat għandhom ikunu żewġ istituzzjonijiet separati u li l-ebda parti minnhom ma għandha tirfes fuq l-oħra.
5) Kemm dan l-Artikolu tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta qiegħed tabilħaqq jippermetti li l-istudenti tagħna jingħataw formazzjoni reliġjuza ħolistika, u jekk wasalx iż-żmien li s-sillabu tat-tagħlim tar-reliġjon fl-iskejjel tal-Istat jinbidel fi studji reliġjużi fis-sens wiesa’ tal-kelma iżjed milli jibqa’ eżerċiżżju esklussiv ta’ katekiżi fid-duttrina tal-Knisja Kattolika Rumana.
6) Jekk dan l-Artikolu tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta huwiex ta’ xkiel għat-tkomplija tal-binja ta’ demokrazija pluralista, ħielsa, sekluari u lajka li qiegħda taspira li tikseb iżjed drittijiet ċivili għaċ-ċittadini kollha tagħha.
Il-ħallieq ta’ din il-paġna jixtieq li d-diskussjoni tittratta l-għanijiet imsemmija hawn fuq, u jispera li ma tiġġenerax f’battibekki irrelevanti rigward il-merti jew in-nuqqas tagħhom tat-twemmin reliġjuż jew tan-nuqqas tiegħu. Għaldaqastant din il-paġna tilqa’ fiha persuni ta’ kull twemmin politiku, filosofiku u reliġjuż biex jiddiskutu din il-kwistjoni fl-ispirtu tas-soċjetà ċivili li lkoll nixtiequ nsawru.
Il-ħallieq ta' din il-paġna jixtieq jagħmilha ċara li ma għandu l-ebda affiljazzjoni uffiċjali ma' xi għaqda reliġjuża, umanista jew atea.
Mr Charles Bayliss
Jun 8th 2011, 13:51
Yes those gentlemen had transformed the party but nowadays, the direction of the PN has taken us back 50 years to the Borg Olivier era. It took many years to come out from that dreadful era and it will take many more years - i dare tos ay tens of years - for the party to come out of the present era. an era of shame.
charles v schembri
Jun 8th 2011, 13:00
A good opinion piece by the PN Information Director. To some comments hereunder one would only say that being a christian democrat in now way debars an MP voting for divorce as long as he strongly believes so and has resolved to do so after having evaluated the common good of society and of the individual who is also the centre of christian democratic belief.
Although it is claimed that the past is a foreign country where things are done differently, the current PM need not do away with the Jesuit junta around him. The people around EFA then where mostly brought up with the Jesuits.
The PN resolution to profess itself against divorce whilst affording its MPs a free vote is not uncharacteristic of the christian democrat belief. WHat is unacceptable in today's open society and "liberal" exposition of politics is the fact that a head of a party advocates that none of its members can vote against thae issue. But this is in line with the labour parties processess of doing politics. Discussions are held but finally all should tow the line of the boss.
charles v schembri
Mr Cyrus Engerer
Jun 8th 2011, 12:36
Mr. Psaila it is encouraging to see others in the party finally coming out publicly and promote a more social liberal party. Whilst agreeing with most of your opinion, I find your emphasis on a cohabitation law worrying. I am afraid that such a law, enacted without a proper law on divorce (which is currently in the making) as well as another on marriage equality, will be insulting to as many as 30,000 liberal voters who need a law on marriage equality in order to stop discrimination towards them. YES, PN is now at a cross-roads...let's work hard in order to bring the party on the right side of history, as it has always been!
Philip Hili
Jun 8th 2011, 13:41
Mr Frank Psaila, your idea began to flourish!!!! You have one on board already!!!! but the party alrady lost ten (10)
Isa, kollox possibli!!!!!
Mr Tony Camilleri
Jun 8th 2011, 11:10
Mr Psaila, the Prime Minister only chose to consult the electorate because he had a revolution among his own MPs and did not want to appear to support the side against the Church and thought that the referendum result would not support the introduction of divorce.
Thus he would be able to say that he had consulted the people and it was the people who did not want divorce and not because he wanted those living together not to regularize their relationship.
However his referendum stance backfired and he could not use the pretext that the people had decided against divorce. So now he has to accept to introduce divorce whether he likes it or not, but it certainly is no thanks to him that it is being introduced.
Bil-Malti ngħidu "Inqela b'żejthu" Sur Psaila.
Frank Portelli 2BFRANK
Jun 8th 2011, 10:45
Issues such as that of Divorce are a matter for the individual’s conscience.
It is not for a political party to dictate to the individual on such matters.
Indeed we have it on record that if the PN had declared itself in favour of the introduction of Divorce, Minister Dr Austin Gatt, a prominent party member would have resigned from the PN on conscientious grounds.
Rightly so.
Individuals on the other side of the spectrum who believe that their conscience allows them to accept the introduction of divorce feel exactly the same way – that a Political Party should not impose on matters of conscience.
The PN executive committed a “faux pas” in taking a position on divorce – irrespective on whether it declared itself “for” or “against”.
A Political Party cannot impose a position on issues of Conscience.
I would have proposed that the question be put to a secret vote in the highest organ of the party – the PN General Council.
The question to be put “Do you agree that divorce is a matter for the individual’s conscience”.
We called this “Dialogue” – which together with our motto “Work Justice and Liberty” made the PN unbeatable.
In those times the PN stood out like a Rainbow.
Promising hope to all.
Rainbows are made up of “Blues”, “Greens” - but they also contain several other colours too.
It is all the colours together that make up this singularity - the Rainbow.
The main point at this stage is that the Prime Minister Dr Gonzi has stated that the People's will, as expressed in the referendum, is going to be respected.
The Party on its part should accept that matters of conscience should be left to the individual.
Dr Frank Portelli
Ramon Casha
Jun 8th 2011, 10:42
PN used to be synonymous with liberalism, progress and the fight against corruption. That was back in Mintoff's and KMB's and Eddie's era. Then things changed. Today, PN is synonymous with ultra-conservative politics, a dictatorial approach, and corruption in most areas of government. People who form their opinions by watching Net News might not see things this way, but unless PN accepts the diagnosis and excises the bits that are riddled with gangrene, its future looks bleak.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 8th 2011, 10:06
Mr Psaila, any argument or debate from religion is doomed. Any party defining itself by religion, as the PN does, is likewise doomed.
There was no boldness by the PM going for the referendum; just the usual dyed-in-the-wool PN shrewd political ploy centred on the belief that the church would get its way at the coal face as it has always done. He bet his party on the confessional and it didn't work for the first time ever.
He bet against the liberalism you so eloquently applaud, and got thrashed.
Your idea regarding IVF legislation will get the right to lifers protecting the "pipette persons" with apologists coming out with their cut-and-posts quoting Bronze Age scriptures, popes and catechisms.
And the PM and the PN shall come in for another dust-up they cannot win in either outcome.
If you want the PN to have at least a show to win the next election, it must get rid of the PM and his Jesuit Junta within his Cabinet.
As I said elsewhere, there should have been a spill of all party positions on Monday 30 May and by afternoon tea, there should have been a new team at the top. That's what happens in the real liberal secular countries.
The PN should be thanked for one thing; it produced Dr Pullicino Orlando.
Mr William Flynn
Jun 8th 2011, 10:37
By the way, harking back to your IVF idea Mr Psaila, the PM and his Jesuits’ belief in "pipette persons" is just another reason amongst many that a spill should occurred.
It's not too late, provided there is depth of political talent in the liberal ranks.