It is a pity that the report prepared by human rights NGO Aditus and entitled ‘A way forward for a National Integration Policy in Malta’, has sparked the wrong debate just because the media gave undue importance to one particular recommendation and practically ignored the rest.
The recommendation that raised quite a big hullaballoo was to the effect that the Maltese state should “grant the right to vote and stand in local elections to all migrant residents and remove any obstacles to civic and political participation”.
President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, as well as Helena Dalli, Minister for Social Dialogue and Civil Liberties, and others have reinforced the impression that the only important aspect of the Aditus report was the issue of giving voting rights to migrants during local elections, by stressing that this was not a priority. Unwittingly, they encouraged the idea that the Aditus report should be ignored in its entirety.
The hysterical reactions to this proposal from the warped minds of the vocal racist lobby in Malta – including a former Labour minister – have also done a lot to divert people’s attention from the main thrust of the report.
As the report itself states, its main purpose “was to produce concrete recommendations aimed at national policymakers on how to maximise the success of the various stages of third country nationals’ integration process in Malta”.
The report makes several recommendations in the light of various issues as identified by the Migrant Integration Policy Index (Mipex), a European measurement index focusing on integration – seven issues in all, namely: anti-discrimination, labour market mobility, family reunion, education, political participation, access to nationality and long-term residence.
Under these seven headings, the report makes a total of 60 recommendations. The overall thrust of the study is certainly a positive one and although giving all non-EU third country nationals the right to vote in local elections might be considered a premature step at this point of history, surely this issue must be faced in the future, as otherwise we cannot be serious in expecting these people to integrate in society.
Migration is a historical phenomenon, ingrained in the psyche of humanity: the desire to seek pastures new is a human trait that has led to humans settling in all the corners of the earth. Indeed the history of human settlement in Malta is irretrievably linked to the migration phenomenon. Malta was not created with humans – special or otherwise – living on it. It was populated by settlers coming from ‘foreign lands’. Some historians reckon that this has even happened more than once.
The population of Malta increased in line with economic development. Spending by the Order of the Knights of St John or by the British Empire – albeit not in the interest of the natives – strengthened Malta’s economy, and this resulted in an increase in the population. When the economic situation of Malta was not economically flourishing, the Maltese resorted to migrating to North Africa and later to diverse English-speaking communities.
The political turmoil in Africa and in the Middle East has led to many people seeking their fortunes in Europe. A small fraction of them end up in Malta, more by accident than by design.
There is no way the situation can be reversed or stopped, even though better political and economic conditions in the countries of origin will certainly ease the pressure.
Thinking that we can somehow stop migrants from reaching our shores is not realistic – unless we are prepared to forgo all pretence of human values and Christianity. This is not to say that Malta should not keep insisting for the sharing of this burden with our EU partners – but even the concept of ‘burden sharing’ implies that we have to carry some of the burden.
The history of human settlement in Malta is irretrievably linked to the migration phenomenon
Integration of third country nationals has already happened in many European countries such as Germany, Belgium and Switzerland. The process was not without any complications but the countries with an official strategy on integration encountered less problems.
The effect can even be seen in the World Cup squads of many European nations: while denigrating the very concept of integration, many Maltese enjoy seeing Khedira play for Germany and Mehmedi score for Switzerland. Two of the three goals in the much-touted Italy-England clash were scored by players whose ethnic origins are neither Italian nor English.
This has not happened just in football – it is evident in all walks of life in Europe.
Today, children from 35 different countries attend government schools in Malta while people of 101 different nationalities are living here. A measure of integration is therefore on the books. The lack of a well-thought-out strategy for this integration is to Malta’s disadvantage, and the initiative of Aditus should be commended and its report should be welcome – even if one does not entirely agree with all its details and has reservations about the timing of certain steps.
The fact is that were it not for Aditus, no one has suggested any concrete recommendations outlining the steps that have to be taken in the context of a thought-out national integration strategy that is long overdue.
micfal@maltanet.net