This column has consistently argued that it is unwise to talk about migration only when some or other perceived crisis or emergency crops up. Accordingly, I wish to make three somewhat disconnected points on the subject.
The first concerns something the Leader of the Opposition said a couple of weeks ago about the need for the two parliamentary groups to present a ‘common front’ on migration. According to Busuttil, migration should be “taken out of partisan politics and the government and the Opposition should work together in Malta and abroad” (as reported in Times of Malta, June 30).
The proposal seems to have been favourably received by a number of migration-related NGOs. I think partly the reason was that Busuttil’s olive branch came with four conditions.
First, the priority would be to save lives at all times. Second, migrant influxes ought to be kept under control in such a way as to avoid their becoming a burden on Malta. Third, there should be no pushbacks but only repatriations of migrants who were not eligible for protection. Fourth, politicians should eschew populism and its siblings, racism and xenophobia.
Leaving aside the 7,000 people who did just that in the last MEP elections, these are hardly matters over which one might conceivably disagree. I would say they’re rather ones of fundamental human decency, a sort of requisite point of departure. By analogy, hospital management departs from the premise that the priority is to prolong healthy lives. From there on, politics rightly takes over.
Only Busuttil proposed the opposite. His call for a common front effectively means that politics would end where it should properly begin. Which is why I disagree very strongly with his position. The fact that it was broadly welcomed by the Prime Minister makes it all the more suspect.
There are three reasons why I part company with the warm reception. The first is that arguments from common fronts generally belie one or both of two things, namely fascism and inward-lookingness. Given Busuttil’s record, we can safely assume he is not remotely fascist.
He is, however, inward-looking on this one. What he said was code for ‘we may argue all we will over domestic matters which concern Maltese people, but let us close ranks over ones which concern us against all-comers, in this case the EU and sub-Saharan migrants’.
This is a kind of political protectionism and segmentary opposition that I find very odious indeed. It is worse, and certainly more consequential than inward-lookingness on chocolate and toothpaste.
It is also not in keeping with the tradition of the Nationalist Party post-1975 or so. My friend and colleague Michael Briguglio would probably call it another example of Tagħna Lkoll hegemony, and I’d agree.
The Nationalist Party has over the years come under fire from Labour for not privileging the national interest over everything else (including human rights and such). To me at least, that was precisely one of its strongest selling points. The worst thing about Labour was that it consistently lived up to the Nationalist Party’s name. Fingers crossed the malady isn’t contagious.
The second reason why I disagree with Busuttil’s proposal is that I value his kind more than he appears to do. Politics, including party politics (what else?), is not a disservice to society.
I remember reading Bernard Crick’s In Defence of Politics as an undergraduate. I’ve been a convert ever since. The book argues that, messy though it might be, politics is the best antidote to monolithic and totalitarian decision-making – to tyranny, frankly. Popular and superficial notions of ‘il-politika maħmuġa’ (politics is dirty) and ‘ballun politiku’ (political football) are just that.
To apply Crick’s point to the matter at hand, politics is the best answer I can think of to complex issues like detention, repatriation, and incorporation. There should be no common fronts on such matters, not unless we wish to reduce them to their lowest denominator and worsen migrants’ and our lives in the process.
In any case, what exactly is the matter with democratic party-political contestation? We seem to believe (rightly) that it is the best solution to things like the economy, social policy, public transport, and hospital management. So why not migration?
The third reason why I dislike Busuttil’s proposal is that it is not entirely clear how the common front might be achieved.
Are we to understand that traditional politics is about to give way to backroom dealings between the government and the Opposition? How much real power would the Opposition wield in such dealings? Will we, the tender-hearted Volk who love all football as long as it is not political, be presented with monolithic faits accomplis?
The second reason why I disagree with Busuttil’s proposal is that I value his kind more than he appears to do
So no, I’d rather have frozen pizza for breakfast, lunch and dinner than to have to live with common fronts on migration. The Nationalist Party might instead wish to consider a healthy-eating programme of clarity of thought, open-minded positions that do not depart from united national fronts, and the courage to disagree, openly and forcefully, when necessary.
My second general point is about a piece that appeared in last Sunday’s edition of this newspaper. Apparently inspired by something Pope Francis said, a multi-millionaire couple have fitted out a ship to help rescue migrants at sea. They’ve called it the Migrant Offshore Aid Station and it’s run by the former head of the Maltese armed forces no less.
Good intentions aside, this initiative raises a set of questions. How exactly will it relate to states, for example? How will the rescuers decide where to bring migrants ashore? Will they be getting information and intelligence from armed forces and other state agents?
More worryingly, someone brought to my attention the other day that gangs of vigilantes have been known to police the US-Mexico border. What if Norman Lowell won the lottery and bought himself a ship and a skull and crossbones? Would he be allowed to police, by his own standards, the seas around Malta?
My last point is purely practical. Until recently, summer used to bring with it innumerable missives to the newspapers about the need for a shelter for karozzin horses. The issue now seems to have been settled. Which is nice, if one assumes that no living creature should be made to endure hours of debilitating sun while waiting to go to work.
Only I find it puzzling that the same logic has not been applied to the scores of Africans who every day spend hours waiting in Marsa for some van or truck to pick them up for a day’s work. I drive past them three or four times a day and I can vouch that the situation is one of unspeakable cruelty, as young men try their best to huddle together for some shade.
Can we have a common front on this, or do we have to wait for a private organisation to take the initiative? We do, after all, remind ourselves a bit too often that Africans are humans too. That they’re not horses, in other words.
mafalzon@hotmail.com