Thursday, 15th May 2008
Loyalty and dissent
Do loyalty and dissent sit on different poles? Do only disloyal people dissent from the majority view or from the view of the leadership view of an organisation? Do loyal people always say yes?
A yes answer to these three questions reveals a view of loyalty that I do not share. I believe in loyal dissent. Being loyal sometimes means saying no to the leaders or to the majority of the members of the organisation that you belong to. Saying no is not always an act of ungrateful rebellion. It can be an act of serving love.
When organisations and their officials exist for themselves and not for the cause they serve then they commit an act of betrayal. When trade unions exist to serve their own organisational interests and not the workers they betray the workers. When il-partit becomes the be and all of politicians the betrayal of the common good is the result. In such cases political parties become power machines and not servants of the common good. Whenever church leaders tried to camouflage their self interests, their ignorance or their inefficiency by appeals to God and holy obedience they commit a grave sin indeed. When civil servants bow in front of politicians and say yes when they should say no they are being disloyal to the country. When parents say yes when they should say no to their children they are not loving them.
The list goes on and on.
The naghag ta' Bendu syndrome is generally not a sign of loyalty but a sign of stupidity and a call for disaster. If enough people had said no, the world would not have had Hitler. On the other hand, we would not have had Gandhi had not enough people said no to British rule. The passage of time is littered by examples of evil or inefficiency triumphing because many people feared to say no.
How is it possible, for example, that general assemblies of political parties discuss policy documents and electoral manifestos and these are voted in exactly the way they were presented? Is it possible that no one had a different opinion on any subject proposed? Is it possible that no one could add or subtract from that document? Then it happens that when the party loses, many persons start saying that they were not in agreement with what was proposed.
This is what, for example, is happening in the Labour Party today. Had many had the guts or decency to make their stand before then perhaps the destiny of the Labour Party would have been different. Dr Gorg Abela, on the contrary, took a different position than that taken by those who just clap their hands and trap their mouths when they disagree. When his position was voted out he stepped down. Had the general assembly of the Labour Party (or whatever they call it) heeded his appeal against a general election the MLP could have had a different future. His no was a sign of loyal dissent not disloyalty.
Let no "no" be uttered out of spite or ignorance but let more intelligent dissent characterise all our large and not so large institutions.
A good beginning
The beginning of the present legislature was a good one. The Government and the Opposition reached a temporary agreement about the position of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Both gentlemen were voted in last Saturday. Dr Louis Galea took the unprecedented step of accepting the nomination on condition that if a permanent agreement is reached between the two parties he would resign his post so that a Labour MP could fill it.
The Government's programme presented by the President at the State Opening of Parliament clearly stated that "government's declared intent is to work together with civil society towards the betterment of the common good, a process which cannot but be based on cooperation and mutual respect."
The Opposition recognized the reconciliatory tone of the government's programme as announced at the opening of Parliament. It was right to add that Government will be judged by its deeds. Fair enough. Even the Prime Minister repeatedly said that people should judge government by its deeds. Another statement by the Opposition said that their attitude will be that they will call good that which is good.
Quite naturally one expects that debates will be intense. That there will be occasions when gloves will be put on; when disagreement will be acerbic. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Sant, should be seen in this perspective. Disagreement is essentially part of the game.
After all we need a Government and an Opposition which will generally provide us with different alternatives. Such different perspectives and alternatives will safeguard our right to choose. On the other hand we need a civil way of conducting debate, agreement when there is room for it, attacks against argument and nor persons making them.
Till the Labour Party elects its leader and deputy leaders our political climate will be characterized by a degree of unnaturalness. After the election of a new leader of the Opposition the real discussion with Government will commence. One hopes that good sense, tact and mutual respect will characterize these discussion.
One hopes that this good beginning will be followed by more positive development in our political milieu.
RSS
Comments
Hallelujah! Mr Micallef has come round to the pious hope that this time round the MLP delegates will make the wisest of choices and carry out the necesary leadeship changes. To do this successfully they must not follow Mr Micallef's example and refuse to delve deeply into their past decisions.
Dr Sant can only blame himself for gambling his premiership and allowing himself only 24 months in which to prove his mettle. He should have heeded George Abela's sound advice and the MLP delegates would not now be acting churlishly if they saddled Abela with the responsibility for their present misfortunes. I fear that they will never learn.
Expanding on my previous reply to Mr Micallef, the present new government cannot be accused of "abuse" "arrogance" or "undemocratic behaviour" because it adopts measures that had not been mentioned in its electoral manifesto or because it adjusts social services as dictated by adverse world-wide economic conditions. If he does not understand that simple fact he should not be speaking about democracy.
In a functioning democracy, a political party which has become a serial loser would be expected to radically revise its proven losing strategy so as to be in a position to present itself as a credible electable political party at the next election.
Mr Micallef's concluding rhetorical question implies a regret that a democracy allows only that peaceful solution. I hope that he is not longing for a return to the mob violence of the Mintoff-KMB years because that is the albatross hanging round the neck of the MLP rendering it unelectable for the past two decades.
For the past two decades the MLP delegates' choice of their leaders has ensured that the party be condemned to the opposition benches uninterruptedly practically for the past twenty years. This uncontested fact is hardly a convincing argument in favour of "sound decisions" by delegates who were not "dumbheaded fools". There is nothing wrong in hoping that, this time round, their choice would be a wiser one providing the nation with an effective loyal
opposition with the potential of becoming electable in future elections.
You ask the question if the MLP delegates are a bunch of dumbheaded fools(your words)? The answear to your question is simply YES.
If they were not, they will be asking for Jason Micallef head on a silver platter, and not allowed to be guided by his misguieded rhetoeic.
You are exactly right in that in a democracy all you can do is to wait until the next election comes around, but you have the civil and moral right to question at every opportune time does who are leading you. If the MLP supporters and delegated did so, the MLP wouldn't find it self on the Opposition benches for another five years.
Do you think then, that the majority of the delegates often present at the MLP headquarters are a bunch of dumbheaded fools who don't know how to take a sound decision for their own party? I assure you that their thoughts with regards to George Abela represent the thoughts of the majority of the MLP supporters whether members of the party or not.
For the argument "Citizens are morally bound to invest power only in the hands of people who are most likely not to abuse it" why didnt you bring as an example the complete arrogance and abuse of power by the current government? Had GonziPN mentioned to us humble citizens before the election PFP issues, removal of equity share schemes and God knows what else is in store? On which page on the electoral manifesto can these issues be found? ...... im looking but??? Dr.Saliba, tell me ... what else can we do in a democracy ... sit and wait for another 5 years?
C. Busuttil gives an example. There are many others. A civil servant to may receive instructions from his superiors to act improperly and in a way that conflicts with his moral code and with his oath of office. A Commissioner of Police may be given instructions not to carry out his duty to maintain law and order without fear or favour, so as to further the agenda of his political masters. He could always resign but that would leave the way open for less scrupulous underlings only too eager to step into his shoes. Or, if he has the stamina, he could continue to shoulder his responsibities at great cost to himself.
It is a counsel of perfection that moral principles should not be compromised for expediency or misplaced loyaly to holders of power. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Citizens are morally bound to invest power only in the hands of people who are most likely not to abuse it.
Dr Francis Saliba.
To begin with, Fr. Joe described Dr. Sant as 'the Leader of the Opposition". Truly he is not . Having resigned as leader of the MLP he can only be 'acting Leader of the Opposition' . By virtue of his resignation and the appointment of Dr. Charles Mangion as acting Leader of the MLP, the latter automatically became the acting Leader of the Opposition!
So now we have two acting Leaders of the Opposition? The MLP are sure short of ideas but seem to be quite prolific in producing 'actors'!
If I were Fr. Joe, I would change the heading of the said paragraph because anyway one evaluates the particular speech, it was certainly not a very good beginning but rather a very bad ending for Dr. Sant.
Hi it's me, Vicky. If I were you, I'd be very careful in answering Steven's question. I think that a good look at Fr Joe's present title for this blog would not go amiss! :)
If I have butted in, excuse me for living.
Vicky.
May I ask whether the decision to become Catholic was in any way influenced by your wife? Not that this would in any way lessen the impact of the decision, of course.
Thanks.
It matters pretty little for example what the Nationalist party values have stood for over the last century, today the Nationalist Party has the visions and belief of its leadership strategies, i.e Dr. Gonzi's. In the same way, I believe the leadership strategies of the Labour Party at the time of George Abela's 'betrayal' represented Dr.Sant's vision and not what the Labour party stands for, at least not for Dr.Abela. Taqbel mieghi imma jew mhux qed naghmel sens??
Let me give a practical example. I work in a management position in the public sector. If the Minister of the time is pushing for a vision which I completely disagree with, I will with all my strength defend my principles, but if I see no ray of light, I back down, do what the leadership is demanding with as much 'damage limitation' (this is a popular term in our office during such times) as possible, claim openly that I don't agree, and hope for better times ahead.
C Busuttil is making a very basic mistake. He is confusing the “organisation” with those who succeed, for one reason or another, to hijack it. George Abela never left the institution i.e. the Labour Party. He never had problems with the ideal of the Labour Party. He dissented from the strategies of its leadership and not from the ideals of the institutions.
When we discuss institutions we are discussing, many times, complex organism. My point was exactly this one: an organisation can be hijacked. Its members can be misled. Those who hijack an organisation pretend that they are serving it but in actual fact they can be manipulating and using it for their own aims and benefits. Quite naturally the leadership will try to depict as a traitor anyone who stands for the ideals of the institution but against the interest of its leadership. In such cases the leadership behaves as if it is the organisation. “I am the state” is the infamous dictum of an autocratic French king but it is also the dictum of the leadership or the makna which controls so many different organisations of several shapes, beliefs, ideologies and sizes.
A big handshake and thank you for clarifying your point.
Dr Anthony Dalli
This all depends on who friend and country is.
In answer to my question:
Given the choice of betraying your country or your friends,what would you choose?
PP No Steven. It is a moral question independent of friends or country.
I cannot recall the originator of the statement but I think it was something like:
"If given the choice I hope I would have the courage to betray my country rather than my friends"
I have worried over this for years for I am not a particularly patriotic person but neither do I have any really close friends - i'm a bit of a loner. The closest friends that I have are members of my Church- theCatholic church.
Because of the Reformation in England my primary loyalty should be to the Vatican as my queen is head of the Anglican Church that is heretical in the eyes of the Vatican.
Then again when I joined the RAF in 1942, when I happened to be a Protestant, I had to swear loyalty to the then king and his successors.
Fr Joe invokes both Hitler and Ghandi but that clouds the issue. The German people voted the Nazis into power but Hitler then seized all power and dissolved the opposition. In India on the other hand I believe the Indian people were right to support the "British Quit India"
movement because we British had no right to be in India.
Whether we had a right to b e in Malta is arguable but Malta had a right to be independent.
At the very moment in February 1942 that I joined the RAF the Colonial Power in Malta exiled some Maltese to Uganda but did those particular Maltese desire independence or subjugation to Italy? They were technically British.
Where does loyalty lay?
This all depends on who friend and country is.
Yes I realise that, and whilst appreciating that there is some good in the adoption of this treaty, there are still some grey areas that need to be looked into.
I am still not at all convinced that this is the best thing for Malta and today’s happenings in Italy only go to strengthen that belief.
From today’s foreign newspapers,
Because of the troubles concerning immigrants mainly Romanian and Hungarian Gypsies.
Mr. Maroni, a member of the Italian Northern League party, is rushing through emergency laws to bring back passport checks on Italy's EU borders, despite its membership of the Schengen passport-free zone.
I do honestly think that you got my gist wrong, I like Mgr. Cremona, only a few weeks ago I`ve spent over an hour-and-a-half chatting to him over a few cups of tea on my sisters 50th wedding anniversary, he actually came to my sisters home for a private mass, he is a man of substance, intelligent, gentle, a true gentleman and his sense of humour is out of this world.
Please read my blog again. What I indirectly meant to say was, that this compassionate man has already been criticised in the press for flashing his teeth on permanent basis.
Pearly Gates?--nice smile--cockney.
Just out of curiosity...how do you find time to write? Only kidding!
the Schengen Treaty is not meant to do away with law enforcement agencies in any EU Country, As a matter of fact it will only streghten such Agencies through information sharing. The Schengen treaty allows for the free movement of EU citizen withen the EU and those participating Countries. Persons coming into EU, from non participating Schengen Treaty countries still have to go throught the old system of cheking.
To be critical of someone doesn't mean you hate the individual. In regards to Dr. Sant Personality, I have heard him many times calling people names that do not pertain to them. In as far to Dr. Sant's policies, they speak for them selves.
Joe, an honest mistake, I don't make any distinction between parties, and I tar all politicians with the same brush; However, I do find it strange that the present government who, wanting to appease the EU (perhaps not wanting to be accused of dissent) implement any new laws without much thought. A case in point is the adoption of the Schengen Treaty.
This open border policy may be ideal to most mainland countries, but that does not necessarily mean that it is right for Malta, especially in the current hostile climate of drugs’ terrorism and child abduction.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I like to think that if I were an MP, I would have the courage of my conviction and I would have voted against its implementation. Even though I would probably suffer the wrath of the party.
I believe that what the MLP needs right now is a man who has the same character of Archbishop Cremona. In the short time in which he has been Archbishop of this diocese Mgr Cremona, thanks to his charismatic nature, sincere smile, and also through his inclusiveness and pastoral approach, managed to steal the limelight to both parties and managed to reach out on an appreciable scale.
Many might not agree with what Bishop Cremona might say. However, I think that everyone is ready to at least listen to his arguments, for he seems indeed a man of substance.
This is what one of my students at the University of Malta ones told me. Somehow, I tend to agree with it.
How can people harbour so much hate is beyond belief, on the one hand I can understand it, for if there was not a Labour Party, they have zilch to write about....sorry my mistake there is always the Church and Archbishops` Cremona permanent flash of his pearly gates.
Mr/Mrs Hamilton you stated, "but don't tell me that every member of this government are all of the same opinion, all the time" I am sure that you unconsciously left out "and every memberof her Loyal Opposition" after the word Government.
I take it that it was an honest mistake, and not playing politics.
I may be wrong, and I'm sure someone will tell me if I am. But , apart from Mintoff, when has anyone gone against their party when voting to pass some bill or other?
I don't expect rebel backbenchers as in the the Brit government, but don't tell me that every member of this government are all of the same opinion, all the time.
I get the impression that they are all yes men, going with the majority and not willing to rock the boat .
Doesn't anyone have a difference of opinion? Well if they have they aren't going to say anything are they? Goodness what would his constituents think ? How dare he go against the party, that's tantamount to treason.
No, I think our MPs prefer the quiet life, just go with the flow and don't rock the boat, but above all, keep your opinions to yourself.
The only thing I wish to see more in this new legislature, is justice prevailing. For example, when will the ex-Prime Judge, Noel Arrigo, go for trial? With regards to the Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando case, I think that it stinks from the very beginning to the very end. The more JPO speaks, the more he tends to convince me he is not telling the truth. If it is found that Alfred Sant was correct in his assertions, what will the Prime Minister do? Sometime before the last election, the newspaper Il-Gensillum reported that the education department first offered a number of promotions leading to assistant heads, and then eventually these were not given. Is this just? No wonder this Government came to power with less then 50% of the electorate voting for it.
Only when justice will be seen in these cases, and others, that we can really claim in Dante's words 'Qui si parra la tua nobilitate," Prime Minister Gonzi. With all humilty I urge the nationalist party to pay attention to make justice prevail as much as possible during this legislature. Next time there will be no Alfred Sant making it easy for the nationalists win the election,
Dr Anthony Dalli, M.A. (Milan), D.Phil. (Oxon.)