Monday, 15th June 2009
Doing the decent thing .... decently
I was particularly struck by a phase used by my friend Georg Sapiano in an interview he gave to the Malta Today (June 14).
My paraphrases of what he said is the following: the great electoral defeat suffered by the PN at the EP elections, should not make the government fall to the temptation of doing what is popular just because it is popular, i.e. for votes' sake. The government should do the decent thing even if it costs votes.
Georg mentioned an example. He has taken a public position in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation so he should be very happy if the government adopts this position. Georg gives a caveat. He said that the government should not introduce such legislation if it thinks that divorce is bad for society even if it was proven that the legalisation of divorce would earn it votes. Divorce legislation should be introduced out of conviction and not out of convenience.
What Georg was saying in the above mentioned interview, is the crux of the problem faced by any government. Should the government opt for populist stances at the expense of the common good? Should it choose what is for the common good even at the expense of votes?
The high moral ground answer would be that the common good should come before the party good even when such a choice is for the party's detriment. I also suspect that the long-term good of the political parties lies in seeking and putting into practice the common good. It is true that such a strategy can have negative effects in the immediate term but the quest of the common good will benefits the parties as well since it will benefit the country, which they want to govern.
The quest for the common good is difficult also, because it necessitates a change in colonialist type of mentality - ir-Regina ghandha but fond (The Queen has a deep pocket) - that still characterises many (if not most) among us.
Let me mention just one example. In Malta there are 6,346 persons receiving an invalidity pensions. The state grants it after a person is declared to be medically unfit to work. The system has been abused a lot. Following a medical review many persons were found to be healthy and work-worthy. As a result, the Ministry for Social Policy revoked the invalidity pension of 1,769 beneficiaries. Out of these 376 persons are from Gozo whose population, it seems is prone to invalidity much more that the rest of the population of these Islands!
I commiserate the Gozitans who suffer so many health problems. Undoubtedly, the persons who are struck of the register following a medical examination which signals that their health is ok, are not amused. They will be baying for the blood of the politicians who endorse the decisions of the experts. Such decisions will cost the government votes. However, such decisions should not be shirked because they cost votes.
The decent, decently
The national interest is always more important that individualist interests. However, there needs to be a reasoned and just balance between macro and the micro dimensions of politics as well as in their execution. The government, in other words, should always opt for doing the decent thing; but this should be executed decently. It should see to it that its decisions inflict the least pain possible, if the infliction of pain is unavoidable. This is not always the case.
Let us look at one aspect of the never ending saga of the controversial utilities' rates. In a short period of about six weeks, people received two bills covering up around 10 months of usage of service. One bill was already too stiff for many families. Imagine how stiffer it was for many families to have to pay two hefty bills in 45 days! Instead of minimising pain, someone decided to exacerbate it. Someone somewhere decided to intensify it to the point of making it unbearable. This is surely not an example of doing the decent (assuming that the bills are decent), decently.
I referred to the period of 45 days within which the bills have to be paid before action could be taken against those who default payment. I don't know whether Enemalta is scrupulous with the observation of that time period; but it seems that the VAT department is! I know of a person who received a letter from the VAT department informing him that he defaulted on his VAT payments and threatened him with legal action unless he paid within two days. The writer of the letter did not even have the courtesy of referring to the period for which a VAT contribution was allegedly not paid.
This person was not part of the corrupt circle for which the VAT department is now so infamous. He always paid his contribution on time and had all the relevant receipts. Nevertheless, to clear the issue he had to take time off from his place of work to go to the department and clear the mess.
Paying VAT is decent but treating people in such a shabby manner is not. Such an attitude can lead to the creation of the perception that only the corrupt receive red carpet treatment in that department.
The Entitlement Card which gives us the right for free medical treatment in EU countries is a most decent thing. But, bureaucracy has a knack of indecently tackling the most decent things.
A friend of mine sent in an application. More that four weeks passed and she had still not received the card. She had to go personally to the relevant office to get it. She was then served in a few minutes.
Another one applied to get his name included in the Pharmacy of Your Choice Scheme - another decent initiative. After waiting for a number of months, he went personally to the office where these applications are handled. It was only then that he managed to get served. In this day and age of e-government why should such incidents keep on happening?
Change in culture
As noted above, doing the decent, decently, requires a change in culture. The creation of a just and reasoned balanced between the macro and micro dimensions of politics is a difficult task.
It is not easy to balance national and sectorial interests. This balance cannot be achieved by the government alone. The civil service has an important part to play. So do the unions and the rest of civil societies. These three sectors - civil service, unions, civil society - unfortunately also have their agendas which sometimes militate against the common good. Some are personal agendas.
Others are institutional agendas e.g., they are out to serve their constituencies more than the common good. A trade unionist told a friend of mine: I know my members. I don't know who the common good is. Scandalous but true.
Doing the decent thing and doing it decently is a very difficult thing, indeed.
RSS
Comments
A legislation to provide for the divorce facilities does not impinge on anybody’s religious beliefs as it still allows everyone a choice. Homosexual and bisexual acts, the use of artificial contraceptives, sex outside marriage, having children outside wedlock, worshipping other gods and numerous other acts go against the teachings of any religion but because we live in a free and democratic environment they are not illegal
Thank you Patrik, my point exactly, I could not agree more with you.
All I did was submit Biblical quotations to show how inconsistent, contradictory and out of date such teachings are. This inconsistency is typical of the bible teachings and is reflected not only in divorce but also in homosexuality, family values, slavery, cruelty and violence and treatment of women.
The Catholic Church and most of the other Christian denominations, together with Islam and Judaism which has the same God, the God of Abraham, have not yet had the courage to disassociate themselves from these old biblical writings.
I am sorry you and perhaps others could not see through my sarcasm!
You can not expect everyone to live according to biblical law. If you are a catholic and wants to remain such then by all means, divorce is not for you. But don't try to tell me that the state should enforce such laws on people of other faiths, or people who does not wish to keep living as catholics.
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:6
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery. -- Mark 10:11
Only when the wife is unfaithful:
Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery. -- Matthew 5:32
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. -- Matthew 19:9
When the 'unbelieving' partner chooses to leave:
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. -- 1 Corinthinians 7:15
When the husband is displeased with his wife:
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. -- Deuteronomy 24:1-2
If you subscribe to the democratic ideal, then yes, the majority will has to be taken as the common good, simply because the majority believe it to be to their advantage. You take the example of a racist state and assume a priori that a racist state is, by definition, bad. But bad for whom? Definitely not for the section of the electorate who voted for it.
Democracy, like capitalism is based fundamentally on selfishness. I vote for what is right for *me*. My neighbor votes for what is right for *him*. You have every right to attempt to convince the electorate that your point of view will benefit them in the hope that their vote will be in line with your ideals, but ultimately, when the vote is in you are bound to bow your head to the will of the majority, a will you may not agree with but which you nevertheless must respect.
I find the statements of many commentators and public figures, who routinely contradict themselves by lavishing praise on the democratic system on one hand while pouring scorn on the "great unwashed", distastefully hypocritical.
The common good would have been the institution of marriage for life, and for better or for worse, as we know it to be. But let us be practical. It is next to impossible to revert back to a mentality that had been eroded due to many factors that have left their mark on the Maltese society. The modern way of life has inevitably, infiltrated due to close communications with the outside world.
The Roman Catholic faith does not exert the influence it once did and unfortunately, the future does not augur well either. So we are witnessing a slackening of morals. Hedonism seems to be the preferred philosophy. Everyone is trying to get as much physical pleasure out of one’s brief span of life, and the negative consequences it leaves in its wake are brushed off as unimportant.
There has been slow but sure erosion in the belief that God exists, so man is perforce left rudderless in a world that threatens wars and catastrophes of ample magnitudes. Physical pleasures dull the senses especially if one does not have the hope of a better world once we pass on.
The ensuing situation will not be plain sailing for other problems will crop up. Stress is bound to make itself felt for life will become that much more difficult to sustain. What with the extra burden (physical/financial) of taking care of children from a previous marriage together with the new family - the commuting from one house to the other to carry out the parental duties enforced by law?
Unfortunately it is the children who will take the brunt of all this confusion. Children are resilient and might even adapt to such situations but it is hectic atmosphere they will have to battle with.
The pro divorce wave is gaining weight and momentum day by day and it is only a question of time before we will have to be swept along with it. Whether it is this government or the next who will have to acquiesce is immaterial for society is changing so radically that radical moves are bound to follow.
Services, which men can avail themselves from (outside laundry: take-away dinners; house cleaning services…), make everything that much more tempting. Women are now mostly in the work force and are themselves self-sufficient and eager to feel liberated from a mentality that had kept them subservient to men. They have discovered their assertiveness and also relish their new-found independence which will not be easy to give up.
Continued….
Admittedly I do not have any statistics to quote - only my day to day interactions with other people in all spheres of life brought me to that conclusion.
The main point of my comment, however, was not intended to be divorce per se, however. I was attempting to examine the concept of "common good" within a democratic society. The issue of divorce I would consider purely coincidental (but a good example).
Failing to take the populist vote as the closest approximation possible to the "common good", how does that make such a system different from a dictatorship?
Given that there is such an overwhelming popular consensus as to the need for the introduction of divorce, going against such a strong majority would seem to me to be rather...undemocratic.
As for comparing social benefit abuse with divorce legislation, the analogy does not hold for two reasons: 1) the number of people abusing invalid pension benefits will never be in the majority, 2) it is clear and not a matter of contention that social service abuse is detrimental to society in general, but this cannot be said of the issue of divorce.
If money is the only barrier, then it becomes discrimination. As for Georg Sapiano's comments for the Govt to avoid being populist - I agree, but unfortunately this line of thinking was not inherent in the list of promises prior to the March 2008 election . Ask the dockyard workers.