In the last four years several articles and contributions in the media have tackled the issue of Christians in politics and the “ideological” direction of the Nationalist Party.
New jargon has popped up from time to time, more recently some lamentations were aired about the disappearance of a political tendency called the “Christian-right”.
This has a particular connotation in an American context, where it was born, and has a different meaning in Europe. Both meanings have a kindred relationship, but on this side of the Atlantic it is taken to refer to a particular Catholic movement, which for unique historical reasons supported the rise of fascism.
I have also noticed a tendency to refer to Wikipedia for the meaning of “Christian Democracy”. This is astonishing considering the amount of literature and documentation on Christian democracy that exists in the world, dating back to the 19th century. In my opinion these are the appropriate sources to be used. Wikipedia is useful, but only when used with measured caution.
It is stretching the point a bit to link Nerik Mizzi’s religio et patria with Christian democracy. It was a slogan which served a particular purpose at a particular time. I do not doubt Mizzi’s honesty in coining the phrase, nor that of the Maltese who feared the encroachment of Protestantism on their identity.
Fear of the other was after all what spurred on many Europeans to fight each other in the name of God during the centuries of “wars of religion”.
Personally I think that religio et patria should be laid to rest. It does not help the cause of those who wish to pursue politics based on Christian principles in a secular world.
It is more important to encourage attachment to such values as the respect for human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity and future generations, very important foundational concepts that have long been at the heart of Christian democracy.
Taking these values and more as the basis for political action together with the use of findings of the sciences, policies can be devised that respond to modern challenges and ever-evolving and changing societies.
The Bible should be left alone, it was never meant to serve as a political manifesto. It is of course a source of values, just think of the beatitudes more than the Old Testament. But these values have to be argued well and on the basis of reason if they are to serve as a credible source of political action. Many voters will not accept a political direction simply because a religious text condones it.
The only party in Malta which bases its political programme on non-secular principles and which styles itself as Christian Democrat is the PN
Any religious book used as a political manifesto leads to extremism and violence.
As far as I can see, the only party in Malta which bases its political programme on non-secular principles and which styles itself as Christian Democrat is the PN.
Under the leadership of Eddie Fenech Adami and through the inspiration of the likes of Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, the late Joseph (Joe) Cassar and the document Fehmiet Bażiċi, the normative framework to guide political action was laid down in a very clear and definitive way.
The framework permitted the party to free itself from the limitations of religio et patria without losing its way.
This statement of principles allowed it to embrace modern policies, which responded to the contemporary challenges of their time.
After all, Christian democracy was never meant to be an ideology, but more of a set of values to guide and inspire political action. It started as a programme for Catholics in politics, inspired by Christianity, but taking orders from no religious authority, and evolved into a secular, political movement which retained its values restated in a secular form so as to appeal to a broader coalition of voters.
By harking back to a constructed, biased interpretation of the past, this significant heritage is being destroyed and with it the basis for building a political consensus relevant to our times.
In a secular society there are many competing ‘value systems’ with sharp differences but also huge overlapping areas. A political party needs to work with all of them… and by the way secularists have values as well. Most citizens no longer define their identity by reference to religion, unless they are manipulating it to exclude others.
Politics raises moral dilemmas. Maintaining laïcité in public life is important for it allows people to live their lives securely and unmolested whatever moral code they adhere to, as long as they do not hurt others or undermine the common good.
It is the only way in which moral conflicts can best be resolved or in which we can agree to differ and live peacefully together in a pluralistic, democratic society.
Religious beliefs, for those who hold them, should remain with the person who holds them, to guide their owner on how to relate to others in society. At the same time religion has a place in the public sphere and religious leaders the right to air their views. Denying this would amount to a denial of pluralism.
We need also to stress that Catholic or Christian thinking on many issues is not as monolithic as many imagine, and that there are shades of emphasis and at times shades of meanings and standpoints on several of them.
The prevailing narrative in our country of what it means to be a ‘good Catholic’ has always puzzled me for the amount it excludes, rather than includes.
At times we need to remember that practices such as unjust economic relations, speculation, damaging the environment, disturbing the community through excessive noise, tax evasion, littering, underpaying labour, any violence, unjust appropriation of public goods, corruption, jumping the queue, clientelism, and many more undermine the community and defy the most basic principles of Catholicism that people still sing that they “are ready to shed their blood for”.
Roderick Pace is director of the Institute for European Studies and Jean Monnet chair.