In a country where the smallest of villages is split over patron saints, where Parliament is unable to agree on a national day, where the north and south of the island are divided according to political party lines, it takes a lot of optimism to think that the President’s appeal for national unity will ever come to fruition. And should it?
Once, this country was split between the pro-British and the pro-Italians. The last war put a stop to that. Dom Mintoff, wanting a short cut to economic progress, proposed integration with the UK in the 1950s. That fell through and independence was the remaining viable option but Mr Mintoff did not like how that came about. So, we subsequently got Republic Day and then Freedom Day.
Nothing brought the country together in a non-partisan way. Given the country’s polarised political culture, no political party can ever do that. But that does not mean national unity cannot exist. It does, despite partisan politics. There are characteristics that give this country its own identity, in its own fractured pluralistic way. That is what makes Malta.
The President spoke of a change in culture and mentality. That is very radical statement to make. The Maltese identity has survived despite partisan politics.
It has been an undercurrent to all the political disunity that this country witnessed since Independence. The last thing it needs is a national unity defined by politics.
For this country to nurture its identity it needs less not more politics. The less politics there is the more unity this country will enjoy. Unity will never be brought about politically.
This is not a country at war where a unique sense of national unity is required for the country to survive. The only threat is of a terrible partisan structure that penetrates every aspect of daily life. The less government, the less intrusion and the more space will be created to foster a national identity. That does not translate into unity. The country is made up of individuals who do not think the same way. Such disunity is healthy.
In the aftermath of the election, the Prime Minister too spoke of national unity. Having just participated in an abrasive election campaign, where talk of partisan, vote-catching patronage was widespread, he is the last man to speak of unity.
If he thinks that unity comes about through embracing mainstream thinking, which he dictates, that would translate into a false unity with intense repercussions on this country’s future development.
People disagree about practically everything and that is not bad. Within the Nationalist Party, by its leader’s own admission, there is an intense debate between the liberal and conservative factions over the issue of gay marriage. Simon Busuttil said this is what the party was made up of but still sounded a warning. Yet, there is nothing wrong with disagreement and most especially when the institution of marriage is at stake.
This country needs more debate, more disagreement, more so-called disunity so that what appears to sound orthodox today is questioned every step of the way. The last thing this country needs is to endorse mainstream thinking that is dictated by political thought and political correctness that muffles individual opinion and freedom.
No national unity is worth that price to achieve.