Last Sunday I participated in the conference organised by the PN for persons who are not active in politics. Other sessions of the seminar were held on Friday and Saturday.
It was an interesting experience featuring a number of good speakers and some lively interventions from the floor. Prof Oliver Friggieri delivered an excellent speech. The Prime Minister took the floor exactly after him. His first sentence was: "I think that it is about time that Dr Muscat and I speak less on Sundays and listen more to speeches like this one." It was a statement truly well said.
I was invited to speak about solidarity. I preferred to give a mainly theoretical presentation. After all, there is nothing more practical than theory! I proposed a canvas on which one could draw the concrete proposals and a vision which would give a soul to the ensuing endeavours.
Let me share with you some of my thoughts.
Solidarity is not a slogan but a constitutive element of human nature. As we cannot live without eating or drinking we cannot live as humans without living in solidarity with others. Our past, present and future are weaved with the past, present and future of others. In fact, we are nothing but the result of the network of relationships and communications that conceived us, made us grow and flourish. We cannot exist without the others and we are what we other because of these others. It is well said that no man is an island.
Solidarity is also a constitutive element of our historical and cultural identity. Our history and culture were radically changed thanks to an act of solidarity the Maltese engaged in almost two thousand years ago. A motley group of sailors, soldiers and prisoners were shipwrecked on out shores, probably at St. Paul's Bay. The Maltese helped them and showed them solidarity. As St. Francis said: when we give, we receive. These words came true with a bang thanks to that eventful shipwreck centuries ago. One of those who seemed to have nothing as all of them had lost everything, gave us the gift that changed us and marked us these last two millennia: Christianity. This is a clear proof that solidarity is more to the advantage of those who proffer it than to those who receive it.
Consequently, the refusal to offer solidarity is both the negation of our humanity as well as negation of our history and culture. The repudiation of solidarity is the repudiation of our being human and of being Maltese. John Paul II was quite right when he wrote in one of his encyclicals that we are all responsible for all. I am my brother's keeper after all!
We face an important challenge. How can we now translate solidarity into a programme and a project that radically changes the way we make politics - all segments of politics - and not just social policy? There exists, in fact, a fallacy which equates solidarity just with social policy. This is as myopic a vision as the equation of solidarity with charity.
The traditional and the new media have an important role in enhancing solidarity as they are means meant at increasing community and progress. Are they doing this? Is not the existence of the digital divide one of the greatest threats to solidarity? A particular challenge is the existence of media organisations owned by political parties. I am not against them in principle. However, it is fair to ask whether the way these are managed in Malta turns them in to agents of solidarity or division.
Social policy is, however, important. Solidarity can help policy makers change social policy from a system based on "charity" to a system based on empowerment. A social policy based on solidarity aims at breaking the culture of dependence. It strives to prevent people from being reduced to objects or simply to recipients. It works to make people in "need" of solidarity the subjects and protagonists of their own history and life. Solidarity teaches people to fish not to just eat fish supplied by someone else.
A very important tool on the way towards empowerment is information. When people are not informed about their rights they tend to loose them. They tend to think that instead of rights they are being given pjaciri. Rights empower them while pjaciri increase their dependence of particular patrons, political or otherwise. Paolo Frere's work with illiterate people in Brazil has clearly shown that information and the ability to use a new medium is the way towards empowerment.
Without solidarity, programmes and policies are tailored according to the needs of the social workers that operate them or the bureaucrats that manage them. There is also the risk that the policies are chosen because they would be more politically popular though not necessarily the most beneficial to those in need of such policies. Policies should be tailor-made to the needs of the vulnerable persons who need them. Besides, they should also be the protagonists of the process choosing and building these programmes and policies.
Are we showing solidarity with people with mobility problems when pedestrian zones are created without the provision good enough services to disabled persons? Are we not making certain parts of Malta a no go zone for these persons?
Free medicines are made available to all persons suffering from certain conditions even if they can easily afford to buy them. A possible effect is that there will then not be enough funds to buy other medicines for other people who can afford them. Is this a decision based on solidarity or political convenience?
The reaction of many Maltese towards irregular immigrants shows how tenuous is many people's commitment to solidarity. We cannot appeal to solidarity with other Maltese as the reason for not showing solidarity with irregular immigrants. Solidarity has to be shown towards everyone and always.
Solidarity is not just the responsibility of government. It is the responsibility of all sectors of society including NGOs and individuals. NGOs generally represent sectorial interests. This is right and fitting, however, they should be ready to transcend these interests as the common good is supreme.
We should show solidarity also with future generations. Awareness about and care of the physical environment is what is generally understood by this statement. I refer to another kind of solidarity with the future generations: the transmission of the environment of values. We should take care to pass on to future generations the environment of Christian imbued values that we received from past generations. True solidarity means that we resist the culture of hedonism, consumerism, ethical relativism and unbridled individualism as this is an anti human culture.