In a recent article in another section of the press, MP Franco Debono set both politicians and readers thinking about his mention of “unconditional and unconditioned loyalty” to a party one is, to a controlled extent, committed to.

It is perhaps best to explain the necessity to include the expression “controlled extent” when discussing commitment in party politics. Indeed, in each party there are extremes ranging from extreme fanaticism (those claiming that their party, their leader and their politicians are all first class altruists and administrators) to mild commitment or rational commitment – which are different from each other although their levels (not their type) of commitment are similar.

I have had the occasion to ask persons belonging to the former category what they understood by Christian Democracy and Social Democracy. Often, answers ranged from complicated to comic. It, thus, seems that political fanaticism is often mysterious and jocular (hopefully, rarely jugular) at the same time. It also follows that rational commitment is the most sober of political commitments. (I will not discuss mild commitment as it is difficult to obtain clear answers from people who belong to this category.)

I believe Dr Debono should in another article explain more, following his apparent conviction that a coexistence (or compatibility) may exist between unconditional and unconditioned loyalty to a party. It is interesting to note that Dr Debono did not give much importance to compatibility between loyalty to a party and loyalty to party leadership – which seems to imply that a politician may be loyal to his party without necessarily being loyal to the party leadership. This is possible and has happened many times in various countries.

At this point, I wish to introduce MEP Simon Busuttil into this matter. Many have been encouraging Dr Busuttil to become interested in party leadership. Dr Busuttil’s diplomatic answer seemed to imply that he was not interested in this possibility – or something close to this in real meaning – if I understood him correctly. I see two interpretations in Dr Busuttil’s answer. Either he is genuinely not interested in party leadership or else he gave a diplomatic answer to make sure nobody will have the perception (the buzzword used nowadays in all aspects of socio-political life) that, through ambition, he is less than loyal to party leadership. Thus, undiplomatic ambition may result in some rocking of the leadership boat – which may provoke reactions of “how dare you” and so on.

Only time will tell what Dr Busuttil has in his mind. Some think they know – unless it is again their perception that they think they do! Let us just say that they have suspicions – which are genuinely based on some indication they have. But conviction of possession of evidence may vary considerably between one person and another.

Let us now come back to Dr Debono. While looking forward to his second discussion on the interesting notions of unconditional and unconditioned loyalty, I will try to understand these two phenomena myself while hoping the esteemed readers will add their own impressions. It is important to reflect on the meaning of each of these words individually and on the extent of their compatibility.

My own first impression is that unconditional loyalty is wrong – but only if it means political passion and emotion to the point of disregarding rationality and idealism. Some people consider idealism wrong at its point of departure as an enemy of practicality – which, in turn, is often accused of Macchiavellism.

Dr Debono must have been thinking of a wider meaning of “unconditionality”. This is proved by the fact that, when he felt it was necessary, he stated without hesitation that certain things within his party or leadership behaviour were not acceptable. And he went beyond his loudly expressed opinion by worrying the fanatics and the anxious with some active personal initiatives. If I know Dr Debono enough, I believe he is capable of starting all over again if sufficiently provoked or ignored – which will prove wrong those who accuse him of calming down as a result of promotion.

At this point I can discuss “unconditionality” no longer while waiting for Dr Debono’s own wider interpretation of this expression.

I feel it is much easier to understand a reference to “unconditioned” as compared to “unconditional” loyalty. My impression is that he means one must decide oneself on one’s kind and level of loyalty without taking any suggestions from anyone. It seems to me, having spoken to Dr Debono several times, he is capable of forming his own style, attitude and level of political loyalty without being impressed or influenced by anyone and his brother. I almost said “anyone and his wife”.

But that is another story.

Dr Licari is a researcher in multiculturalism.