Do loyalty and dissent sit on different poles? Do only disloyal people dissent from the majority view or from the view of the leadership view of an organisation? Do loyal people always say yes?
A yes answer to these three questions reveals a view of loyalty that I do not share. I believe in loyal dissent. Being loyal sometimes means saying no to the leaders or to the majority of the members of the organisation that you belong to. Saying no is not always an act of ungrateful rebellion. It can be an act of serving love.
When organisations and their officials exist for themselves and not for the cause they serve then they commit an act of betrayal. When trade unions exist to serve their own organisational interests and not the workers they betray the workers. When il-partit becomes the be and all of politicians the betrayal of the common good is the result. In such cases political parties become power machines and not servants of the common good. Whenever church leaders tried to camouflage their self interests, their ignorance or their inefficiency by appeals to God and holy obedience they commit a grave sin indeed. When civil servants bow in front of politicians and say yes when they should say no they are being disloyal to the country. When parents say yes when they should say no to their children they are not loving them.
The list goes on and on.
The naghag ta' Bendu syndrome is generally not a sign of loyalty but a sign of stupidity and a call for disaster. If enough people had said no, the world would not have had Hitler. On the other hand, we would not have had Gandhi had not enough people said no to British rule. The passage of time is littered by examples of evil or inefficiency triumphing because many people feared to say no.
How is it possible, for example, that general assemblies of political parties discuss policy documents and electoral manifestos and these are voted in exactly the way they were presented? Is it possible that no one had a different opinion on any subject proposed? Is it possible that no one could add or subtract from that document? Then it happens that when the party loses, many persons start saying that they were not in agreement with what was proposed.
This is what, for example, is happening in the Labour Party today. Had many had the guts or decency to make their stand before then perhaps the destiny of the Labour Party would have been different. Dr Gorg Abela, on the contrary, took a different position than that taken by those who just clap their hands and trap their mouths when they disagree. When his position was voted out he stepped down. Had the general assembly of the Labour Party (or whatever they call it) heeded his appeal against a general election the MLP could have had a different future. His no was a sign of loyal dissent not disloyalty.
Let no "no" be uttered out of spite or ignorance but let more intelligent dissent characterise all our large and not so large institutions.
A good beginning
The beginning of the present legislature was a good one. The Government and the Opposition reached a temporary agreement about the position of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Both gentlemen were voted in last Saturday. Dr Louis Galea took the unprecedented step of accepting the nomination on condition that if a permanent agreement is reached between the two parties he would resign his post so that a Labour MP could fill it.
The Government's programme presented by the President at the State Opening of Parliament clearly stated that "government's declared intent is to work together with civil society towards the betterment of the common good, a process which cannot but be based on cooperation and mutual respect."
The Opposition recognized the reconciliatory tone of the government's programme as announced at the opening of Parliament. It was right to add that Government will be judged by its deeds. Fair enough. Even the Prime Minister repeatedly said that people should judge government by its deeds. Another statement by the Opposition said that their attitude will be that they will call good that which is good.
Quite naturally one expects that debates will be intense. That there will be occasions when gloves will be put on; when disagreement will be acerbic. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Sant, should be seen in this perspective. Disagreement is essentially part of the game.
After all we need a Government and an Opposition which will generally provide us with different alternatives. Such different perspectives and alternatives will safeguard our right to choose. On the other hand we need a civil way of conducting debate, agreement when there is room for it, attacks against argument and nor persons making them.
Till the Labour Party elects its leader and deputy leaders our political climate will be characterized by a degree of unnaturalness. After the election of a new leader of the Opposition the real discussion with Government will commence. One hopes that good sense, tact and mutual respect will characterize these discussion.
One hopes that this good beginning will be followed by more positive development in our political milieu.