One would struggle to find a period when so many people shared so many things in common. Broadly speaking, globalisation has led to a situation where, in developed countries, people consume the same products, listen to the same music, wear the same clothes, read the same books and watch the same films. And yet, paradoxically, the desire to assert their own differences also seems to be on the increase.

This apt observation was made by the Franco-Lebanese author Amin Maalouf in his book In the Name of Identity. He rightly observes that every individual is a “meeting ground for many different allegiances”.

Individual identity is not limited to aspects set down in official records such as nationality and gender. It extends to other aspects of personal life such as religious tradition, profession, sexual identity, cultural background and social status.

Politicians have tapped into this phenomenon. Campaigns are increasingly targeting specific sectors of society, and poli­tical parties are trying their best to ensure that no one remains unrepresented.

If one had to look at the structure of the British Conservative Party one would find that, apart from the usual umbrella groups for youths and women, there are other factional groups that represent the interests of the LGBT community, Christians, Muslims, trade unionists and people with disability. Other groups promote special links with various countries and overseas territories, including Gibraltar, Israel, Turkey and the United States.

On a smaller scale, political parties in Malta have similar groupings affiliated to the main party structures. Their aim is to represent each sectoral interest and, as a result, to shape and mould official party policy. On more official levels, some of these sectoral interests have developed powerful lobbying mechanisms which can effectively mould government policy.

Such developments are not necessarily negative. They signal that individuals are not one-dimensional and societies are complex constructs. However, the focus on sectoral interests can sometimes take a sinister turn; a politician should listen, but not pander.

One of the sound core political principles that can guarantee good governance is a healthy understanding of the common good

By trying to please as many sectoral inte­rests as possible, policy makers hope to bring about some change for the ‘greater good’ of society. Alas, by focussing solely on special interests, one can run the risk of losing sight of the bigger picture. One of the sound, core political principles that can guarantee good governance is a healthy understanding of the common good.

The common good is difficult to define. It does not suggest that one should repudiate the vital role of individuals in society; on the contrary, it implies that no society could function without individuals and families. It points to the fact that both individuals and families have one common thread that unites them regardless of their interests and identities.

That unifying factor is the shared space they all have a stake in. In the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI rightly states that to take a stand for the common good implies both having concern for and participating in the “complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society”.

This set of institutions represents the various facets of public life, including its juridical, civil, environmental, political and cultural aspects. The reality of living in a globalised world needs to be factored in. Benedict XVI argues that the effort to enhance the common good needs to be extended to the whole community of peoples and nations.

Regrettably, even this aspect is hijacked by special interests. Development is often defined in purely technical terms. Caritas in Veritate provides further food for thought: “Development is impossible without upright men and women, without financiers and politicians whose consciences are finely attuned to the requirements of the common good.”

Benedict XVI’s thoughts on the outcomes are characteristically prescient: “When technology is allowed to take over, the result is confusion between ends and means, such that the sole criterion for action in business is thought to be the maxi­misation of profit, in politics the consolidation of power, and in science the findings of research. Often, underneath the intricacies of economic, financial and poli­tical interconnections, there remain misunderstandings, hardships and injustice.”

This is the situation that many people on the margins of societies and communities experience on a daily basis. The focus on special interests at the expense of human dignity and the common good has pushed individuals without a voice further away from the decision-making process. It creates a winner-takes-all situation where many end up on the losing side.

During the past year, voters have often been asked to take part in bitter and divisive elections. These elections led to a demonisation of ‘the other’ – that person who did not share our voting preferences or our ideological standpoint.

The Brexit referendum divided the British population into ‘remainers’ and ‘leavers’; the EU faces a conflict between the aspirations of the nation-states and the needs of the supranational structure; the US and the French Presidential elections uncovered some deep social rifts; and the UK’s general election led to further uncertainty. Malta is not immune to this resentment and disunity.

In the wake of these elections, soci­eties are undoubtedly broken, bitter and divi­ded. A section of the population feels marginalised and disenfranchised from public life. Another segment may give in to hubris and overconfidence. There has never been a better time to rediscover the principle tenets that make up the common good.

Reorienting the debate on the common good can serve to alter the criteria that we use to judge those who take decisions on our behalf. Should decisions be taken purely on the strength of one lobby group or special interest, or are there other aspects that should be considered?

Are individuals and families mere economic units or is there more that binds them together?

Should we take decisions based on what is popular or on what is fundamentally right?

Alas, such questions do not find much fertile ground for germination. The communities we live in are much poorer for this.

andre.deb@gmail.com