President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca has been a unifying force in the country. Like her predecessor, she has demonstrated that she is above partisan politics and determined to open and maintain channels of dialogue between Malta’s political parties and civil society.

Last month, she twice pleaded for national unity in the wake of one of the most bitter general elections in the last 40 years, the first time on the day after the polls had closed. The second was her address during the State opening of Parliament a few weeks later when she made national unity the focus.

The President’s sentiments were absolutely right. The striking fact, however, is that as a nation there is more that unites us than divides us. There is great pride in our nationhood, our Malta story and the thousands of years that underpin it. We are united by our common identity and our survival as one of the world’s smallest ethnic minorities with its own undisputed territory and surrounding seas. Our language, culture and distinct identity give us a remarkable homogeneity.

We have kept our Semitic language, yet our Christian roots have predominated. Religion – for the last 2,000 years largely Roman Catholic – has been redoubtable in moulding a Maltese identity. And despite the loosening of ties caused by rapid social change, the family still remains the centrepiece of Maltese life.

There are so many strands that bind us together. What is it therefore that leads to the opposite conclusion and the reality of a disunited country as described by the President?

The answer in a word is “politics”. It is not over simplistic to state that ever since the Maltese have enjoyed a measure of self-government – whether from the 19th century or even before – politics has divided the country. The only time that Malta was briefly united in a cause was for five years during World War II when our beleaguered and heroic country came together to fight for democracy and freedom against the fascist and Nazi forces ranged against it.

Since 1947 when Malta’s self-government was restored, politics has consisted of an acrimonious scramble for position and domination between various parties of the left and right. In the last 53 years, Maltese politics has been marked by deep polarisation.

Until the recent general election, not since the violence of the mid-1980s has Maltese politics been conducted in such a hostile, bilious, hyper-partisan and poisonous manner. It has been the worrying return to the vitriolic divisions over three decades ago that has set the alarm bells ringing today.

In the last election especially there was an arms race of rage between the two parties

But in heeding the need to encourage national unity and to deplore the divisions in Maltese society (of which politics is their manifestation), it would be wrong to assume that Malta is unique in this phenomenon. The politics of the great democracies of the US and Britain are also deeply alienated, and have been for centuries. In the US, the conservative and liberal divide, the gap between black and white and between rich and poor create a deep chasm. Brexit has riven the UK, by age, party, class and country.

Further afield, others are also politically divided. Malta is not unique.

What makes Malta’s politics an aberration is its winner-takes-all and confrontational nature. Sheer physical proximity caused by our minute size, combined with the direct impact on individuals and families of the inevitable clientalism that dominates and pervades every aspect of local politics leads to polarisation and mistrust. Maltese politics resembles two ferrets fighting in a sack.

Given therefore that it is more discordant and factional than most, are we tilting at the wrong target when we talk about the need to embrace the impossible dream of national unity? Given the rivalry of Malta’s politics, and that the battle for the spoils will never change, should we instead not be directing our efforts at what can be done to make the conduct of politics less disruptive, less confrontational, more civilised? More mature, dare I say?

There are two key factors that exacerbate the partisan nature of our politics. The first is constitutional. I have written several times about the need for more effective checks and balances in our Constitution and the concomitant improvements to the fair operation of our institutions. I won’t repeat the arguments here. Getting these fundamental aspects of governance right hold the answer to many of our political tensions and disunity.

But of equal importance is the way in which we conduct our politics. In the last election especially there was an arms race of rage between the two parties. Escalated by social media, the political poison leached into every aspect of Maltese life. There was no attempt to say “Let us agree to disagree”. It was a dialogue of the deaf.

The aim was to vaporise those with whom they disagreed. Even formerly sensible, thoughtful friends acquired a livid, abrasive discourse. They simply could not see the opposite view. It was distastefully alarming and impeded any search for truth. Malta has had a terrible, inflammatory and traumatic two years of politics.

What we lack culturally is not unity, but the quality of tolerance – an acceptance of different views of other people, for example on religious or political matters. There appears to be a national intolerance of tolerance.

For long-term solutions, we should start from the premise that there is a moral obligation to tolerate other people’s viewpoints: to permit, recognise and respect others’ beliefs and practices without necessarily sharing them. And to be prepared to put up with someone of a different political colour while respecting the person in the process.

It is a process that starts – like so much else that is deficient in Malta – with our educational system. It is about learning civility and showing respect: the freedom to express one’s ideas without fear of reprisal. We may strongly disagree with their views, but still show regard for the person in spite of the differences.

Political maturity means we need to become tolerant enough of one another’s views to reach across the tribal divide, to achieve consensus where possible and to declare that the kind of inflammatory abuse we have heard used in the last few months is wrong and unacceptable. That demeaning and factious political imagery is toxic to democracy.

Intolerance is alarming, divisive and impedes any search for truth. Some may think that closed minds and hot heads signify political authenticity. But we need to spend time trying to understand other people’s views.

By all means let us celebrate our vibrant political diversity, but let us do it in a grown-up, civilised and tolerant manner.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.