As an expression of jingoism or extreme patriotism it fits the bill perfectly. ‘My country right or wrong’ is an expression attributed to Carl Schurz (1872). It has been used and abused throughout its long history.
G. K. Chesterton looked at it and opined: my country right or wrong is a thing no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying: “My mother, drunk or sober.”
The expression calls for an objective assessment of what is fundamentally right or wrong in a particular context. The world has witnessed and is still witnessing all sorts of situations which leave citizens loyal to their countries facing dilemmas of whether to stand up for their country or to succumb completely, thus becoming, albeit reluctantly, participants with whatever wrong is done in their name in their country.
It is important that a distinction is made between the country as a nationalistic concept and the people who have the power to call themselves legitimate or de facto representatives of a country. Electoral mandates do not give the country away to the individuals who are chosen to run it. Electors trust it in their hands to be administered on their behalf for a period of time.
As I am writing Donald Tusk, president of the European Council of Ministers is torn between his loyalty to his country as a citizen of Poland and his duty to lead discussions which may lead to Poland being punished by the European Commission for enacting laws that threaten seriously the independence of the judiciary.
He is attributed by Politico to have said that “when it comes to EU membership, there is no threat coming from Europe – today that threat is back lurking in Poland”.
Malta and countries like Romania and now Poland are being perceived as countries where true European values of democracy and the rule of law are being threatened
If there is talk in Brussels about punishing Poland by depriving the country of certain benefits that come from EU membership, it is not because there are voices advocating these measures in Brussels or in any other EU capital, but because powerful Polish politicians have chosen paths which threaten the justice system and its independence.
A comment about Tusk is very telling, it says: “Tusk has a lot of bitterness seeing the reputation of Poland being damaged.”
It is precisely the loss of their country’s good name that prods citizens to seemingly take their protests a step further from the available democratic ways of objecting back home and appeal for some form of international solidarity.
We have seen in the past even the setting up of governments in exile with the sole purpose of internationalising domestic situations which were leading to the disregard of fundamental human rights in their country.
In the context of the European Union, it is the European Parliament that gives opportunities to its democratically elected members to raise issues about their countries when they see policies that run counter to democratic values being enacted by their own parliaments or governments.
The recent criticism by the Labour media against the Nationalist Party MEPs for raising important issues vis-à-vis the rule of law in Malta betrays the same Labour movement which in the past used international bodies such as Socialist International and AAPSO to muster support for their erstwhile political causes in Malta.
To accuse MEPs of betrayal and indeed try to vilify them as traitors to their country and also incite threatening behaviour against them for doing their duty as they see it, is tantamount to a false loyalty to Malta.
It was the European Parliament, the only elected body in the EU that decided that the Panama Papers and other issues stemming from them deserved the formation of the PANA committee.
Malta together with other countries like Romania and now Poland are being perceived as countries where true European values of democracy and the rule of law are being threatened. To allow the name of your country suffer irreparable damage and do nothing when you have the position of an MEP would be a serious dereliction of duty.
This is not a question of your country right or wrong – this is about equal rights for citizens when it comes to the law and its application. If we go down the path of believing that no politician should ever raise matters regarding his country abroad, then we would be giving a carte blanche to power-hungry politicians to do what they like once they are given an electoral mandate.
In our case it would also be adevaluation of our membership of the European Union.
Incidentally those who use the expression as defence of true patriotism would have found Schurz as their arch critic. His words against those who failed to detect the false pride of the dangerous ambition of the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under the deceptive cry of mock patriotism –‘our country, right or wrong’. True patriots’ watchwords should be ‘our country – when right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right.’