Raphael Vassallo | Sunday, 10 May 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Hi. I’m a Christian Hypo... I mean, Democrat

Have you ever paused to ask yourself what the “Christian” part of “Christian Democracy” actually means?

For those who are new to the expression – and who can blame them, in a country where political allegiance has absolutely nothing to do with ideological leanings? – I refer to that vaguely dysfunctional family of centre-right European political parties, which includes our very own “Partit Nazzjonalista”, but also Italy’s DC (or what’s left of it – no pun intended), Germany’s CDU, the Netherlands’ CDP, etc.
All these fine institutions define themselves as “Christian Democrats”; and I am the first to admit the appellation does have a very grand and dashing ring to it. Far more reassuring than all the equivalent religious/political movements from other parts of the world: the Hizbollah, Jihad Islamica, Hamas or the Church of Latter Day Tele-Evangelists. And so much more appealing to the auditory imagination than all those boring, single-barreled European groupings... such as the “Liberals”, “Greens”, or (if they even still exist) the “Socialists”.
But then again: what does it actually mean to be a “Christian Democrat”? Is it really an allusion to that obscure Middle Eastern religion, founded some two thousand years ago by a Hellenized Jew from Tarsus whose name momentarily escapes me? Or do they just want us all to think it is, so that the “Christians” among us might be persuaded that voting for any other party is a Mortal Sin?

Well, I’ve given the matter some thought over the past two decades, and I have come to the conclusion that it’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario really. We can’t say with any certainty what a “Christian Democrat” is, unless we first have a fairly good idea of what it means to be a “Christian”; and strange as this may sound – coming from someone who has lived his entire life surrounding by the blessed things – I can’t for the life me answer that one, either.

What is a Christian, anyway? Judging by certain recent reactions to the latest developments on the migration front, anyone would think that “Christians” are people who believe that Jesus Christ will invariably welcome them with open arms after their death... even if they had spent the better part of their own lifetimes assiduously disregarding all his most basic teachings. Things like, “Love thy enemy” (and not “neighbour”, as the Christians insist on twisting it); or “blessed are the poor” (and not “poor in spirit”, as it was to me at school); or how about the ones that became hit singles when sung as hymns at 7.30 mass at St Patrick’s? I can still hear them reverberating in my consciousness to this day: “They will know that we are Christians by our love, by our love... yes they’ll know that we are Christians by our love” (repeat to fade).

But wait, I seem to have digressed slightly. Where was I? Ah yes: “Christian Democrats”. What are they, exactly? And is it safe to have one living next door?

To answer these and other questions, I decided to take a closer look at a few individual specimens.... starting with Dr Lawrence Gonzi, who happens to be the leader of the local “Christian Democrat” cult phenomenon.
Last Wednesday, Dr Gonzi broke a long period of relative silence on the deeply controversial immigration issue, to finally comment about Italy’s appalling behaviour over the past few weeks.
Our Prime Minister, it seems, was “disgusted” by Italy’s steadfast refusal to aid migrants in distress in the notorious Pinar case.
“We have moral, ethical and legal obligations,” he said. “We are making it clear that we will intervene whenever people’s lives are at stake. However, we will do so within the parameters of international law. In the last case the Italian forces should have intervened because the boat in distress was closer to Lampedusa...”

Going only on Gonzi’s remarks, a “Christian Democrat” is a person who is deeply perturbed by any disregard for the intrinsic value of human life. He will also insist on full compliance international laws and obligations in all cases... and unlike the nasty, unchristian right-wingers of Italy’s Lega Nord, a “Christian Democrat” will always choose to correctly interpret the relevant treaties and conventions, instead of twisting them to their own questionable purposes.
Well, how about that? So it seems the “Christian Democrats” aren’t such a bad lot after all. For I, too, was appalled and disgusted by the way Roberto Maroni chose to turn live human beings into so many bargaining chips in his shady dealings with Gaddafi this week... and it eases my intrinsically pagan heart, to know that my Prime Minister shares my general concerns.

But wait – not so fast. For less than two days after the PM’s outburst was reported throughout the Italian media – prompting Italy’s Opposition leader Franceschini to summon Berlusconi for an explanation in Parliament - our indefatigable Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici – also a “Christian Democrat”, unless I am much mistaken – stepped into the fray, and what do you know? He entirely contradicted Dr Gonzi, and praised Italy for breaking international law.

Yes, folks: just when you thought you finally understood what “Christian Democracy” was all about, along comes a “Christian Democrat” to shatter your illusions entirely. There I was, reeling from astonishment as Italy forcibly deported 238 migrants back to Libya in what can only be described as a clear breach of international law... and Home Affairs Minister hails this ghastly breach of human rights as a “welcome step” in the right direction.

Huh? Excuse me, but... what’s the difference between Italy’s position in the Pinar incident, and its position with regard to the 238 migrants “rescued” last Thursday?
There is none that I can see. In the Pinar case, Italy violated the first (and most basic) obligation in the entire international maritime rulebook. The Italian coastguard failed spectacularly to respond to a distress call by people in imminent danger at sea – an offence for which ordinary, lesser mortals would immediately lose their navigator’s licence, and might conceivably end up in prison to boot – and then tried to justify their criminal action by claiming not to have enough vessels to conduct a rescue operation in the first place (though later, when it became expedient to bravely blockade Lampedusa against entry by Maltese patrol boats, they suddenly had all the naval assts in the world)...
And finally, the Italian government went on to force-feed its local media (around 99% of which belongs to Berlusconi anyway) with a load of unparalleled bullshit to the tune that it was Malta, and not Italy at all, that had given up on its international obligations.

Small wonder Gonzi was disgusted. Personally, I feel sick to my stomach just writing about it.

But onto the second case. On this occasion, Italy refused to acknowledge that the 238 migrants were even in distress and needed to be rescued - despite a call for assistance by satellite phone, which was duly passed on to Malta. They naturally denied the asylum seekers admittance to Lampedusa, or any other part of Italian territory... but rather than try and foist them onto us, as they did in the Pinar case, they successfully foisted them back onto Libya instead: a country which has never signed up to the 1951 Geneva Convention, and whose human rights record compares favourably to that of Ancient Rome during the reign of Emperor Heliogabalus.

The two cases are therefore entirely analogous, with the only significant difference between Italy’s choice of destination for the hapless 238 migrants... and this only makes the transgression worse. So can anyone explain to me how a “Christian Democrat” can possibly be “disgusted” by the first case, but then praise on the second, all-but identical scenario as the best thing sliced bread?

But of course, what was I thinking? It makes perfect sense. So long as it’s not our country that Italy illegally dumps its migrants on, then it’s perfectly fine and dandy. They can do what the heck they like, provided they leave us in peace. And that, it seems, is a much closer approximation of what “Christian Democracy” is all about: it’s about upholding the value of human life, but only when it pays the “Christian Democrats” to uphold it. It’s about demanding that other countries respect human dignity, while we ourselves urinate all over it on a daily basis. It’s about insisting on full compliance with international law, but only when implementation of these laws favours our purely private interests. It’s about the commandment that never quite it into Christ’s sermon on the mount: “Do unto others what it pays you to do, regardless of what happens to the others as a result...”

Sounds fantastic, I must admit. Where do I sign up to join?

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.

All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.

EDITORIAL


Italy and Malta fail

INTERVIEW