There was something in Michael Falzon’s article in Malta Today on Sunday that was quintessentially Nationalist and at the same time scandalously contrary to everything the PN is supposed to stand for. Pompous propriety is not the sole preserve of conservatives but it is definitely the homeground of some of them.
There was a time when “the moral high ground in politics” was a phrase all too easily associated with the PN leadership. A claim was laid to it and the associated burden shouldered. Of course there never was a time when any political formation could claim to be wholly composed of only the most upright of the citizenry. The task of cobbling together an absolute majority of the vote has always necessitated the making of electorally lucrative compromises when the candidate roundup was done. And yet the party rhetoric implying a quasi-monopoly on religion maintained a façade of propriety no matter what deals went down.
To openly and brazenly shrug off any failing because the corrupt will always be among us is to contradict all the rhetoric, to explode it and render it ridiculous. It is more than the devaluation of ideals as distant marks to guide us as we veer and err ( a wonderfully tolerant version of idealism in contrast to the unforgiving Puritanism of a very few). To accept it all, to pretend that it is a matter of being grown up to take the most heinous crimes in one’s stride must be the greatest corruption of all.
Now, I have always believed that the world is not to be viewed in monochrome. There are plenty of colours beyond red and blue and if one does insist on monochrome, there are plenty of greys between black and white. Still, as one colour fades into another something does change. Somewhere a line has to be drawn. Not everything can be tolerated.
Reading Michael’s article I asked myself where he could draw the line. I wonder if he has ever asked himself the question. Between elections we have all known him to be critical of his party of certain issues to an extent that makes him stand out as a rather peculiar creature: occasionally dissident but always loyal. The question his article provokes goes beyond quirky, opinionated or fashionable dissidence. Where does he draw the line?
Is there a point where he would say: “This much and no further”? What was scandalous about the article, far more scandalous than the famous obscenities in the ‘Ir-Realta’ article, was the distinct inference that there was no such point, no such line. I have no doubt that Michael never intended to imply anything of the sort, which only makes things worse. It was inadvertent.
Without intending to do so he seemed to give a blank cheque to everyone scheming and sleazy, a blanket absolution in advance. Of course we will not achieve perfection any time soon but to give up the fight for it sounds like a very odd way of heading in that general direction.
In the scanty repertoire of jokes which one of my late uncles possessed was one about the philosopher who always consoled himself that things could have been worse. That was his stance on sin and ethics also which burdened him with a heavy load on judgment day. As the Devil popped him into a sack and threw him over his shoulder on the way to the deepest pit he had available, the philosopher was heard to mutter: “It could have been worse”. The devil’s professional pride was offended by this complacency and he shook the sack in response. Quick to identify the diabolical query the philosopher explained that he could have been going to Hell on foot.
It could always be worse, more corrupt, less democratic, more corrosive of the country’s institutions, more demoralizing for the country, a greater squandering of public resources or a more painful misappropriation of public funds or assets. The question is when is it bad enough? At what point will our bitter cup brim over? If the answer we give ourselves is “never”, we should take a good look at what it implies. If we give that answer out loud for everyone to know, we have invited the worst of consequences.
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.
