The real democrats within the PN
Therese Comodini Cachia is once again in the media to make her position clear on the recent controversy that engulfed the Nationalist Party with regard to granting leave of absence to infertile women and lesbians wishing to seek IVF treatment abroad.
Dr Simon Mercieca is senior lecturer, Department of History am specifically making a distinction between infertile women and lesbians because not all the lesbians seeking this type of treatment are biologically infertile. In the latter case, this is a cultural choice. But I shall not be discussing the matter here. What I wish to discuss are the political implications of Therese Comodini Cachia’s political stand.
Comodini Cachia rightly claims the right to a free vote in parliament for those liberal Nationalist MPs who disagree on this matter. I strongly believe that these have a right to a free vote on this issue and that confessional party members have no right to impose their will on them.
But in her statement, there is more than just a plea for a free vote and this demand shows the utter state of political dictatorship the Nationalist Party had to endure during the last four years. I wish to remind my readers that the PN denied the right to a free vote on the issue of same-sex marriage to those who disagreed. Judging by Comodini Cachia’s statement, I conclude with certainty that those who were in favour of the same-sex marriage law, as proposed by Joseph Muscat, again want to support Muscat’s next motion. They are showing political constancy. The problem here is that these individuals did not concede this right with regard to same-sex marriage. On the contrary, they wanted to impose their will on the entire parliamentary group. The question to be asked is: why do these individuals, who in the past did not defend (at least in public) the right of free vote and argued in favour of party discipline, now want to enjoy such a right?
Readers should be reminded that the confessional section of the PN did not demand the party to take a stand against same-sex marriage. They only asked for a free vote and to express freely their political preferences. They wanted the PN to act as Merkel did in Germany. Why didn’t Comodini Cachia speak out in favour of free vote back then? Consequentially, Comodini Cachia’s position does not reflect well on her political persona. It shows only political expediency, if not, utter hypocrisy.
One needs to remember that the liberal group within the PN, to which Comodini Cachia belongs, not only denied a free vote to those within the PN who held confessional votes, but worse, they started a systematic and organized campaign against them. Did Comodini Cachia stand up to defend them or did she sadistically enjoy that aura of hatred that has now become synonymous with the PN?
Unlike what is normally written, the confessional voters of the PN view democracy differently. I wish to reiterate that the confessional side of the party never backed the imposition of its will within the party and continuously sought to accommodate the liberal side. Delia himself pledged to support free vote and now I expect him to keep his word. The confessional side wanted a party to be truly democratic. If one has now to use the liberal metric, democracy would mean that the liberals within the PN should vote against surrogacy. In the same-sex marriage, the liberals had insisted that all members should toe the party line. But this should not be the case.
In a true democracy, one does not only respect the rule of the majority. A true democrat is the one who respects the minorities. But Comodini Cachia inadvertently admitted that this was not the case with the PN. Liberal cliques have tried to impose their dictatorship on the party with disastrous consequences. The confessional side is now standing for democracy. Comodini Cachia has admitted this fact by insisting that a free vote was promised by Adrian Delia during the leadership race. I honestly hope that in this battle we are not again facing yet another ploy, as in the case of the divorce referendum, where an inner core group within the party destroyed Lawrence Gonzi.
As for Chris Said, he has taken the correct decision not to seek to run for deputy leadership. This is not a question of fear or that Said does not believe in a democratic process. But in all fairness, one cannot expect somebody, who participated in a leadership race to rejoin the fray for a lower post. I will use the football analogy. One does not expect a team who came second in the Premier league, to be asked to play again in a lower division. As in football, this does not make sense in politics.
In this whole political scenario, Edwin Vassallo is coming out as the true champion of PN democratic values. He would have stood down if David Agius had not submitted his nomination. He is constant in his political statements and is still insisting on a free vote on issues of conscience for everyone. Vassallo’s fight was not for himself but it was a fight to affirm a democratic principle. The liberal section within the Nationalist Party has sought to deride him for putting forth his nomination for the deputy leadership post, possibly presuming that there is a liberal prerequisite for such a post that, according to the same PN liberals, he is not worthy to fill. Nonsense. This is yet another example that this section never believed in real democracy but used it solely for its own ends and personal gain. They are the real culprits for the PN’s malaise.
The liberal minority should begin by apologizing to all those party members they tried to side-line because of their point of view. They could start with Edwin Vassallo for not defending him on his stand of a free vote. No loyalty or constancy there. Eh?
It was in this atmosphere of political smothering that Adrian Delia managed to win the leadership. Nationalists members were sick of this type of dictatorship which in the academic world is known as a dictatorship of relativism. This is how this party has been operating; a dictatorship of relativism. Yet those responsible for these irresponsible policies are offended when one calls them Marxists. They presented moral relativism as the par excellence political expression for compassion, care and humanity. But as rightly noted by the Boston Professor Peter Kreeft, such type of philosophy is extremely useful for tyrants.
Every cloud has a silver lining. Even the worst situations have their positive aspect. The fact that some of the leading exponents of the liberal group are leaving the PN, because of the arrival of Adrian Delia, should be seen as a sign of relief by all those who cherish a democratic agenda and are against moral relativism. Those who voluntarily left were in a chorus for disciplinary action against any Nationalist MP who dared to defy the whip, even on votes of conscience. They were the ones fomenting politics of hatred within the PN. Now it is up to the reader to construe who the real democrats are within the Nationalist Party.