Force v. Movement

A problem facing the Nationalist Party is philosophical in nature. It is being idealist (not idealistic, mind you). It talks about democracy, about being a normal country, about decency, about values, about honesty. The Nationalist Party is fighting the b

Ironically, that is what politics should be about – not personal attacks. But then democracy is perpetual – although (in theory, at least) bloodless – civil war. Joseph Muscat, on the other hand, is fighting the pragmatic battle. His thoughts, his speeches, his reasoning only pay lip-service to ideas, but in the end he fights the battle of pragmatic politics. He has emphasised the economic success the Islands are experiencing (not necessarily the result of his policies, but certainly a fact) and the opening up of the possibility of pursuing personal choices in matters relating mostly to sexuality.

He inherited a market economy from his predecessors, and he managed to squeeze in a market society. In other words, he has imposed the rules of the market on virtually all aspects of life, not just the economic sphere. Whatever you wish, you can buy. Legally available sexual services (known as prostitution) seem to be on the cards. The next steps will obviously be the introduction of euthanasia and abortion, and state aid, should you not have the money to obtain these services and products.

This pragmatic approach is popular with certain sectors of society. It certainly offends the sensibilities of the religious sector of society, which sees such mercification as conflicting with the core values of the Christian belief system, which revolves around an intrinsically moral conception of the world. It also offends the left-wing sector of society, which also eyes the market with strong suspicion, intuiting its essentially exploitative nature that steamrolls over social justice, the lynchpin of the leftist world-view.

When all is said and done, Dr Muscat’s approach appeals to the self-interest of individual citizens, brushing aside all appeals to consideration of the common good – mostly because of the belief that if each individual citizen is allowed to seek his or her own selfinterest, then in the end it will all work out in favour of the common good.

Needless to say, this idea does not hold water. The self-interest of individuals, if unrestrained or unbridled, will ultimately lead to the devastation of the entire community. This is why there are rules on the height of buildings, on ODZs, on pollution, on usury, on hygiene, on standards, on professional ethics, on depective advertising, and so on. If everybody is left to their own devices, in the belief that some inner goodness will prick their conscience when they make decisions and thus lead them not into temptation, it is self-evident that a community will end up annihilating itself. The art of governing is knowing how to find the balance between the needs of the individual and the common good.

And this is a problem the Nationalists have to address. They are obviously right to insist on good governance and idealist goals. I subscribe to these wholeheartedly. But they also need to address bread-andbutter issues. The brilliant solution proposed for the traffic problem was an excellent example. Now they need to showcase other solutions, and highlight their will, commitment and enthusiasm to start working on these solutions from day one and to make them happen – and work.

The Nationalists have to broker a marriage between idealism and pragmatism. If they manage, they will beat Dr Muscat’s movement, perhaps already pummelled and belaboured by the silent majority.

The Nationalists do not need pragmatic idealism, but idealist pragmatism. They have to show that they have hands-on solutions inspired by decent, European ideals.

The ideals part has been made abundantly clear. Only somebody who has spent these past couple of years in deep slumber has not understood the ideals Simon Busuttil wants to implement, if elected.

Now the Nationalists have to explain the pragmatic way to put those ideals into practice, how those ideals will benefit the common people in their everyday lives. Many have understood, even considering it offensive if it were to be spelled out to them. Many others, however, do need it spelling out, either because they don’t have time to delve into politics or for other reasons.

Each and every Nationalist candidate who embarks on the usual home visit circuit needs to to knock on the doors of disgruntled Labourites as well and to be prepared to address this issue. How do the ideals advertised by the leadership tally with the bread-and-butter issues of the electorate?

It is a battle of ideas – and persuasion is the most important weapon. The Nationalists can win, but they have to be as astute as the fox and as fierce as the lion. Or perhaps as astute as the serpent and as a pure as the dove. The adversary is certainly astute and fierce, but not pure.