I was left fuming this morning during the Ghandi Xi Nghid program with Eddie Fenech Adami. Unlike many people who have suddenly discovered how hard it is for a party to harbour diametrically opposite ideas within its fold I was positively pissed off at Andrew (Azzopardi) and at the way he imputed certain statements to this blog.
The program was its usual entertaining self and Andrew had the right guest under the spotlight. There really was no need to claim that J’accuse had asked questions of Eddie’s involvement in the divorce debate or that we had in any way criticised his apologetic stance vis-a-vis the catcholic position. Eddie is controversial enough as it is and does not need help of misunderstood blog posts.
Let’s be clear Andrew dismissed my angry fluster with his usual jokes – and as I told him at the end there would be no hard feelings. Ghandi Xi Nghid is on a roll at the moment and can afford a slip or two in the process – especially when the star of the show provides it with a good supply of controversial statements. What frustrated me most was that the very core of what Andrew misunderstood in my blog is exaclty what I did NOT want to engage in: because I think it is useless and counterproductive.
Eddie has not changed from the Eddie of the ’80s and ’90s. His position is perfectly understandable. He is no longer the nationalist party and as we explained in the previous blog post (Understanding Eddie) he has taken a perfectly understandable stance. Understandable does not mean that we agree with his position but that we can understand where he is coming from. That is different.
Eddie, and politicians like Eddie, are arguing against “relativism”. My favourite quote of the programme has been ignored by the sensationalists. Eddie stated (my paraphrasing) “partit li jitlef il-valuri jista jisfaxxa”. That is where I understand Eddie and agree. Both the PN and the PL “jistghu jisfaxxaw”. We have had ample proof that they abdicated from a position of principle ages ago. They are henceforth speaking from a position of populist relativism. The “free vote” is the culminating point. Parliament passing the law with mathematical calculations is the corollary.
The likes of Alison Bezzina (my ears are bleeding), Moviment Tindahalx et al are unwittingly participating in the sensationalist game. (I picked their comments on facebook – am sure there are more in the same vein where they came from). Sure Eddie’s “hoping that parliament votes against the law” is sensationally appalling. But he is a retired politician! Eddie hoping for a particular outcome should be as useful to the whole assessment as Mintoff hoping for another outcome. It isn’t. But they do not realise it!
What worries me much more is that Andrew (in the programme) defaulted on the opportunity to highlight the democratic deficit that Eddie’s position actually creates. When Eddie says that moral issues are not for voting upon as parties he creates that vacuum. When Eddie says that a party without values can disband he admits the contradiction. This is why I was angry at Andrew running down the very very uselessly distracting track of the role of religion and tolerance.
This has nothing to do with tolerance and alot to do with parties being clear about what they have to offer and obliging their members to follow suit. The biggest danger in this whole mess is the vacant minefield unleashed by Labour’s Free Vote. We said it at the beginning and say it again: No to Free Vote because a Free Vote is an abdication from representative rights.
Parties need to have the balls to stick by their principles. If the PN wants to be an anti-divorcist conservative party it is free to do so. It should cut the bull about the social-liberals that need being taken care of. Who would we elect then? A Hodge-podge of indecisive conservative/liberals who would unleash their conscience on matters of state at every opportunity?
That is why we should not be spoofing Eddie and calling him a dinosaur. We should be joining him and pointing our fingers at the farces who represent us in parliament. We should EXPECT our parties to represent clear values – and not a pick and mix that represents no one but their MPs individual conscience.
Let’s not make Andrew’s mistake and get lost in the translation… stop misunderstanding Eddie and ask more questions of the fools who are really trying to take us all for a ride.
P.S. Andrew is a very nice guy. I am sure he understands my anger on this point. I must also make it clear that he offered to read a clarification in the second part of the programme and I refused because I thought that the damage had already been done. Hu hsieb Dru.
