Plea for political tolerance

Four days from today, the people of these islands will join the Christian world to remember that star-studded, peaceful night in Bethlehem where some shepherds were "awake in the fields, keeping night-watches over the flocks", and who were visited by an angel of the Lord with the "good news of a great rejoicing for the whole people". The angel announced the Lord's birth.

Then, all of a sudden, "a multitude of the heavenly army appeared at the angel's side, giving praise to God and saying: Glory to God in high heaven, and peace on earth to men that are God's friends".

That message of peace has reverbrated through the centuries. It continues to be extended to all men of good will.

Alas, in some countries it has been reduced to a faint echo. Peace has no chance in countries ravaged by war and civil strife, or where depraved dictators stamp out religious worship.

In very many other democratic countries, peace is becoming a scarce commodity. The Yuletide message has become a symbol more than a reality. It is fully exploited by the business world and often provides a respite for warring politicians.

Deep-seated rivalry and polarisation seem to have taken permanent residence, booting out in large measures shared values and common loyalties.

Politics are becoming progressively vitiated, characterised by ad hominem criticism, intent on character assassination and personal denigration. Some commentators have joined the fray in sections of the media, specialising in nauseating vituperation.

When tolerance is systematically lynched, freedom goes out by the city gates. Freedom is at its greatest peril when it is assaulted by official intolerance which is practically almighty and recognises no authority beyond its power. It provides no form of redress for the innocent victims of its meddlesome fury, because it will listen to no argument.

The recent contretemps involving the ombudsman and the appointment of an additional member of the bench, as well as some of the highly-charged language during the last budget speech, are unseemly reflections of official intolerance.

Is our society being exposed to the violence of a terrible storm? This question is particularly pertinent because we are on the eve of two critically sensitive electoral contests.

Let's face it: if we cannot end our differences, at least we can try to create a climate which is safe for diversity. It is good to remember that electors are not converted by the mere fact that they are silenced.

Freedom is man's most primitive desire and Christianity was the first concrete religious system which gave the average man a chance. The love which Jesus expressed for the disinherited and the submerged spread with the speed and fury of an emotional prairie fire.

Freedom means living together without undue constraints. It means government by discussion. Aristotle described democracy as "a form of government in which the free are rulers" and which is best attained "when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost".

It is a covenant among free men to respect the rights and privileges and the liberties of their fellows. The key to good democratic government is "the consent of the governed". This is, at once, a safeguard against tyranny and an insurance against benevolent despots. And, while the most may err as grossly as the few, human nature being what it is, the balance of safety is in numbers rather than in the concentration of power in the hands of a restricted few.

At this time of year, it is salutary to remember that Christianity, which originated in a stable, sought to set man free. It teaches that there is a domain over which no ruler can hope to exercise any authority. This is the domain of the virtues and especially that of religious belief. Compulsion within that field causes hypocrisy and conversions that are based on fraud.

Freedom in other areas rests on the same foundation stone. It is much better to tolerate freedom of opinion, since it is only by tolerance that civic strife could be averted and progress could be harmoniously pursued.

Was it Milton who said that "Liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to our own conscience is the highest form of liberty"?

Under the umbrella of pluralism, Malta has more than enough broadcasting stations and newspapers. Yet the island is gradually becoming an armed camp in which all semblance of free opinion is choked or denigrated.

Malta is fast becoming encumbered with laws, edicts, regulations and decrees that life is becoming a complicated affair and has lost a great deal of its old flavour.

This is as good a time as any to plead for political sanity and for tolerance to be given a chance in the interests of harmony.

It is salutary to bear in mind that nothing lasts for ever. Least of all political parties built upon the idea of ruling by divine right.