Malta has had a long and convoluted history of priestly involvement in politics. The Unione Politica Maltese, one of the progenitors of the PN, was led by Canon Ignazio Panzavecchia. Mgr Michael Gonzi, later Malta’s archbishop in the politico-religious dispute against the Labour Party in the 1960s, was elected a Labour senator in the 1921 Legislative Assembly. Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was a key figure in the formulation of the PN’s policies.

The justification given for a priest’s involvement was his intent to influence the policies of that particular political party in light of the teachings of the Church. This is what Fr David Muscat claimed he was doing in a video interview with Imperium Europa activists after his recent infamous message during Norman Lowell’s birthday bash. He even quoted Pope Francis that a priest should have the “smell of the sheep”, should be immersed in the life of his flock.

Fr Muscat consoled himself that the wave of condemnation he received, even from the Archbishop, was a sign that he was on the right path since Jesus himself said that his disciples would be persecuted.

It would be easy to dismiss Fr Muscat as just another ‘character’. I am certainly not going to waste time delving into Fr Muscat’s mounds of chips on his broad shoulders. But there is one particularly dangerous set of statements that requires a response.

Fr Muscat claims that Maltese Catholics today do not have a “natural home” where to vote other than Imperium Europa. This because both main political parties are in favour of a “sinful” economic model founded on gaming and tax avoidance. Which has brought about an uncontrolled influx of foreigners that has made living in Malta unsustainable for the Maltese.

First of all, let’s clarify what Fr Muscat is not saying. At least in these two videos, he is not repeating the racist and anti-Semitic bilge that characterise Lowell’s rants. More clearly in the video interview, he rejects Lowell’s Nazi-inspired views on who has the right to life. Parts of what Fr Muscat is saying about the capitalist economy’s distain for human life echoes Pope Francis.

But on the other hand, much of what Fr Muscat is saying is simplistic or untrue. Caritas and Catholic Voices have been at the forefront of highlighting the plight of young couples in Malta who cannot afford a home. The alternative to a globalised economy is not some nativist pseudo-religious nostalgic utopia of Malta tal-Maltin Insara.

The shortsightedness of an economy that requires the uncontrolled influx of foreign workers to sustain its growth, with no serious planning for the national impact on services and infrastructure, is a growing complaint of the Opposition, civil society and private enterprise alike. Protesting about this influx of foreign workers has nothing to do with Malta’s duty of care towards desperate migrants in peril at sea.

Fr Muscat’s explicit endorsement of Imperium Europa is, at best, naïve. He seems to think that by glossing over or rationalising Lowell’s outrageous statements (i.e. practically all of them), putting his own spin on the remainder, and giving in to the temptation of some rhetorical flourishes of his own, he can somehow influence this new party into the ‘right’ policies.

But even if he simply were to observe the non-verbals of his Imperium Europa interviewer he would realise that he is dreaming. And while he is dreaming he is being taken for a ride. I can only hope that he is unaware that he is being used to dignify and normalise a neo-Nazi rabble.

There is no one ‘natural’ political party for Catholics. So long as a political agenda is not self-serving, promotes democracy and the rule of law, and attempts to address the common good (and that rules out Imperium Europa), and so long as the act of voting is in the same spirit, a Catholic can in conscience vote to the left or to the right.

How can a real reform of the PN… be considered if any change from the status quo will endanger the power and remuneration of Delia’s coterie?

Even with the best of intentions, the decision on how to vote is a deeply personal balance of national issues and personal concerns, of personalities, perceptions and prejudices, of promises that jostle with histories. The best bet is to form citizens to vote for, and work towards, more fairness and justice whatever part of the political sphere they start from.

Ħuduh la triduh

The PN may have averted an internal civil war, but its situation is becoming increasingly surreal. The first act of the PN after it asked Louis Galea to lead its transformation was to hamstring itself by confirming Adrian Delia as its leader.

On the one hand there’s Delia, shorn of the allegiance of his parliamentary group colleagues because of his obvious unelectability, even if they are nominally still under the PN whip. He has permanently alienated the few thousand principled Nationalists and other voters who still believe that ‘Is-Sewwa Jirbaħ Żgur’ in a politics of integrity for the common good.

Delia has less support from PN councillors than Alfred Sant had managed to garner from his own party before the latter went on to further electoral defeat. His true-blue supporters demand that party members bow down to the Maduma in unquestioning fealty. But he is still unable to overcome the narrative that anyway, many councillors voted for Delia not out of belief in his leadership but because the alternative was greater internal chaos.

So the PN has to suffer the humiliating spectacle of its Lilliputian leader with no political dignity and with nothing to lose, hopping on a soap box and making rousing speeches to a small knot of fervent admirers, while thousands of passers-by spare, at most, a curious or pitying glance. The speeches have a repetitive, familiar ring; now where have I heard the same sentiment before? Of course:

Seddqu talbkom, qawwu qalbkom,

Tagħna r-rebħa fl-aħħar tkun.

On the other hand there is Louis Galea, facing the greatest challenge of his political career. He had been at the heart of the PN’s first regeneration in the 1970s and 1980s. But before that could begin, the old leader had to be put out to pasture by the PN’s Young(ish) Turks. George Borg Olivier was still respected for his past triumphs but had become a liability and a hindrance to the transformation that the PN needed to undergo.

Now, 40 years later, Galea is charged with leading the PN’s second regeneration with its greatest liability, its leader, still trying to nudge his elbows. I’m not saying it’s an impossible task. But how can a real reform of the PN structure and administration be considered if any change from the status quo will endanger the power and remuneration of Delia’s coterie at the Stamperija? How can the core political principles of the PN be updated when Delia is ready to say anything and do anything to have a stab at national power?

How do you tell the elephant in the room that it is the problem, when by definition you are not allowed to admit it exists?