Will we ever manage to weave into our common historical narrative the different stories that so far belong mostly to different parts of our people: the exile of Manwel Dimech and Nerik Mizzi, the killing of Karin Grech, Raymond Caruana and Daphne Caruana Galizia, the politico-religious conflict of the 1930s and 1960s, the tension and moral and physical violence of the 1970s?

Will we ever celebrate fully together September 21, 1964, December 13, 1974 and March 31, 1979 as equally indispensable to building our nation? We are divided about our past because we remain divided in the present, which undermines the common resolve needed to face our future challenges.

In Civilisation and its Discontents in 1929-30, Sigmund Freud argues that “the smaller the real differences between two peoples, the larger it is bound to loom in their imagination”, a phenomenon he called the ‘narcissism of small differences’.

He develops a concept created by British anthropologist Ernest Crawley who had said “that it is precisely the minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of strangeness and hostility between them. It would be tempting to pursue this idea and to derive from this ‘narcissism of minor differences’ the hostility which in every human relation we see fighting successfully against feelings of fellowship and overpowering the commandment that all men should love one another”.

In Civilisation and its Discontents,  Freud elaborated Crawley’s concept further: “… it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and in ridiculing each other – Germans and South Germans, the English and the Scotch, and so on.”

To these we can add Labourites and Nationalists living side by side on these small islands, using aggression towards each other to build internal cohesion and their separate partisan identities rather than forging a common national identity which cannot be static, homogenised and singular but has to be dynamic, diverse and plural.

Freud’s and Crawley’s concept help us to understand how in our small island we tend to stress where we disagree rather than where we agree among ourselves as a people. We have built parallel narratives making sure they never converge as if agreeing with each other is a sign of weakness, if not betrayal.

Our obligations to Malta

We construct these parallel narratives not only in politics but in many other areas of our public life:  in every town and village we run competing band clubs, organise competing festas. Sometimes our emotions run so high and we are so hostile to each other that we give the impression that we belong to different tribes and practise different religions.

The more similar we are, the more different we project ourselves to be. Yet, in fact, we do agree a lot, and fundamentally, on very important issues. Most of the Maltese agree on the important role we have to play in the Mediterranean, how crucial our neutrality is in our relationships with other countries and our active participation in the European Union and the United Nations.

Our political tribalism threatens our future- Evarist Bartolo

Issues that started off as highly partisan and divisive, like our neutrality and joining the European Union, where the two main parties mobilised half the population against the other half… eventually became national symbols of unity embraced by most of our people.

So, although we often stress where we disagree and confront each other on every issue, we agree more with each other than we are ready to admit. We will continue to mature as a people not only where we manage to agree for the common good but when we develop a national narrative which is stronger than our two partisan parallel narratives and are not afraid to assert where we converge as one country.

We need to nurture an inclusive political culture and behaviour where all our people feel that the country belongs to them and not just to the party in government, its cronies and to a handful of business people.

Last January, American diplomat Richard Haass published a very insightful book, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. His central argument is that it is not China, Russia, North Korea and Iran that threaten US democracy but the toxic polarisation of American politics. He urges American citizens to put their country first and to fulfil their obligations to their country by being well-informed citizens capable of detecting misinformation and by remaining civil, rejecting violence, getting involved and staying open to compromise.

Haass argues that citizens have a very important role to play as, ultimately, they choose their politicians and if they stay away from voting and if they vote for politicians without character and virtue, they will get the politicians they deserve.

He also calls on business organisations to withdraw their financial support to politicians who are populists, spread fake information and endorse polarisation, hatred and violence. He expects intellectuals and religious leaders to promote inclusive citizenship and a political culture that seeks compromise and common ground.

What Haass says is relevant for us as well. Our political tribalism threatens our future. Disagreement and dialogue are democracy’s oxygen. We can soberly manage our differences – big and small – as we set about creating credible national institutions, making the political system work, nurturing a peaceful society and getting things done.

Evarist Bartolo is a former Labour foreign and education minister.