The year that we have just outlived seems to have left us with a paradox as its legacy. On one hand, there has been unquestionably great economic prosperity. On the other, there seems yet to be throughout our islands a widespread sense of popular dissatisfaction. There seems to be a fairly universal desire for some sort of change, but only a very dim perception of exactly what sort of change is wanted.
The explanation may be quite simple. Despite the global triumph of capitalism in recent years, deep down in their hearts most people still do not accept the primacy of the economy. Time may be money, but the worth of a lifetime should not be calculated just in terms of money-making.
In Malta the echo of the great crisis of 1968 was very muted but the realisation that was its most powerful result still came true, even if belatedly. The model of development that prevailed until then had failed. It had become clear to most people that the search for limitless economic growth was destructive of the quality of social life.
Unfortunately it happened that the alternative to capitalism that some states had been trying was centralised planning - in reality another form of capitalism, precisely because of making economics the supreme value. At this time of year one can scarcely help noting that it was, and still is, a certain concept of time that led and leads to the sacrifice of other human and social values for the sake of money.
The political processors of dialogue and democracy that respect the dignity of the human person take much more time than either the free market or centralised planning. Humanist politics, in particular Christian democracy, require that much time be spent in negotiation, consultation, compromise-reaching or better still all-win solutions rather than zero-sum gains.
Person-centred politics require elections to be held at relatively short intervals and yet to involve choices with long-term effects. Such systems do not always yield the best short-term economic results.
But recent history has continued to show that the alternative systems that give absolute weight to economics are self-destructive precisely because a lack of total human and social fulfilment is bound to produce their political collapse in the end.
Are you suggesting that the thrust of our society at present is towards economic development, even at the expense of social and human values?
The danger to which we may be succumbing is perhaps subtler. The main axis of development on which we are propelling ourselves forward is ICT, and development here is not merely economic, but social and human as well. However, there is a human right that, to my knowledge, has not yet been included in any declaration of human rights so far, although I think it should be: the right 'to take your time'.
This goes against the currently dominant principle of frenzy in whatever one does, whether it is driving a car or eating. I suspect that the aspect of the very fast economic revolution we are going through, as we are led into the electronic age that is creating most sense of dissatisfaction, is that we do not have the time to understand it, evaluate it and consciously determine whether we are for or against. It is all happening too fast for us to be comfortable with it.
Perhaps I may be exaggerating. It is well known that as one grows older, time seems to slip by more quickly, probably mainly because metabolism in older people is slower - and moreover I have probably always been fonder of donkeys than horses because they do not move as fast. Nevertheless I think that even younger people would, on the whole, be happier if quite a few leaders adopted as their new year's resolution the guideline: go slower and if they frequented the new restaurants that are beginning to appear among us who advertise the slowness with which they cook, they would.
How consistent is the proposal you are putting forward today with your usual strong advocacy of ICT-based development?
This question is similar to that which used to be posed about the EU and is probably still posed by Dom Mintoff and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici: how consistent is strong support for membership for a free market economics system, such as that of the EU, with principled opposition to neo-liberal global capitalism? The answer in both cases is that it is always more effective to work from within a system for its reformation than from outside it, especially when it is clear that staying outside only allows marginal survival prospects.
The strategy obviously carries severe risks, as the early Christians found out when, following the leadership of St Paul, they sought to work from within the then existing structures of the Roman Empire.
In principle, I think it is possible, although difficult, to enter fully into the world of ICT and to preserve a humanist culture of time. I was very impressed some years ago when I read a book by a Japanese philosopher, Tatsuo Motokawa, The Time of the Elephant and the Time of the Mouse. In it he argued that each animal species had its own sense of time.
On one hand, time (and space) are arbitrary matrices that we impose on experience to provide order and mutually acceptable frames of reference. On the other, we must not accept the imposition upon us of timeframes regardless of their social and not merely economic utility.
If one is a Christian, one will also feel the need to redeem time by a systematic alternation of (fast) action and of (slow) reflection.
Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was talking to Miriam Vincenti.