As soon as the newly-elected President Myriam Spiteri Debono gave a spech with agreeable statements and nice platitudes, some progressives were quick to praise her. They are doing the same mistake many of us did in 2013, believing in Joseph Muscat only because the conventional political standards were very low.
Standards for the Presidency are low too. As the nation went into its biggest political crisis in its history in 2019, the President of the Republica seemed missing, ineffective and elusive. He did several correct statements condeming the institutionalised corruption of that time, but quickly went on to business as usual as if nothing had ever happened. Today, everyone is desperate for a President that will inspire the nation and provide hope for the future.
Yet, the new President isn’t going to be very different from her predecessor and her position on abortion is the first sign that the Presiden’ts new approach is wrong and complementary to the current political dysfunction. The issue of abortion should not be settled by a referendum because it is a human rights issue and human rights issues are fundamental rights that should not be contested with a plebiscite. The President herself is against the introduction of abortion legislation and of course this is the case because the Nationalist Party would have never accepted a President who would have been in favour.
People are getting carried away. Myriam Spiteri Debono is part of the establishment, a veteran of the Labour Party and a close associate of the Abela dynasty. She seems more charismatic than George Vella and her comments on Daphne Caruana Galizia are welcome, but these comments should have been etched in George Vella’s presidency as basic and fundamental principles. We can’t possible be esctatic about the very basics.
What’s concerning is that the President still thinks that some fundamental rights can be contested by a plebiscite. It shows great moral and political weakness on her part to think in this manner and indicates, possibly, her inability to take strong and critical positions that would go against the establishment and the popular sentintment of the majority.
Here’s the major difference between the President and the Prime Minister. The President can afford to take positions that go against the opinion of the majority because she is not an elected rapresentative and doesn’t need to get elected. This is a good feature in our democracy that can be exploited in a positive manner by a courageous Presidency. Unlike the Prime Minister, who in a democracy, would first and foremost, address the political concerns and demands of his costituents, so as to preserve the support of his base, the President is not compelled to do so. Being a President means that you represent everyone, especially those who are not represented in Parliament. If the President doesn’t pick up positions and defend sectors of society that aren’t being advocated for in Parliament, the President will simply become an extension of the Labour government. This is already happening.
Even if there is one woman who needs an abortion, the President should stand up for her. A feminist would never ask the consensus or permission of the majority to be given her rights: she damands them because they are rights and not privileges. So far, this Presidency has shown once again that by default, women in power are not necessarily feminist.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply