Malta, LGBT rights, abortion, & religious nationalism

Malta, a small island nation in the Mediterranean Sea, has a national identity that is strongly influenced by Catholicism. The religious culture of Malta can be traced back to the Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (also called the Knights Hospitaller and the Knights of Malta) which participated in the Crusades and were given the control over Malta in 1530 because of their contribution and devotion to the religious cause. Knights Hospitaller had an interesting history. A religious order created in the 7th century to take care of the Christian pilgrims and sick in the Holy Land (Jerusalem) it became a military order by the turn of the millennium. It also expanded and had properties donated to them or built by them all over Europe. After the fall of Jerusalem (1187) to Saladin and later of Kingdom of Jerusalem (1291), the Knights moved to Cyprus and then captured Rhodes to become Knights of Rhodes in the 14th century. Here, the Knights primary opponents were Barbary pirates and Muslim Turks. The Ottomans were eventually able to able to defeat Knights after almost fifty years of a military campaign in 1522. The Knights were allowed to withdraw from Rhodes and after seven years were given the control of Malta by the Spanish monarch, courtesy a former knight and Pope Clement VII in 1530 for a symbolic annual tribute of a single Maltese falcon. From 1530 to 1798, the Knights of Malta, as they were called, ruled and shaped life in Malta. Napoleon defeated them in 1798, on the way to the Egyptian invasion. Later, Malta came under the British in 1814 and became independent in 1964.

Philip Barker in his book, Religious Nationalism in Modern Europe: If God be for Us, contends that Malta's Catholic identity, acquired under the Knights, was crystallized under the rule of the religious "other." First, it was Muslim Turks, then anticlerical French, and finally, for the next one and a half century, it was Protestant Britain. Due to the domination of religious other, "Catholicism is central to self-perception" of the Maltese. Unsurprisingly, Maltese politics is influenced by the majority religion and Article 2 of the Constitution makes Catholicism the state religion of Malta, gives the Church the duty and the right to teach people morality, and makes religious teaching mandatory in all public schools.

One can argue that, like in Ireland and Poland, Catholicism is an integral part of Malta's nationalism. Religious nationalism until recently accepted and proclaimed. The preeminance of the Catholic Church could be seen in state ceremonies. For instance, in Maltese courts, a person under aoth also has to kiss a cross presented to him/her (minorities are allowed to kiss their own holy books or the Maltese constitution). All incoming Prime Minister tradiotnally kiss a cross after taking oath. In January 2020, after taking the oath, the new PM Robert Abela also kissed the cross. And it was quite a scandel when Alfred Sant, a Labour PM, refused to kiss the cross in 1996. 

An interesting article in The Economist (Malta leads the way for gay and transgender rights in Europe) rightly argues that the tiny island "is deeply Catholic and hardly an oasis of liberalism." Usually, it is Northern and Western European countries that come up with policies that are then followed by Eastern and Southern European countries. Sometimes, the latter adopt these policies on their own accord but, at other times,  they have to be pushed. Many Eastern European countries, for instance, adopted liberal policies when these policies were made a requisite condition for entry into the European Union. 

Malta is conservative country but changes are happening and the hold of religious elements, particularly the Catholic Church, is decreasing. In 2011, Malta legalized divorce after a long hard fight. It required a national referendum to decide the issue. In 2013, the Labour Party, a center-left party defeated the center-right Nationalist Party. The Labour Party took power after fifteen years. Since then, Labour Party has come up with several liberal policies. First, in 2016, Malta became the only country in Europe to ban conversion therapy for gays. Second, in July 2017, Malta made the language in the official documents gender-neutral. Gendered terms, such as father, husband, wife, and mother, were removed from the country’s Marriage Act and all other laws. Next, in August 2017, Malta legalized same-sex marriage. Some would, however, argue Malta has been liberal since the early 2000s. Gays were allowed to openly serve in the military in 2002 and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation have been criminalized since 2004.

Source: Malta leads the way for gay and transgender rights in Europe

Today, Malta is recognized as one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world. This may be taken as an indication of decrease of religious nationalism and many would hope that Malta would soon become a secular country. However, although the hold of the Catholic Church has wanned, it is still very influential. Exihbit 1: Malta is the only country in the EU that still bans abortion entirely. Even in case of incest, rape or danger to mother's life, abortion is not allowed. 

And the new PM Abela is not oging to change things. He sees no reason why the constitution should be amended and Roman Catholicism removed as Malta's official religion. He said:

Malta is a secular state, but the constitution also affords a strong, fundamental freedom that everyone is entitled to his religion of choice...While I believe in a secular society, where there is a distinction between the State and religion, and the autonomies are respected, we share common values and I wanted to send a message.

Abela is also for strict policy against abortion. He has made clear that he would not support any changes in the law regarding abortion (Malta Today).

It's not conservatism,religion or racism, only regular, common nationalism?

Mark Movsesian makes an interesting argument about events happening in 2016. He argues that local politics were important but what we saw is the rise of nationalistic anti-global movement (See The New Nationalism).

One can easily perceive nationalism’s role in the politics of 2016. Repeatedly, the side advocating a recovery of sovereignty from supranational bodies and a limit on immigration prevailed. In the Brexit campaign, the “Leave” supporters argued that Britain must take back control from EU bureaucrats and assert authority over its borders. Here, Trump famously called for withdrawal from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty and for renegotiation of other free-trade agreements, including NAFTA; for a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants; and for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country.

Conservatism, racism and religion were contributing factors but cannot explain the movement:

To be sure, traditional conservatism played a role in these developments—but only an indirect one. Although the Right, broadly defined, achieved victories in the United States and Europe, what we think of as “movement conservatism” did not. In Britain, the leaders of the Conservatives opposed Brexit; in America, many conservatives opposed Trump. In France, the Republican Party has worked hard to distance itself from the National Front, which it views as an embarrassment. In Italy, the Five Star Movement declares itself non-aligned and draws votes from both the Left and the Right. 

Nor did Christian conservatism triumph in 2016. True, the majority of British Christians wanted their country out of the European Union and the majority of American Christians voted for Trump (the members of some denominations by wide margins). But both the Brexit campaign and the American election downplayed religious themes. Trump did not make Christian values a centerpiece of his agenda. Many Christians who supported him did so from a fear of what a Hillary Clinton administration would mean for their religious freedom rather than a belief that Trump shared their values. In France, the National Front’s Marine Le Pen strongly supports secularism. For an express appeal to Catholic values, one must turn instead to the Republican Party’s candidate, François Fillon. 

In short, although traditional conservatism has been on the winning side in recent political contests, it has been a junior partner in a larger project: the revival of nationalism.

Movsesian argues that this rise of nationalism does not necessarily mean that liberalism has been rejected. It is the liberalism tied with globalism that is rejected by many

The resurgence of nationalism upsets the conventional wisdom, which for some time has predicted the eclipse of the nation-state and the triumph of global, free market liberalism. Even Francis Fukuyama, who originated the idea of “the End of History” in 1989, has begun to reconsider. (Access to his article in the Financial Times is best from this link.) Why was the conventional wisdom wrong? Many observers argue that the financial rewards of global liberalism have been poorly distributed, with benefits going to a small number of elites within each country. Global liberalism may look great to cosmopolitans in New York and Los Angeles, who enjoy cheaper goods and services and higher returns on their investments, but to many in Middle America, who have lost well-paying factory jobs, and whose communities have been decimated by unemployment and other social ills, the advantages are harder to discern.

The lagging fortunes of what used to be called the working class are only part of the story, though, and not the most important part. As Fukuyama acknowledges, many well-educated Americans with reasonable professional prospects, who could expect to benefit from global liberalism, also supported Trump. For these Americans, too, the new world order of multiculturalism and ever-freer trade seemed lacking.

Does that mean these Americans reject liberalism itself? Maybe. Political scientist Yashca Mounk points to some worrying trends. But not necessarily—they may just want a liberalism tied to a coherent national community. Liberalism is not simply an abstract set of propositions; it is a tradition embedded in a particular political culture. Ultimately, it depends on a shared identity beyond markets and human rights, on a cultural and social unity that transcends cheaper prices and due process of law. A global liberalism divorced from local communities is a pale substitute for the deeper sources of belonging to which people naturally turn when they face a crisis. That, more than anything else, is the key political lesson of 2016.

The question I would like to ask Movsesian is about the basis of this new nationalism. Okay, it is anti-global and anti-immigrant but why? Is it economic nationalism or racial nationalism or religious nationalism or a combination of all of them. Secondly, nationalism is inherently divisive so a 'national' liberalism may not be benign in the end.

Too liberal an outlook is resulting in a backlash because people want culturally rootedness, identity and traditions

Professor David Gushee argues that a liberal outlook that does not give importance to people's attachment to their country and/or  religion is perhaps resulting in a backlash. The signs of this backlash are Trump, Brexit and various type of religious fundamentalisms. 

One of the most important developments in global politics and religion is the triumph of “thick” over “thin.” By that I mean the triumph of politicians and religious leaders who offer strong rather than weak national identity platforms, passionate rather than becalmed articulations of loyalty, particularist rather than universalist policy visions.

He contends that it is difficult for universalism and liberalism (thin) to inspire people as much as nationalism and religion (thick) and this has been deomntrated by the events happening around the world. President Putin, President Erdogan and now President-elect are the proofs:

One of the most striking things Donald Trump regularly said during the election campaign was that without border enforcement, “you don’t have a country.” 

Perhaps what he meant to apply to one policy issue has broader application, wider resonance. People want to “have a country” that still means something, so they choose country over Europe, country over global trade deals, country over international norms, country over inclusivity ethics. It’s a thick, local, particularist identity and loyalty. 

And in religion, “you don’t have a religion” without doctrinal borders, without behavioral expectations, without clear identity demarcations over against those of other religions and no religion.

Professor Gushee's recipe for avoiding future Trumps and religious fundamentalisms is coming up with a different type of religion and nationalism, not liberalism. He is following his own advice:

These days as I prepare to preach weekly sermons in a post-Southern Baptist church outside Atlanta, I am trying to offer a non-fundamentalist but still thick account of Christian theology and practice. Here, I am seeking to say, we teach a religion with substance, a religion worth devoting your life to, a religion with biblical rooting, doctrinal solidity, and ethical-communal expectations. So far, so good.

The same thing will need to happen at the national political level. If we don’t like Donald Trump’s version of thick American nationalism and national loyalty, we must offer an equally thick but more compelling alternative. We must articulate and demonstrate why our understanding of what it means to be American, of the core values of American democracy, and of best public policies, are superior to the alternative on display — within the terms of a thick American identity and loyalty.
Because thick beats thin every time.

Is Professor Gushee's argument valid? Maybe religion and nationalism are so potent (thick) because we socialise and indoctrinate every child with religion and nationalism. If we teach liberalism and universalism from age four, then maybe liberalism also becomes thick?

Illiberal Democracies and the Muslim World

For the first time, directly presidential elections were held in Turkey on 10th August, 2014. As expected, Prime Minister Erdogan won the elections and crossed the fifty percent threshold, making a second round of presidential election unnecessary. The idea of Erdogan ruling for five more years is disconcerting for many inside and outside Turkey. Erdogan, after an initial liberal start, has now become a symbol of elected illiberalism or illiberal democracy. Erdogan is not alone. Since the start of 2013, illiberal democrats have won elections in Algeria, Pakistan, India, Hungary, Egypt and Venezuela.  

The idea of illiberal democracy was first popularized by Fareed Zakaria (See The rise of illiberal democracy). He argued that democracy requires only regular competitive elections and can be liberal or illiberal. Liberal democracy, in addition to regular elections, entails individual liberty and constitutionalism. Without the protection of individual rights and limits on the power of democratic governments (usually through constitutions), there is no liberal democracy.

Source: Illiberal Democracy

Zakaria contended that sequencing of liberalism and democracy was different in the early Western European democracies (and East Asian democracies) and most third wave democracies. In the former, liberalism became entrenched before democracy became a reality but in the later, democracy came earlier. This led to illiberal democracy or infringement of individual and minority rights in many countries. According to Zakaria, 

The tension between constitutional liberalism and democracy centers on the scope of governmental authority. Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy about its accumulation and use. For this reason, many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals saw in democracy a force that could undermine liberty. James Madison explained in The Federalist that "the danger of oppression" in a democracy came from "the majority of the community." Tocqueville warned of the "tyranny of the majority," writing, "The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority."

Rest of the blog can be read at the Calgary Centre for Global Community website (See Illiberal Democracies)