Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1060184
15 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 DECEMBER 2018 NEWS ANALYSIS was granted to non-national residents in 1963. In Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Nor- way, and Sweden a regional consensus on granting voting rights to non-nationals developed during the 1970s and 1980s. The Netherlands granted voting rights to non-national residents in 1985. Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia granted voting rights to non-EU residents in 2002 and therefore did so before their accession to the EU, Luxembourg in 2003 and Belgium in 2004. A Taboo in Malta In 2009 a couple of months before MEP elections, both major parties signalled their opposition to a report issued by the Eu- ropean parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs which called on EU countries to grant the vote to their resident migrant communities. Former Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil had described granting voting rights to mi- grants in Malta as "one of the red lines that we cannot cross" while Labour MEPs also opposed granting voting rights to migrants due to Malta's demographic situation. The lack of electoral rights for migrants was one of the factors which penalised Malta's performance in the Migrant Inte- gration Policy Index (2015) which places Malta 33rd out of 38 countries for migrant integration. The contrast with Malta's meteoric rise in the ILGA index on LG- BTI rights prompted Helena Dalli her- self to note (in an article penned in 2016) that a similar rapid rise on the Migrant Integration Policy Index is "unlikely" be- cause "migrant integration is significantly more complex" to address and needs "a sustained information campaign to raise awareness and knowledge about what in- tegration means in practice". representation? THE proposal to grant citizenship to non-EU Residents living in Malta must be read in the context of the vi- sion that Government wants for the country. In demography, the discus- sion focuses on two social models in opposition to each other; an 'open society' or a 'closed society. It is a fact that Joseph Muscat's government chose the open society model for Malta. At least, one gets this impres- sion on studying Muscat's political discourse. But it is here that the ma- jor contradiction rests. The proposal to grant citizenship to non-EU Residents enters within the parameters of the open society model. Thus, it makes sense that this model is being promoted by a news- paper that has long embraced this agenda. And it also logical that this model is embraced by a Government that has re- peatedly spoken in favour of an open society. Unfortu- nately, the feedback from a num- ber of politicians confirms that Malta embraces only concepts related to open society where the issues con- cerned are of a sexual nature. When it comes to other issues, which are inextricably linked to immigration, the tendency is for politicians to go for models normally associated with those endorsed by a closed society. This contradiction will lead to the failure of the open society model in Malta. To be fair with the Prime Minister Muscat, he did not close the door to this proposal. All he said is that this proposal is not in the electoral programme and therefore cannot be taken into consideration during this legislature. He made the same argument when confronted with the abortion issue. The problem in endorsing such a proposal arises from the fact that is- sues concerning immigration are giv- ing rise to protest all over Europe. I don't think that Europeans are against the migrants. What they are angry at is the established political elite that has endorsed models of Open Society to legitimise its politi- cal power. Thus, it is natural for those who are against the established political elite to lambast policies that are be- ing supported by the parties of the centre. In brief, issues related to a closed society are becoming the battle cry for the European Popular Parties. Muscat wants to avoid this kind of political backlash. In this he is aided by the fact that the Opposition is di- vided on these issues. Had the Opposition a clear policy, it would have been impossible for Mus- cat to play this type of political game and shrug off such proposals simply by stating that they are not part of his government's electoral pledge. WE fully support Minister Dalli's proposals with regards to voting rights to third country residents, as they attempt to secure a more rep- resentative political scene in Malta. We first recommended strength- ening political participation of mi- grants and refugees several years ago, in our Malta Integration Net- work project. Then, it was received with anger and ridicule. But we reiterate that there are many reasons why this should happen. There are three main reasons why this should happen. No taxation without representa- tion remains a valid governance principle. If migrants/refugees are residing regularly and contributing financially, then justice demands that they have a say – even minimal – in the way their lives are managed and regulated by the State. Malta's communities are no longer homogeneous white Roman Catho- lic, but varied in terms of religions, ethnicities, family compositions, reasons for being here, etc. Politics should reflect this variety if it wants to be truly representative, which is what democracies are all about. Given the possibility to vote, mi- grants and refugees will be encour- aged to play a more active part in local and national politics. Today they are just pawns and passive actors. A more active role would allow them to be more en- gaged with those institutions and people that shape Malta's future. For and against Muscat's 'open society' contradiction Simon Mercieca, historian and political analyst Neil Falzon, director Aditus Foundation A question of equality and justice