Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/809226
24 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 9 APRIL 2017 Opinion P ersonally, I've never really understood why 'faith' would be included as one of three 'virtues' along with 'hope' and 'charity'. No real issue with the other two, as far as I can see. I think we can all safely agree that 'hope' is a generally useful quality to possess. Proverbially, it is 'the last thing to die'; not so much because of any natural longevity of its own... but simply because the will to live follows it rather quickly to the grave. In my book, that makes 'hope' a good thing. I certainly won't be getting rid of my own stock any time soon. As for 'charity', it is now self-evident that Malta's main political parties would not be able to actually exist at all without it. And let's face it: where on earth would we all be, without those two monolithic, crumbling and colossally anachronistic dinosaurs to oversee every aspect of our daily lives? Where, indeed. I almost wish I never asked... But 'faith'? Belief for the mere sake of believing? How on earth is that supposed to be a 'virtue'? In my own humble experience... it isn't, quite frankly. Unlike hope and charity, 'faith' doesn't actually bring any benefits to the faithful. On the contrary, it benefits the object of their belief (rather hugely, too). And that alone is enough to explain its definition as a 'virtue', in the context of a Catechism aimed at spreading one particular religious doctrine. Fair enough, I won't argue with that. But the moment you take this thing called 'faith' out of its religious context, a rather different picture comes into view. Suddenly, it transforms into a giant liability, with the word 'DANGER' emblazoned all over it in bright red letters. It is 'faith' – and certainly not its antithesis, 'scepticism' - that drives people to place their trust in woefully untrustworthy causes. It is 'faith' that induces people to believe those who would deceive or mislead them. Without 'faith' there can be no real deception; without deception, there can be no fraud. So take this supposed 'virtue' away from the world altogether... and what would become of all the world's con-men, fraudsters, liars and cheats? They would all have to get an honest job, every last one of them. How can that possibly be a bad thing? Yet just look at the way we use the word in our daily lives. We have somehow managed to turn the above reality clean on its head: 'having faith' is presented to us as noble and virtuous... lacking it, as devious and wrong. PN leader Simon Busuttil, for instance, doesn't have faith in the Electoral Commission as the entity entrusted with investigating his own party for fraud and deception. Labour MP Michael Falzon, on the other hand, has faith in the Commission... and for some obscure reason, he expects the rest of us to all share in this boundless confidence of his, too. Well, by now it should be clear where someone like myself would stand on this issue. For once, I agree with Simon Busuttil. Of course it shouldn't be the Electoral Commission to investigate party financing irregularities. It should very obviously be the police (which even have an 'economic crimes unit' to handle this sort of thing)... and the investigation should have been automatically triggered by the allegations themselves, not by the go-ahead of a political party. After all, if we were talking about a commercial company allegedly issuing fake invoices for illegal non-transparent and unaccountable cash- contributions... the police would not exactly wait for permission from government to get cracking with the investigation. So no, I don't have faith in the Electoral Commission. And I can't see why anyone else should be expected to, either. What are we supposed to base this 'faith' on, anyway? The fact that all nine of its members were appointed by the same two parties they are now supposed to investigate? So that half the Commission will approach the investigation on the basis of pre- determined guilt... and the other half, pre-determined innocence? How is that supposed to inspire confidence? Who on earth could possibly be taken in by such a blatant ruse? The last question turns out to be the easiest to answer. Whose idea was it, anyway, to empower a laughably politicised entity – a supposedly 'autonomous' commission with not a single independent, impartial member anywhere in its ranks - with the same powers as the police and the judiciary? Last I looked, it was a proposal by the Labour government which – somewhat strangely – enjoyed the unanimous backing of the Nationalist Opposition when it came to a vote in Parliament. Everyone else had reservations, Oh ye of too much faith Raphael Vassallo Thursday TVM 20:50