The divorce debate has suddenly reappeared on the media scene. First it was the new Labour leader, Joseph Muscat, who intimated that he would favour a private member's motion that would introduce divorce legislation and that he would give a free vote to Labour MPs. Comments made by Social Policy Minister John Dalli in an interview with this newspaper two weeks ago, coupled with some less clear indications from the Prime Minister led a commentator to speculate that divorce will be introduced during this administration's term of office.
Whether this is correct or not is still to be seen. What is sure is that the debate is needed in a healthy democratic society, even if it leads to the conclusion that divorce should not be introduced. Anyone who attempts to stifle the debate will only help to make matters worse. Not speaking out against domestic violence, for example, never helped anyone - as was evident from the heinous acts that led to a Gozitan patricide case some years ago.
In an interview carried in In-Nazzjon 15 years ago - in July 1993 when I was a Cabinet Minister in Eddie Fenech Adami's second administration - I was asked by Georg Sapiano for my personal opinion on the divorce issue. Looking back at my reply, I find that what I had said then still holds.
I had argued that the PN was against introducing divorce because it felt that the harm done to our society by its introduction eclipsed the harm resulting from the suffering of a few individuals for whom it was obvious that divorce was the only real solution.
I added, however, that Maltese society was evolving in such a way that this situation would eventually no longer prevail and that we were heading to a scenario where the harm done as a result of the lack of divorce would eventually be bigger that the harm done to society by its introduction. Applying the principle of the lesser of two evils would then militate in favour of introducing divorce.
There were some who reacted negatively to what I said and even tried to spin my use of the verb 'to evolve' as indicating that I believed society was changing for the better. In fact that verb is neutral: it refers to change without either positive or negative connotations. Whether this evolution is for better or for worse is, in any case, irrelevant.
Many also questioned my ignoring completely the moral or religious aspect. First of all, the PN is not a confessional political party. Upholding Christian-Democrat political principles is not tantamount to upholding Canon Law as the law of the land. I strongly held - and still do - that if the state withholds the introduction of divorce it should not do so on grounds of religious belief.
The corollary is that I also do not agree that the state should introduce divorce because of some inalienable human right emanating from religious freedom. Otherwise, the state should also allow polygamy because by the same argument anyone whose religion allows polygamy should have the right to be allowed to practise it.
The state must look at the issue from its own perspective and this means in consideration of its obligation to ensure order in our society. If polygamy would disrupt this order as we know it, then polygamy should not be allowed on grounds of freedom of belief.
Likewise, whether divorce should be allowed or not depends on the impact it would have on order in our society. If the present situation is such that the lack of divorce is leading to social disorder, then the state is obliged to introduce divorce.
It is relevant to point out that Archbishop Paul Cremona has clearly asserted that the Church is not accountable for order in society as this is the sole responsibility of the state. The logical implications of this assertion are obvious.
Has the number of cohabiting couples forming legally unrecognised family units increased to the extent that this phenomenon must be regulated so that there is order in our society? That is the question that matters.
Consider the case of couples who are cohabiting and having children of their own outside wedlock because one (or both) partners are separated after having been married previously. What does the possibility of remarrying civilly the present partner - after 'erasing' the original marriage via a divorce decree - mean in practical terms? From the state's 'order in society' point of view, it means a lot. From the moral point of view, I do not think that the divorce option makes matters worse.
Perhaps I stand to be corrected. But then, I am simply a mortal who does not pretend to have the exclusive knowledge about how God thinks about us mortals. Nor should the state aspire to such pretensions, led as it is by other mortals whose comprehension of divine will is as limited as mine.
micfal@maltanet.net