Dr Joseph Muscat, leader of the Labour Party, told The Sunday Times (August 3) that we do not need a discussion on whether or not divorce should be introduced in Malta but rather a discussion about the type of legislation that should be enacted. This statement of Dr Muscat does not augur well for a mature discussion on the subject.
Whenever a new infrastructural project is announced people now clamour for an Environmental Impact Assessment and only God knows what. How will the traffic be affected? Are there any worms around whose habitat will be destroyed? Will the level of dust increase in the area? What will be the visual impact? And so on and so forth. This is how things should be done and I am sure that Dr Muscat would clamour for such studies.
But when the country is faced by the possibility of a piece of legislation which would radically change, not the habitat of a couple of worms, but the paradigm of marriage, Dr Muscat states that there is nothing to debate. It’s a done deal for him; the little problem is the paperwork stating the how. Incredible and unbelievable!
No place for anti-divorce Labour MP’s?
Dr Muscat told us that he would propose a Private Member’s Bill for the introduction of divorce:
i. After the Prime Minister promises to give a free vote to the PN members of Parliament;
ii. After considering the individual views of all MPs who are in favour of the introduction of divorce; and
iii. After seeking the opinion of moderate citizens outside Parliament.
Dr Muscat is so adamant to forge ahead without any real discussion that it seems that he does not even consider talking to anti-divorce Labour MPs before he – their leader – introduces a Private Members Bill of such momentous importance! An inclusive attitude towards the way politics should be done surely means that a leader should consult, on such an important subject, those within his own party that do not agree with him!
This is not a lapsus. It’s a strategy and a policy. He is repeatedly dividing the country between conservatives on one side and moderates and progressives on the others. His article in The Times of August 4th is just another example. He is advocating an alliance of those he dubs as progressives and moderates against those he dubs as conservatives.
The Prime Minister is described by him as a conservative because ten years ago he had said that “divorce is not a solution”. But the logical conclusion of Dr Muscat’s reasoning would also label as conservatives the anti-divorce Labour MPs. Dr Adrian Vassallo qualifies for the title thanks to his letter in The Sunday Times of August 3 and Dr Marlene Pullicino thanks to her opinion piece in L-Orizzont of August 4th.
This is not a very inclusive attitude I believe.
PFP no, divorce yes
The Labour Party, quite justifiably, took the Government to task for taking Malta into the Partnership For Peace (PFP) without getting an electoral mandate for this. It seems, for Dr Muscat, that the introduction of divorce is less momentous that the membership of PFP since he thinks that no electoral mandate is needed for the introduction of divorce legislation.
None of the major political party hinted, let alone lobbied for, the introduction of divorce before the last general election. The only party which had divorce on its platform got a trashing at the polls. In the absence of any hint of electoral support, divorce should not be shoved down the throats of people by MPs who never uttered even a public murmur in its favour.
Some form of electoral approval is needed. This can take the form of either a pre-electoral promise or a referendum. I do not agree with Dr Muscat that a referendum on the topic “simply amounts to passing the buck.” Let the people decide.
Persuaded yes; bullied no
The pro and anti introduction of divorce lobbies are complex and varied. There are people of different political and religious persuasion on all sides of the divide. There are happily married people who are in favour of the legalisation of divorce. There are people who are co-habiting who are against its introduction. On Monday August 4, Dr Marlene Pullicino wrote a very courageous opinion piece in L-Orizzont. She said that she is living with another separated person but she is still against the introduction of divorce.
In such a situation should the different sides dig their trenches deeper by saying that theirs is the only position and move forward or should they try to debate openly and reasonably the controversial topic? Should not the discussion be guided by the drawing of a realistic picture of marriage and the family and also possible effects of both positions?
Ranier Fsadni in last Thursday The Times proposed the setting up of a Human Development Index to get a realistic pictures instead of myriad assumptions one way and the other. Should not the discussion be widened to include ways and means of strengthening and helping families and married couples in difficulty? That would be a point of contact between the different sides.
Let us discuss without politicising the issue and without taking fundamentalist religious attitudes. Let is discuss without prejudging the issue by taking the position that only one position is possible.
There are also those who like me are still open to conviction about whether divorce should be legalised or not in Malta. I can still be persuaded either way but I will not be bullied or bulldozed into taking a position.