Soon after becoming Labour Party leader, Joseph Muscat said there shouldn't be a discussion on whether or not divorce should be introduced but about the type of divorce that should be introduced.

In an interview with The Sunday Times on August 3, 2008, he said he was ready to put forward a private member's bill after considering the views of all Labour MPs in favour of the introduction of divorce and provided Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi agrees to give a free vote to government MPs. He did not refer to any consultation with Labour MPs who are against divorce.

During a recent public conference organised by Proġettimpenn, and on TVM's Dissett, Dr Muscat expressed a different position. Dr Muscat would now move a private member's bill for the introduction of divorce only if he becomes Prime Minister. He said he would give Labour MPs a free vote - a very strange promise, if not a Freudian slip, since free votes are only given when there is a party position and not when private bills are moved. He appealed to the PN to do the same, though now he would go forward even if there were no free vote on the other side.

This type of attitude reduces the debate about divorce to a similar level of the debate about cash registers before the 1996 election - an electoral carrot but not a strict electoral promise. How can the leader of a political party not have his position which he has now turned into his own cavallo di battaglia about such an important matter not endorsed by his party, especially when this is a party over which his control is absolute?

Dr Muscat's position smacks of political opportunism, not of political principles. His position will turn divorce into an electoral issue without it being a strict electoral issue. This attempt of having the cake and eating it should be exposed and resisted.

Divorce should not be introduced thanks to a conglomeration of different private mandates assumed to have been given to different MPs on an individual basis.

Up till now the pro-divorce lobby has not, in my opinion, presented a credible case for its introduction. We cannot have the introduction of divorce almost by stealth.

I would prefer it if, before Malta held a debate on the introduction or otherwise of divorce, we debated and implemented measures to strengthen the family.

The strengthening of the family should have been the way forward. However, due to the position taken by Dr Muscat, a particular situation has been created and it cannot be ignored. Divorce has now become an electoral issue by stealth. This I oppose.

During an election, many different issues are lumped together. I do not think divorce should be one of them. The acceptance or refusal of divorce legislation should be a conscious and focused decision. Like Malta's entry into the European Union, the decision should be divorced from an election. It should be decided in a pre- or post-electoral referendum.

During such a referendum, political parties should have an official position - though space should be given to dissenters - but the parties should not be the motors of the debate. Pro- and anti-divorce movements running the campaign should emanate from civil society. On both sides there would be Labourites, Nationalists, Greens and others. In both sides there would be those who consider themselves to be committed Catholics.

There would hopefully also be a lot of tolerance and a spirit of calm, guided by brotherly love towards all and the true indicators of the situation of the family in Malta.

Then again, perhaps I am hoping for too much.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt