When Harold Wilson made that famous statement way back in the 1960s that a week is a long time in politics he was probably referring to the unexpected events which cropped up and which needed some political response. And, given the state of the British Labour Party at the time, the unexpected happened with regular frequency.
The unexpected nowadays has acquired a new gravitas due to the immediacy of events happening on the other side of the globe not only reaching us instantly as news but also sometimes affecting our government's financial, political and social planning.
The summer of 1998, which had the nation mesmerised by Dom Mintoff's perorations night after night in Parliament and his rebellion which eventually toppled Alfred Sant's government, was a period characterised by the happening of the unexpected. A long-standing saviour was turned into a traitor in days. The Prime Minister's authority was openly challenged in Parliament by his own colleagues, rendering him totally incapable of exerting his authority on his government and his party.
The whole episode reflected the mistaken decisions taken by the Labour Party previous to the 1996 general election in allowing Mr Mintoff to contest that election on a personal manifesto. But political convenience won the day. Mr Mintoff was elected in Parliament, helping in no small measure to elect a Labour government which he later held to ransom.
Some would argue of course that it was too much to expect Mr Mintoff, who had always been volatile in his political machinations, not to react the way he did and it showed Dr Sant's political immaturity insofar as he showed himself totally unprepared for all that had happened that summer.
But, then, the same could be said about Dr Sant's appointment of a Finance Minister who was totally against the main policy of that government, the abolition of VAT and its replacement. The unexpected should have been expected.
Now we have a Nationalist MP, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who out of the blue presented a motion to Parliament for the introduction of legislation introducing divorce in Malta. That Dr Pullicino Orlando is a loose cannon is a fact. He certainly did the unexpected in a very unexpected way. To go against the current is sometimes laudable in politics but to ignore all your colleagues, let alone your Prime Minister, whose support you need in order to bring whatever change is proposed, is, to say the least, foolish and self-defeating.
No government is going to be toppled on this matter but Dr Pullicino Orlando's motion has rocked many Nationalist supporters who, even if in their solitary moments succumb to the feeling that one day divorce will have to be introduced in Malta, never expected one of theirs to promote it.
This brings into the open the importance of proper vetting of candidates that each political party chooses for the next general election.
While all political parties these days cannot afford to be monolithic, there has to be some way in which the respect by the elected members of Parliament of the general ethos of the party that promotes them as candidates is taken as a given.
Divorce is not to be taken lightly. Joseph Muscat's stance on it, even if it is sincere, carries no conviction politically.
His task is to get his party either to adopt the introduction of divorce in the party manifesto or to forget it. For a Prime Minister to present a Private Members' Bill for the introduction of divorce while at the same time allow his MPs freedom of conscience would represent an abdication of political responsibility.
People have a right to know where political parties stand on this issue.
Now that the unexpected has happened, the debate must start in earnest keeping in mind two important maxims: divorce should not be treated as a one-size-fits-all solution and, secondly, the strengthening of the family unit must be the overriding priority.