Lou Bondi
No mandate, no party
Let me get two facts out of the way. I am in favour of divorce and I find it embarrassing that the two parties represented in Parliament are still pussyfooting around the issue, let alone taking a position on it. Secondly, this article has nothing to do with the pros of cons of divorce. It addresses a single question: should divorce become the law of the land in this legislature on the wings on a bill submitted by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando?
In a democracy, citizens' wishes are expressed in parliament through the members elected and the party they belong to. 'The people' did not vote for the introduction of divorce during this legislature. Neither of the two major parties proposed it in their manifesto. The one which did, AD, suffered an electoral implosion.
Clearly, unless Parliament decides to submit the issue to a national referendum - a move with its own complications and institutional dilemmas - introducing divorce in this legislature violates a cardinal democratic principle: that Parliament is the expression of the voters' will.
Of course, parliamentary democracy caters for Private Members' Bills. But these should be infrequent, narrow detours, and still feed back into the main legislative highway. More importantly, they are not meant to enact legislation on fundamental national issues.
Quaint as it might sound for an EU country in 2010, divorce is a national issue here. It is therefore only the government's prerogative to deal with it in Parliament. And as far as I know, two years ago voters elected the PN to govern, not Pullicino Orlando.
Then there is the question of the function of a political party. It transpires that Pullicino Orlando concocted his divorce bill and tabled it in Parliament as a lone ranger. His party leader and prime minister publicly embarrassingly admitted he knew nothing about it.
Had Pullicino Orlando been an independent MP elected on his own steam, his behaviour would have been perfectly acceptable. But he is not. He ran on the PN ticket and is a member of the PN's parliamentary group. In this light, he has no business forcing the Prime Minister's or the party leader's hand on an issue of national importance such as divorce. The wiser and perhaps more effective course for him would have been to push the PN, within as well as outside its structures, to stop pretending that the pink elephant sitting in the middle of the room - the debate on divorce - does not exist.
For a decade-and-a-half now, both the PN and the PL have tried to get themselves off the electorally treacherous divorce hook by repeating the same, increasingly irritating, mantra. Let's "stimulate" debate, they chant. Yet both have preferred the comfort of the mantra to the electoral danger of being the stimulators themselves.
I was very surprised that Gonzi stuck to this position even after Pullicino Orlando's surprise move. It will stimulate debate, he repeated. Not quite. Parliament should enact laws following a debate rooted in previously thought-out party positions. The highest institution in the land is not a national think tank. It should not be hijacked to do what the two parties lacked the courage to do through the proper channels - party conferences, parliamentary and executive group meetings.
So what has this divorce summer splash left us with? Just a stickier mess at the pinnacle of both political camps. On one side there remains Joseph Muscat promising that as prime minister he would introduce a Private Member's Bill and give a free vote to his fellow MPs. If Muscat becomes prime minister, his job would be to govern, not chair a debating society which used to be called Parliament. Not to mention the fact that if his divorce bill fails to pass, he would have to resign and instantly dissolve his government. What a painful take two that would be.
On the other side there is Gonzi now waddling in a similar mess. In one sentence he says he wants an open debate on Pullicino Orlando's divorce motion and in the next that he is "personally" against divorce. A prime minister has no right to 'personal' opinions on national issues. That he expressed his view on divorce in so crystalline a manner, will mean that the PN's internal debate will most likely be a chimera.
I see only one way out of this institutional mess. This silliness about a parliamentary debate on a Private Member's motion on divorce in this legislature should cease. Both parties need to go back to their respective tents and not emerge before they have hammered out a coherent position. Then they should put that position in their electoral manifesto. And let the people decide.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jul 11th 2010, 16:44
1. Divorce is a great injustice against the spouses themselves.
2. Divorce is a great injustice against marriage
3. Divorce is a great injustice against the family
4. Divorce is a great injustice against the children
5. Divorce is a great injustice against society
6. Divorce is a great injustice against God.
DIVORCE NEVER!
Joseph Schembri
Jul 11th 2010, 18:27
dream on
JOe VELLa
Jul 11th 2010, 15:02
@Lou Bondi
Years ago when you where a champion of emigrants not returning back as I did, you Sir, argued anyone coming back from Canada is a "theygo". I know, I was addressed by you to this affect! And it hurt!
How am I to believe you this time when it seem you only play for your convenience!
Frans Attard
Jul 11th 2010, 14:40
Lanqas li titnehha c-censura ma kienet f'xi program elettorali Sur Bondi. Ghaliex hadt sehem fi protesta propju sabiex dan isir?
William P Flynn
Jul 11th 2010, 14:24
In a perfect world the people should be consulted and allowed to vote on every Bill, in every decision. But then that would be like buying a watchdog and barking yourself.
However if a referendum on divorce is to be, in for a penny in for a pound, let's include a few other questions for decision by the electorate:
1. Should the Catholic church (and all religious entities) pay corporate tax and VAT?
2. Should a law be passed to make it illegal for anyone outside the secular law enforcement and judicial authorities to conduct any enquiries into priest paedophilia?
3. Should a secular independent judicial enquiry into priest sexual abuse be instituted as soon as possible in Malta to encourage exposure/discovery of present and past crimes of sex by priests?
4. Should Article 2 be removed from our Constitution?
Michael Debono
Jul 11th 2010, 13:40
Since there is no liberty of conscience; it has already been officially declared by the Church that a catholic that votes for divorce commit mortal sin.
What applies now is the normal “In case of doubt, abstain".
That what should happen in case there is a referendum? Let those absolutely against divorce vote no, and those in favour vote yes. The rest of the electorate will not intervene will be noncommittal once the Church would have intervened with all its might. Let the Pros and Against fight it out amongst them.
Abstention would be the best policy, and let those who want to interpret abstention to do their part. Huge abstentions could be interpreted differently.
Lynn Zahra
Jul 11th 2010, 13:29
" .......let the people decide........" That's the Tyranny of the Majority, not democracy! .
Divorce is an Individual fundamental right simply becasue those " living in sin" too have a right to respect of their family life which includes respect towards the dignity of the
" illegitimate" children born to these couples . Sadly , many chlldren in Malta are being born illegitimate thanks to the State's failure to provide the remedy of re-marriage for their parents .
The protection of Individual human rights was the raison d'etre of the European Convention and the Maltese Constitution .
Only a formal complaint against Malta's violation of one's right to remarry with theECHR would illustrate to the Maltese how individual rights are not to be left at the mercy of the majority to concede or withold !
For more info kindkly contact me at lynnlegal@gmail.com
David Borg
Jul 11th 2010, 14:37
Marriage is a fundamental right. The break up of marriage and divorce is not a fundamental human right according to the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. Divorce is the break up of the fundamental unit of society, as well as the break up mof marriage vows and the family.
Is adultery a fundamental human right?
sciortino m
Jul 11th 2010, 11:45
Correct me if I am wrong Mr. Bondi. The construction of a new parliament was not an electoral promise and nether was the roofless theatre. Similarly the loan to Greece was not in the manifesto. Yet this fact has no stopped the government from going ahead.
Franco Farrugia
Jul 11th 2010, 12:19
You are right.
J. Schembri
Jul 11th 2010, 11:27
"A prime minister has no right to 'personal' opinions on national issues."
Of coarse he has Lou! And we voters have the right to know how our electoral candidates think about certain issues !
I find it cheeky for an MP to push his personal agenda in the form of a private member's bill, without consulting the electorate and his party colleagues , and find it more cheeky when this is done by someone who did not contest an election and is the co-opted leader of the opposition in parliament.
I find this private member's bill business highly undemocratic.
Julian Borg
Jul 11th 2010, 12:50
"I find this private member's bill business highly undemocratic."
Why? The bill is just a proposal. It's still up to parliament to decide whether to uphold it or reject it.
Joe Zammit
Jul 11th 2010, 11:15
Lou, divorce would be an institutional mess indeed!
DIVORCE NEVER!
Adriano Spiteri
Jul 11th 2010, 11:07
Mr Mizzi,
whether Lou Bondi is married, divorced or separated does not concern me.
What concerns me is our freedom and how you and other puppets like you, attempt to corrode it.
Attacking the messanger instead of his message is shallow.
Get a life.
A. Mizzi
Jul 11th 2010, 16:25
What's good for the goose should be also AVAILABLE and AFFORDABLE for the gander... who does not have to go international to obtain a divorce.
As for attacking the messenger, Mr Bondi has on various occasions in the past attacked the messenger , especially if the Messenger tarnished his Master and Provider's VOICE
on his programmes in practically one-way debates ACCORDING to his agenda ........ about time he gets a spoonful of his own medicine.
Cyrus Engerer
Jul 11th 2010, 11:00
General elections are not decide solely on one issue...
A. Mizzi
Jul 11th 2010, 10:32
Tidher li tinsab komdu kif int Sur Bondi!
Int x'int propjament, mizzewweg? separat?bi zwieg annulat? f'relazzjoni? divorzjat? Jew sempliciment Nazzjonalist komdu u trid tkompli tpappiha , bis-sitwazzjoni kif inhi?
Ghidilna x'inhi il-VERUagenda tieghek biex tohrog artiklu bhal dan. ...mhux ghax ma indunajnhiex.....