Austin Bencini
Will Muscat accept the referendum?
The increasingly vocal call for a referendum on the issue of divorce, in the wake of the Prime Minister’s statement that he would let the people decide the matter, was followed by stony silence from the pro-divorce Leader of the Opposition. He has yet to comment officially on the matter.
He certainly cannot claim the idea of holding a referendum to be his or his party’s since Joseph Muscat has committed himself fully to present a “private member’s Bill” after the next general election. In doing so, he is hardly disguising an obvious electoral ploy to win votes to get himself elected Prime Minister while earning himself the unique distinction of becoming the first PM to present a private member’s Bill before Parliament.
In reality he has not even allowed the issue to be brought before the executive organs of the Labour Party, as happened in the Nationalist Party a couple of weeks ago.
If consistency has any meaning to the Leader of the Opposition, then this stony silence can only mean that he will do what both Dom Mintoff did for the Independence Constitution and Alfred Sant for the EU referendum, and state very clearly that for him, as for Labour over the past 45 years, the referendum is not an acceptable means of deciding national non-partisan issues.
Dr Muscat, after all, would only be true to his political past in doing so since he was at the forefront of the “no” vote against the EU and then of the MLP campaign to discredit the obvious victory of the “yes” vote. Labour had made it more than abundantly clear that for them the referendum was worthless and that the general election subsequent to the EU referendum would decide the issue. Never have Drs Sant and Muscat stated that the democratic way of overturning the verdict at a referendum should be by means of another referendum.
All of this is extremely unfortunate for our democracy.
The electorate is increasingly becoming weary of the political strategies and party in-fighting which the divorce question is generating. In the private member’s Bill introduced by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, many get a whiff of the continuing internal feud between him and the Nationalist Party.
However, once Dr Pullicino Orlando wants posterity to remember him as the Maltese version of Henry VIII, and once Dr Muscat has the ambition to show his predecessor how to win elections on the back of non-partisan issues, well then allow me as one elector to tell them both in their face, extremely loud and clear, that neither they nor any of the other 69 MPs are to vote on my behalf on an issue which at the end of the day concerns me and each and every member of my family. They should have had the democratic decency to declare themselves at the time of the electoral campaign and not afterwards.
How many of the MPs forming the present Parliament had opened their mouth on the issue of divorce during the last electoral campaign? Certainly not Dr Pullicino Orlando. He had other issues also of a personal but more mundane nature to ward off. The MPs’ political instinct for survival kept their mouths stitched on divorce while openly avowing their respective electoral manifestos which proclaimed the sanctity of the family.
If political honesty still exists in the wave of political opportunism and party in-fighting fuelling the so-called divorce debate, and since Dr Muscat has chosen to decide the matter at the next election, then, at least, each and every MP should openly declare that he or she will not vote on divorce during this legislature and that, during the next electoral campaign, they will say how they intend to vote in the next legislature. This would leave it up to voters to select those MPs closest to their thinking on divorce from the respective parties.
Wouldn’t a referendum be more logical?
I must insist that the rules governing the referendum need to be brought up to date, defining the minimum quorum of voters necessary for it to be valid and laying down the requisite of an absolute majority for it to be approved. This to avoid the likes of Dr Muscat rubbishing it later by stating that the voters who had died immediately prior to the poll should be added to the “nos”, abstentions and what-else-have-you, to suit his ultimate political strategy of winning the next election.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
d.attard
Aug 9th 2010, 23:51
Was not the presentation of a Private Member’s Bill proposing the introduction of Divorce in Malta presented to Parliament by the Nationalist side? So why all the frothing on Labour this and Joseph that? What a sad spectacle does a partisan rant make
Dr Joe Brincat
Aug 9th 2010, 22:47
"How many of the MPs forming the present Parliament had opened their mouth on the issue of divorce during the last electoral campaign? " How many of the MPs forming the past Parliament (including Dr E Fenech Adami) had opened their mouth on the issue of divorce during the last but one electoral campaign? Who approved that a divorce in Italy would be automatically registered in Malta ? Or a Decree Absolute from the UK ?
My learned colleague knows that we have representative democracy and not direct democracy. Even our Referendum Act does not allow popular initiatives to enact legislation.
Subject to our Constitution and especially Art 6, Parliament is otherwise supreme and all legislative power is vested in Parliament. If only legislation that appeared in an electoral manifesto can be enacted, otherwise it would be null and void, then we would have a very limited body of law. " Mandate" is a political not a legal argument.
Mark A. Sammut
Aug 9th 2010, 21:01
Other 67 (not 69) MPs.
Joe Zammit
Aug 9th 2010, 16:54
The Constitution of Malta. Section 65(1): "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Malta in conformity with full respect for human rights, generally accepted principles of international law and Malta’s international and regional obligations in particular those assumed by the treaty of accession to the European Union signed in Athens on the 16th April, 2003." Divorce is not a human right. Divorce is detrimental to me, to you and to the whole of society. Divorce is a great social injustice.
Raphael Vassallo
Aug 9th 2010, 16:06
"If consistency has any meaning to the Leader of the Opposition, then this stony silence can only mean that he will do what both Dom Mintoff did for the Independence Constitution and Alfred Sant for the EU referendum..."
You left out what George Borg Olivier did for the Integration referendum in 1956...
l fenech
Aug 9th 2010, 15:38
Maria Vella
Aug 9th 2010, 14:54
In this case not accepting a referendum will voice a wider section of the population. I think that that is why the PM has come up with this idea. Seem as democaratic as possible. smile at the folk whilst telling them to decide, but only after having done your home work well. Political Lawyerism at its best!
A.J. Anastasi
Aug 9th 2010, 14:31
None of the present 69 members of parliament has a mandate to legislate for Divorce in this current legislature.
As Dr. Austin Bencini well stated, the MPs contesting the coming elections should make themselves clear how they stand on this issue of Divorce and then, “We The People” will decide accordingly.
This is what political HONESTY is all about!
AJA.
Adrian Cardona
Aug 9th 2010, 14:24
"Wouldn’t a referendum be more logical?"
No, a referendum is not logical because divorce is a civil right, therefore it does not need a popular majority to enact it. Organizing a referendum is a costly exercise and it will be turned into a political and religious football by the fundamentalist organizations out there, while giving scant regard to the personal issues involved.
David Seychell
Aug 9th 2010, 18:32
"divorce is a civil right" ?? Who told you that Mr Adrian Cardona? Please stop believing in fairytales. Rights and personal wishes are not the same thing. Divorce is NOT a civil right.
Adrian Cardona
Aug 9th 2010, 18:47
@ David Seychell Divorce is a civil right in all the countries of the world except Malta and the Philippines, who certainly have no shining record of human rights. So don't come and tell me that all the world is wrong and we are right. If you are Catholic, stick to your beliefs and don't even consider divorce as an option, like a good Catholic boy: and let other people who need to start a new life to get on with it, rather than have to setle for half-baked measures and confusion just because religious mullahs try and dictate to the rest of the world what's wrong or right
David Seychell
Aug 9th 2010, 20:40
As per your own admission, divorce is a civil right elsewhere but not in Malta. In Malta divorce is NOT a civil right. I never said whether divorce is right or wrong and never said whether divorce should be introduced in Malta or not. Infact I'm ready to listen to all pro and con arguments before taking side. But your argument that divorce should be introduced in Malta becuase divorce is a civil right is certainly not a good argument since divorce is not a civil or human right. The fact that divorce was introduced in the rest of the World is also not a good argument either, unless you prove that its introduction was beneficial in those countries.
Those in favour of the introduction of divorce in Malta should come up with vaild arguments, if they want to convince the undecided people, like me. Arguments like divorce should be introduced because a minority wants it or becuase it's a right (which isn't) or because other countries have it .
David Seychell
Aug 9th 2010, 21:17
(The last sentence of my previous comment was truncated. So here it is again.)
Arguments like divorce should be introduced because a minority wants it or becuase it's a right (which isn't) or because other countries have it etc etc are not valid arguments.
Oscar Cassar
Aug 9th 2010, 13:00
Ghalkemm naqbel ma bosta argumenti tieghek, ftakar li meta kwalunkwe Gvern jigi elett, jkun elett fuq programm elettorali izda kwalunkwe deputat qijad hemm biex jigverna u mhux biex ifarfar mir-responsabiltajiet tieghu u jsejjah referendum dwar kollox. Jekk din il-legislatura thoss urgenza dwar d-divorzju, dan ghandu jkun legislat imbghad jekk inti tkun deluz bil-legislatura, ivvota mod iehor jew astjeni fl-elezzjoni ta wara.
Infakkar li din il-legislatura hasset 'urgenza' fost l-ohrajn li tillegisla dwar il-PFP (Partnership For Peace) bi prijorita mmedjatament wara l-elezzjoni u dik l-'issue' ma kinitx fil-programm elettorali. Bhekk issa dwar id-divorzju huma biss skuzi biex nigwadanjaw il-hin, hin ghad-detriment tal-vitmi tac-cirkustanzi.
J.Borg
Aug 9th 2010, 11:01
It's funny why you ask if Joseph Muscat will accept a referendum for divorce.
Haven't we had enough people saying that they don't agree with a referendum.
Also, we had D. Fenech Adami that the divorce issue should be settled in parlament and not in an election or referendum.
For me Dr. Gonzi is hiding behind the bush for not wanting parlament to discuss divorce and he should be man eneough to give a free vote to PN members as was stated by Dr.Muscat with regards to PL members.
Joe Zammit
Aug 9th 2010, 10:48
According to the opinion poll carried out by timesofmalta.com on whether a decision on divorce should be taken by Parliament or by the people at a referendum, over 77 per cent had opted for a referendum.
As you have said, Austin, in this legislature there should be no Private Member's Bill nor any referendum.
Any of these should be left for the next legislature after each party and each candidate have made manifest their policies and stand respectively.
M Attard
Aug 9th 2010, 17:25
if 77% opted for a referendum with regard to the divorce issue,then all that shows is that the people do not trust those whom they elected to do the right and decent thing ,which is to give minorities their rights. Not very reassuring. It is however not right to hold a referendum on divorce or same sex partnerships since Parliament is there, or should be there, for all people's including the marginalised and their rights must be safeguarded as well as yours. Ever heard of equal rights and not just your rights Mr Zammit?