In last Monday’s interview with Lou Bondì, the Prime Minister did not quite utter Joseph Muscat’s wish for the divorce debate to be “above politics”. But, in saying he did not think a divorce platform should be part of a general election campaign, he came close.

Granted, he may have simply been expressing the wish not to have the issue entangled in partisan politics. However, he has expressed a similar (and sane) wish about the pension and rent reforms. That did not stop his party from taking an electoral stand on each. The parties of government can take a stand on divorce but include, within that stand, the desirability of converging positions.

The irreducibly political aspect of divorce would need highlighting even without the complication of whether the matter should be decided by Parliament or by a referendum. As it happens, I have no principled objection to a referendum because divorce is not a matter of minority rights; it affects everyone, even the unmarried insofar as it affects the attractions of the institution of marriage, and there is nothing in principle to make divorce a matter that a majority of the population is seeking.

Even if we did go for a referendum, it would be an abdication of responsibility for the political parties not to take a stand on the matter. Politically, divorce is not a matter of conscience. A politician who disagrees with his party on the matter is in no more a special position than one who disagreed with it on any delicate reform of importance.

That point may have been muddied by the declaration of the seven priests who last week delineated what, for Catholics, Church teaching on conscience stated, illustrated by its application to a possible vote on divorce in Malta. But those priests were not stating that divorce was a special case. They were simply enunciating the conditions under which a Catholic could, in good conscience, diverge (in thought and action) from the Church’s official line; its “party line”, if you like.

It would be rich if the political parties used such a declaration to encourage their parliamentarians and senior members to follow their conscience without issuing a party line. First, one assumes that when a politician follows the party line it is because it does not contradict his or her conscience. More importantly, the doctrine of freedom of conscience presupposes a party line. It does not make sense without it. Otherwise, it would be freedom from what, exactly?

But what are the politics – apart from partisan positioning – that infuse the issue? Is it not just a matter of compassion and second chances? No, it is not. This much should be obvious from the public argument that has long been going on, which keeps raising issues of justice, liberty and equality. The Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando Bill wades right into them.

Take liberty. The draft Bill is paternalistic insofar as it introduces safeguards that make it less liberal than most other divorce laws. Paternalism is not always bad, at least to my mind. But I can introduce you to a few thousand online commentators who disagree.

And Dr Pullicino Orlando has given them plenty of ammunition: How can he, in the same breath, claim that no one who dissolves a marriage does so irresponsibly and then go on to boast that his safeguards ensure responsible divorce?

Take equality. If compassion is to mean more than just treacly sentiment, it is going to have a financial cost. Dividing up a household and its assets brings with it assorted financial hardships. Some people can still manage on their own without state help; others, in lower income brackets, cannot, even if court-ordered maintenance payments are respected (and, of course, it costs money to enforce such payments). Deciding what one is prepared to pay for and what one is not – with taxpayer’s money – lies at the heart of politics. Even deciding not to pay an extra cent – by increasing revenues or reducing expenditure on some other item – is a political decision in itself.

The situation already exists with the regime of legal separation, of course. But it is probable, given the bulk of European experience, that divorce legislation will play an independent role in raising the rate of marital breakdown. Dr Pullicino Orlando has decided, in his wisdom, that Malta is more likely to resemble Ireland, where the rate did not accelerate. But in that case, how does he explain that our crude marital breakdown rate of 1.79 (2008 figures) is over double the Irish crude divorce rate of 0.8 (for 2006)?

Mentioning costs is usually associated with an anti-divorce stance. But that is because there is the highly political, centre-right assumption that state spending should go down, not up. This assumption, which, of course, is open to challenge even by other pro-divorce politicians, gives an idea of the politics still being kept in the shadows of the debate.

And there is plenty more. If the political parties do not show where they stand on the various issues, they would be telling us what a fundamental issue divorce is without spelling out how they would deal with the fundamentals.

ranierfsadni@europe.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.