Christian Peregin asks if taking a clear position on divorce will force out those in the Nationalist Party who disagree with it.

Most members of the Nationalist Party seem to be against divorce legislation. So far, only two MPs have said otherwise: Karl Gouder, the youngest backbencher, and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who authored the Private Members’ Bill.

Although they agree on divorce, they have very opposing ideas on how their party should deal with the issue. Dr Pullicino Orlando has warned it not to alienate voters by taking a stand, fearing it would scare off those who genuinely believe in divorce.

On the other hand, Mr Gouder believes the party has no other choice: “We have to take a position. We’re a political party so we have a duty to do so. In not taking a position we will be playing to the gallery.”

His comments mirror the criticism levelled at Labour leader Joseph Muscat a while ago for taking a personal stand but leaving his party members free to decide individually.

But how would Mr Gouder feel if his party were to take a stand against divorce?

“I think the decision will reflect the discussion within the party,” he says, implying such a resolution would leave room for disagreement.

“But either way, I’d still feel very comfortable within the party. I didn’t join the PN because of divorce. The party is made up of hundreds of people and politics is all about give and take. Ultimately, our common goal is for the country to move forward.”

However, his sentiment is not shared by long-standing minister Austin Gatt, who has in the past days surprised many with a vehemently anti-divorce stance. He went so far as to say he would resign if the PN were to take a pro-divorce position.Dr Gatt said it was “simply unheard of” for a political party not to take a stand on one of the most important social questions Malta has faced in years.

“We are not a party of convenience,” he said, reacting to Dr Pullicino Orlando’s fears and questioning whether the party would do the same on issues like IVF, gay rights, abortion and euthanasia. But his comments prompted another question from Sliema deputy mayor Cyrus Engerer, one of the few openly gay members of the PN, who asked on Facebook: “Is the space for non-conservatives within the party being threatened?”

Speaking to The Times, Mr Engerer said Dr Gatt’s comments suggested that if the party took a stand, those who disagreed should leave.

“I think the party should take a stand but it should reflect the diverse colours of its individual members,” he said.

Mr Engerer is in favour of all civil liberties, including divorce, and wishes his party was more “progressive and liberal”. However, he says both major parties were shying away from taking on these issues, and he is more comfortable with the PN’s economic policies. His advice to the PN is to continue being the inclusive party it always was: “Whether in favour or against, our position should formally recognise the various opinions and keep everyone free to take their individual stands.”

Agreeing with Mr Engerer on this point is Pierre Portelli, president of the PN’s administrative council, who stressed he would be responding to Dr Gatt during internal discussions. He says party members should not have to agree with their parties on all issues.

“Popular parties are open to different ideas. If I agree with the PN on the economy and the EU, it doesn’t mean I have to agree on cohabitation and IVF.”

But this should not prevent the party from taking stands on such issues, Mr Portelli adds, comparing the lack of a position being taken by the Labour Party.

“A party that has a stand is a much more serious party and one you can trust. Even if you don’t agree with it, at least you know where the party is going.”

Former PN leader Eddie Fenech Adami too believes the party should pronounce itself on the issue and he told The Sunday Times this should “very definitely be against”.

Meanwhile, former president Victor Scerri has declared himself “foursquare” behind Dr Gatt, saying the party should take a stand keeping in mind those who disagree with it. He says the party’s resolution should assert that divorce is not a solution to any of the country’s problems and will not help the common good. But such a stand would not exclude those who disagree, he adds, pointing out that the PN has always managed to “marry” those of divergent views.

“Our disagreements are on issues, not on what is fundamental.”

On his part, parliamentary whip David Agius prefers to see the final resolution before committing himself either way, but he understands the party’s difficulties because, like his party, he is experiencing an internal conflict.

“I was elected by people from both sides of the debate without discussing divorce. So how am I expected to vote?”