After all the expectations that it would be the people who would decide whether divorce should be introduced in Malta, it seems possible now that the issue will be decided in Parliament. The member of the executive of the Partit Nazzjonalista will tomorrow be voting on a motion which states that a referendum will be held only if there is a Parliamentary majority in favour of the JPO et al draft. If Parliament says nay, nay it will be, or so politicians and others think.
There are legal and other type of arguments in favour of this position. The argument goes something like this: A referendum can be held only after a motion has been approved by Parliament. The only motion on the subject that Parliament is discussing is the third version of a motion presented by JPO and Evarist Bartolo. A referendum can only be held after this motion is approved. If it is not approved then it is the end of story. Those in favour of divorce should have opted for another way to make divorce legal in Malta. They chose the method they chose so let them jinqlew b’zejthom.
However, there are other aspects to consider. (i) Man and women do not live by legalistic reasoning alone; they also live on perceptions and expectations. (ii) For every move there will be a counter move.
I do not think that legalisationon divorce was ever high in people’s agenda. The cost of living and the economy were (and still are) definitively much higher.
The media tried to keep the subject on the agenda as there was the perception that the subject gives rise to heated discussions, comments on the blogs and more readership of the papers. It has been proven time and time again that what the media project as important is not necessarily what the people really feel as important.
JPO’s decision to present a private member’s bill in Parliament was unfair towards the public and towards his party. The divorce debate was forced prematurely on the country and this could lead to its pre-mature death.
As things were progressing I suspect that JPO – thanks to his sense of pique and immaturity – would have ruined his own cause and ended up as the darling of the anti-divorce lobby. However, that is a different story.
A real politic assessment of the situation shows that the tiny Parliamentary majority of the PN, the unreliability and (in the eyes of many) doubtful loyalty of JPO as well as the crass opportunism continuously shown by Dr Joseph Muscat forced JPO’s unjust measure onto the Parliamentary agenda and made it part of the public agenda. The baby had now been born.
Many people now expect that a decision has to be taken and taken in the shortest possible time span. The country needs to get the divorce distraction out of the way. A perception that the people will decide in a referendum or an election has been created, fed and grown obese. The former seemed to be the preferred and quickest way forward. More and more people came to expect that they will decide. The possibility that MPs can decide the matter in a definitive matter is new to most and this new possibility clashes with the expectations and perceptions that many people have. The motion of the PN goes against the reality as perceived by many people and the manner their expectations had been groomed.
An idea that most probably took time to develop within the party’s apparatus has now been thrust upon the people like a bolt from the blue. Different people are giving different interpretations to this development but no one whom I spoke too (barring party officials) gave the same interpretation Paul Borg Olivier gave to the papers and the one I explained above. None of those I spoke to believe that the real explanation is that being given by PBO.
Most people I spoke to are giving a totally different interpretation. They believe that after counting the votes the PN came to the conclusion that the motion can be killed without a referendum. And they decided to kill it without a referendum. Many are therefore feeling cheated. Others, quite naturally, feel relieved.
One would have hoped that the divisive nature of the subject would not have been exacerbated by a division about the methodology. One would have hoped that there would have been an agreement on the referendum question. One would have hoped that the different sides would have agreed that the result of the referendum would not have been contested before, say, ten years.
This scenario will probably not be possible now. The discussion will now shift from the core of the matter to the manner of the matter. The pro-divorce lobby will try to play up the feelings of those who – rightly or wrongly – feel cheated by this move. They can lose the battle in Parliament. However, does that mean that the pro-divorce lobby would have lost the war? Will they not clamour for a referendum asap or for a decision about the subject in an election? Is it in the interest of anyone to have divorce as an electoral issue? I do not think so.
If the anti-divorce lobby are ready to ditch the referendum if their side wins in Parliament will not the pro-divorce lobby be tempted to take a similar position if their side wins in Parliament?
I know that there is a difference between the two sides. The pro-divorce lobby does not have a Parliamentary mandate to introduce divorce. This is true. But will not the temptation be a big one if they have enough votes in Parliament. They will say: Let us take political responsibility for a pro-divorce vote and let the people vote us out – if they wish – in the next election. In the latter case divorce will be put in the same basket with water and electricity bills, BWSC, employment etc.
How can one solve the legal dilemma mentioned by PBO and choose the best way to proceed? I do not know the answer but I know that whenever politicians want to find a solution they always find it.