It seems strange but there are enough signs to suggest it strongly; Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi appears to have decided to shred his personal credibility as a politician. He has performed badly in recent months and performed several U-turns and his repertoire in that area is still not exhausted. As the leader of a party, Dr Gonzi’s actions are grist to the mill. But as the national leader his downhill rush is worrying.

It accelerated with the way he dealt with the substantial pay rise he gave to himself and to his Cabinet and parliamentary secretaries. Not a single at least semi-objective voice was heard to back that decision.

The Prime Minister found partisan support over the BWSC power-station-extension affair. Other than that criticism was flung at him from all quarters of the media. He brazen­ed through the storm, though it may well yet come to haunt him.

He did so too over the ministerial pay increases, which mistake he compounded by suspending the increase he had belatedly given to MPs but leaving in place the additional MP’s old salary he granted to himself and his political executive colleagues. Through all that he displayed political arrogance without the least regret for it.

His latest U-turn, on referring the divorce legislation issue to the voters through a referendum, is the worst of the lot, so far. At a stroke he has destroyed part of his profile as a legislative expert as well as building a new one as an accommodator of party interests.

Dr Gonzi had acquired a fine reputation as Speaker of the House. During his years in that role he built up a formidable knowledge of the laws of Malta going beyond that of a normal lawyer as well as unmatched experience of how the House of Representatives works. His statements on divorce legislation and holding a referendum about it have to be seen in that context.

As expected, he made it personally clear from the start of the debate, unleashed by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s declaration that he would put forward a Private Member’s Bill promoting divorce legislation, that he would vote against such a measure. But as Prime Minister he was careful to point out that there was no political mandate for divorce and promised, in so many words, to put the issue to the people in a referendum.

When he did so he knew well enough that a Referendum Act existed. He made no reference to it, though he must have reappraised himself of its provisions before pronouncing himself. He never suggested it might be an impediment to the fulfilment of the word he had given. It is only now that he and his party say that – because of that Act – a referendum will not be held if the House does not approve the Private Member’s Bill and will only be held if it says yes to the principle.

At a stroke, Dr Gonzi undermined his credibility as a parliamentary legislation expert. For, either he had misread the Referendum Act or he had deliberately ignored it and taken Dr Pullicino Orlando and the people of Malta for a ride when he promised a referendum. There is another possibility: behind the scenes someone (Austin Gatt?) had pressed the Referendum Act ploy upon him.

Whichever way he got there, the Prime Minister has landed himself in a morass of lack of credibility. His position on divorce legislation had already shown gaping holes – talking about not wanting such legislation because marriage is a permanent bond, though knowing that legal separations recognise that the bond had broken, plus also preparing to legislate to provide for cohabitation, which some see as being worse than divorce.

The position now is that the Nationalist Party has foisted its decision upon the House of Representatives, posing a challenge to those who do not agree with divorce legislation but feel it should be up to the people to decide in a referendum. At a time when people’s power elsewhere is reflected in public demonstrations, it is ironic that in democratic Malta power can be taken from the people through partisan manoeuvring.

The parliamentary vote on the Bill will no longer be, in reality, about whether there should be divorce legislation or not. It will be about whether the House of Representatives recognises the supreme right of the people to have their proper say on how they wish to be regulated. Every MP has to stand up and be counted in that context.