Confusion galore on vital issue

I am confused. Now, may I state with the greatest humility that I am an ardent follower of all that is news and current affairs, including news coverage, discussions and commentaries on the media and I do know a thing or two. Yet, the confusion which has been created in my mind by this whole divorce debate is unbelievable. I am overwhelmed by the stances adopted by our two main political parties over the procedure or sequence to be followed in the implementation or otherwise of a divorce law.

The divorce debate has been on the books, on and off, for a long time now. Just to go back some 15 years, then Prime Minister Alfred Sant set up a commission to make proposals. A report was filed. This was shelved when Eddie Fenech Adami came back to power in 1998. Obviously, he would have nothing of the report or the subject of divorce itself – and he has remained strongly consistent till this day. To my knowledge, divorce was never the subject of a party electoral manifesto. Then, even prior to his election as Labour Party leader some two years ago, Joseph Muscat declared himself in favour of divorce and even pledged to move a Private Member’s Bill when he was to be Prime Minister.

Confusion number one: a Prime Minister moving a Private Member’s Bill?

Also surprisingly, and indeed clandestinely, Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando moved a Private Member’s Bill for the introduction of divorce. In this, not only did he pull the carpet from under Dr Muscat’s feet, deflating his balloon, but also surprised his own leader and the other members of the Nationalist Party parliamentary group, or did he?

Dr Pullicino Orlando was then joined by Labour MP Evarist Bartolo and together they moved a slightly amended Bill, thus giving more credibility to the issue, crossing party lines if you like. Without much delay we had the birth of the pro- and anti-divorce movements.

Alternattiva Demokratika, consistent from the start, came out fully in favour, with no particular reservations.

The Church, save for a couple of “ultra” monsignors, stated it would not participate in the debate, although we hear and read regular contributions in the form of “in favour of the family” even from Archbishop Paul Cremona himself. There is absolutely no doubt where our clerics (or, at least, most of them) stand and this in accordance with Christ’s teachings. The political parties did not take a stand initially.

Faced with a Private Member’s Bill, which was procedurally correct, the government had no choice but to tackle the issue. The PN, not without dissenting voices within the executive committee and parliamentary group, took a stand against. PL, as is so typical of it, bereft of principles as it is, but expedient to the last, sat and continues to sit on the fence as it has always done (best example of this, perhaps, being the hunting issue).

Both parties have acknowledged (as if they could do otherwise) they had no mandate from the people for the introduction of divorce. Hence, the people had to be consulted at some point through a referendum.

But what comes first, the proposed Bill or the referendum? The Prime Minister went for the Bill, thus, probably, dispensing with the need for a referendum. The Leader of the Opposition went for the jugular, moving a parliamentary motion for a referendum, knowing such would pass through the House. The Prime Minister had no choice but to take this on and follow Dr Muscat’s lead (what with unanimity in his parliamentary group and a vote from Dr Pullicino Orlando – at least – from the government side). We must remember that a free vote has been given by both leaders all round, so no breach of party rules or discipline is possible.

In this whole process, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have performed remarkable U-turns, the former changing his priorities or sequence from a referendum to a Bill and the latter from a Bill to a referendum.

Confusion number two.

A game of chess at its very best but, at least, we fools thought we had finally got there. There was agreement that a referendum would come first. The pro- and anti-divorce movements also adopted this line of thinking. But then there were further checks (as in checkmate) to be put in position before one of the kings was taken out.

Firstly, the timing of the referendum. The Leader of the Opposition pushed hard for an immediate and short debate, with an equally short deadline for the people to throw their lot in. The Prime Minister insisted that a referendum should be held in some three months’ time, giving sufficient time for analysis.

Secondly, what was the question to be asked to these people (I mean us: me and you). Was it a short “Yes” or “No” or was it to be qualified by the parameters of the divorce legislation being proposed in the now famous Bill? At the time of writing, there is now agreement on the first point, Dr Muscat having accepted Lawrence Gonzi’s proposed date of May 28, but there is disagreement on the second.

Confusion number three.

And all this while we people are being bandied about and push has come to shove, moving from chess to rugby (and, in the meantime, proving by this that mind games like table football and politics, of course, all definitely qualify for the annual sports awards).

How’s that for a confused background and existing situation? Readers will note I have not taken a position on the merits of the issue, although I know, more or less, though not absolutely, where I stand. I will say one thing, however. There is no hurry. This is a matter of fundamental importance to Maltese society and has to be considered and analysed with the utmost responsibility and maturity.