Seeking political gain from divorce debate (1)

Instead of concentrating on the debate about the divorce issue we are transferring the issue onto political instability. We are even differing on when to discuss the issue (as if a few days will make a difference), on how to ask the question (as if it matters – divorce is the termination of a union; after one year or after four it is still creates the same devastation) or on the question if the Prime Minister is manoeuvring. The bickering by the politicians on the divorce issue is similar to two people who need to take serious cognisance of their behaviour. Austin Bencini asked the President to intervene “so that the institutions live up to the dignity the Constitution and, above all, the people of Malta expect of them”. Well said, I thought that we had elected a different genre of people in Parliament.

Do we vote on the divorce issue in a referendum or do we vote against the attitude certain politicians are taking? Politicians should lead by example. Their maturity should set standards. It may be necessary to introduce a code of conduct for politicians rather than a Bill promoting divorce.

Today we are discussing divorce, tomorrow it may be abortion or same-sex marriage and in 20 years’ time it may be polygamy. Whatever the topic, the behaviour of politicians should be representative of our behaviour as mature citizens.

“The gain from the debate” attitude is being taken on board by politicians, secondary political groups and media. The keywords in this referendum seem to be the fact that once two people are living apart for four years then they might as well divorce. But what happens in this period? Children whose parents part still need family. The children are at the mercy of the parents. The victims of divorce are the children especially when they are used as pawns. Is this going to be written on the referendum papers as a hazard in the same way that we inform people of health hazards on a packet of cigarettes? The result of a divorce includes: financial payments from one party to another, secured periodical payments, property subdivision etc. In a nutshell it means that both parties will be worse off after the divorce proceedings are over. Is there going to be a warning about the emotional and psychological damage that divorce can cause?

Politicians seem to want to avoid a vote in Parliament because some of them do not want to declare their position on divorce. Such a position may be damaging to their re-election. The referendum gives them this option.

The government should strengthen the provision of counselling services offered to date to spouses whose marriage is facing problems. Counselling by a third party can help to reconcile the partners in a broken marriage. Confidential mediation may assist both parties. The political parties do not seem to be concerned about proposing concrete ways to strengthen a marriage but are proposing legislation to terminate a union.