Parliament is today expected to approve a motion for the holding of a consultative referendum on the divorce draft law. The referendum day is set for May 28. I have little doubt divorce will continue to top our domestic concerns in the coming months and there will be little room for discussing other local matters.

This is the second referendum in 10 years and only the fourth in more than 50 years. The referendum of 1956 sought the Maltese approval on the issue of integration, the one in 1964 approved Malta’s Independence and the 2003 referendum sealed Malta’s entry in the European Union. In all the three previous referenda, the opinion divide was along party lines as the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party held completely different stands and in all three instances the parties were at the heart of the campaign leading up to the referendum.

In the run-up to the 2003 EU referendum, for instance, the parties’ propaganda machinery worked in full force to promote the respective party position. Billboards were erected in every corner of the islands and mass meetings were held every weekend. The voting document distribution was monitored by the two parties and assistant commissioners were nominated not only by the Electoral Commission but also by the two parties. In the counting hall, the parties’ election officials monitored and followed closely the counting process. The parties’ involvement in the 2003 and the previous referenda were appropriate because parties took official positions.

The upcoming referendum will be different. First of all, the issue does not only have political implications but also social consequences. Secondly, the proponents of the Bill for the introduction of divorce come from both sides of the House. In addition, MPs from both sides oppose the introduction of divorce in Malta.

While the PN took an official stand on the issue, it allowed a free vote to its MPs. Conversely, while the PL leader made his views on divorce known, his party did not take an official position and the Labour MPs too will be allowed a free vote in Parliament when the eventual question is put for their approval or otherwise. In this scenario, it would not be advisable for parties to take a central role in the run-up to the referendum. I do not expect parties to hold mass meetings and neither do I expect them to have a full-blown campaign. After all, public opinion is divided across party lines and not along party lines.

Should parties take the logical step of staying clear from actively being involved in the debate one would then question their involvement in the organisation and counting process of the referendum.

I do not think they should be involved. If parties are not involved, then who should monitor the electoral process? One might suggest the pro- and anti-divorce movements. Others might suggest the Catholic Church. In my opinion, there is room for all three entities but I doubt whether any of them have the necessary manpower to handle such a task.

This brings me to my next point. Should anyone apart from the Electoral Commission be involved in the organisation and counting process? I think not.

The Electoral Commission is capable of handling the entire organisation without any other entities’ input and could save taxpayers a few tens of thousands of euros in the process as well. First of all, votes should not necessarily be cast by a voting document – an ID card should suffice. Secondly, only assistant commissioners nominated by the commission should be present in polling booths; three in each is more than enough.

Finally, the counting of votes should not be centralised. It is very easy in such a circumstance to open the ballot box at 10 p.m. when polling stations close and the same assistant commissioners count the votes in the same polling station.

The vote counting procedure is, after all, straightforward and not complicated like our elections. It will take no more than an hour to separate and count the ayes from the nays of 400 odd ballots in each box. The national tallies ought to be compiled by the Electoral Commission and a result announced before dawn. If the commission simplifies the procedure, it would not need to find a counting hall, engage counting assistants and the other ancillary personnel and materials normally associated with the conducting of elections.

The political parties failed to reach consensus on simplifying the referendum question. This time round they ought to step aside and let the Electoral Commission simplify the referendum process.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.