Divorce: the strategy of divide and rule

When looking at how individuals drop their principles to embrace totally opposing views, one is not far away from the phenomenon called compartmentalisation. The Romans used a similar strategy. They created division among their subordinates and ruled for centuries. Likewise individuals tend to divide several spheres of their own lives, pretending that these are not interrelated with others and in this way they come to justify what they have found disdainful so far.

This phenomenon has boomed during the divorce debate culminating in the referendum question that is itself a showcase of this compartmentalisation. The question opens only one compartment, showing a marriage that has irretrievably broken down leaving us thinking that we ought to help these poor guys build a new legitimate relationship.

The compartmentalised question depicts only one scenario where there is not even the remotest chance of reconciliation and where maintenance and care for children are guaranteed. And sceptics who might equate divorce with a quick fix or irresponsible behaviour are assured in the same question that after four years of thorough soul-searching such Vegas-style decadence could be completely ruled out.

But compartmentalisation has been taken even further by demoting marriage for life to a purely Church domain, something that should only be endorsed by those that pretend that they are holier than thou. Poor grandma could be in an awkward dilemma! What is she to do when her grandchild has been abandoned by his or her spouse? With this compartmentalisation the pro-divorce group wishes to ease grandma’s woes. She will hopefully help her grandchild irrespective of her religious beliefs which she should eclipse for a while.

The pro-divorce group segregated other compartments proclaiming them as the only issues that are at stake. It has been repeated ad nauseam to look at divorce simply from the perspective of a civil right. Others told us that we are the only backward nation in Europe without divorce. John Citizen was mandated to keep on hammering that divorce is tantamount to discrimination against the poor because the rich can have divorce abroad.

In Malta the pro-divorce group knows that many a hurdle on the way to the ultimate goal of introducing divorce could be best overcome through compartmentalisation. When it comes to satisfy their appetites, going after their “namra” and building preferably in outside development zones, Maltese go ahead at all costs. When it comes to acquire something extravagant in life, Maltese are second to none. Why should Maltese reject divorce when offered as that something extra in life at least for those who “need” it?

But many would not let themselves be so easily fooled without looking at the two main drawbacks of compartmentalisation. Halfway through this process one realises that one’s own integrity has been compromised. And somewhere near the end of it one has to face a very short-lived success. At some point in time many will realise that helping the one to the detriment of others might not be the best way forward.

At this stage we are still in a position to look around and see what other countries have achieved through 40 years of divorce. Divorces breed more divorces as trust erodes. In Vienna we have 60 per cent of all marriages ending in divorce. And Vienna lies at the core of Europe that some of our politicians wish to reach.