Legislation on divorce is found all over the world with the exception of the Vatican City, the Philippines, Andorra and Malta. Interesting to note is that, even though divorce is not part of the Maltese legal system, by virtue of article 33 of the Marriage Act (Chapter 255, Laws of Malta) a foreign divorce may be registered at the Annotations Section of the Public Registry. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the head of state at the Vatican is the Pope while the head of state of Andorra is the bishop.

In Malta, divorce is applicable to the chosen few. To those who have resided or theoretically resided abroad or who had foreign spouses. This anomaly has been going on for years and years and it has been accepted without any great commotion or upheavals by anti-divorce Maltese legislators or anti-divorce movements.

The obvious question is if a number of anti-divorce Maltese politicians, political parties and even the Catholic Church are strongly against the introduction of the legislation of divorce why are they immune to those divorces acquired from abroad and which are allowed to be registered in our Public Registry without any resistance? If something is considered immoral and wrong why should it be accepted when attained from a foreign country or if obtained by a small number of people? How is the common good being affected by these foreign divorces? Or is it all a matter of who manages to wield absolute power?

In view of the fact that the two political parties in Parliament have refrained obdurately from dealing with the divorce issue in the House and the divorce debate is still going around in circles, it was comfortably decided that the issue should be determined by a referendum even though Malta does not hold the referenda culture so much at heart, so much so that in the past 140 years it only held five referenda.

A referendum is quite a powerful, political, democratic instrument, which gives the electorate the opportunity to either accept or refute a particular issue. It is usually an issue of national interest and which would influence the lives of all citizens, irrespective of their beliefs, like Malta’s accession to the EU or the Lisbon Treaty.

Next month, Maltese citizens will be asked to cast their vote in a referendum in favour of or against the introduction of divorce legislation because most members of Parliament have adamantly chosen to do like Pontius Pilate and wash their hands off their responsibility. They preferred that this right, which affects only a small percentage of Maltese society and EU citizens residing in Malta, is decided through a referendum. Indeed, it will only affect a small minority and, therefore, is it necessary, just and fair that such legislation is decided by a referendum?

It seems that certain political parties allow rights to be renounced for fear of losing votes from people who cannot distinguish between state and Church and in fear of the backlash of the Roman Catholic Church itself. Religious faiths should always be respected but in a secular democracy laws should not be dictated or influenced by any religion.

Malta needs divorce legislation so that a number of individuals are not denied the right to choose how to live their lives as they so desire. But there has been an obvious perpetual lack of real political commitment on the part of certain political parties on this matter. Whether political parties agree or disagree with the dissolution of marriages, they should not deprive a group of their electorate from having divorce legislation because they will be condemning them to a terrestrial limbo and imprisoning them in a legal vacuum. Divorce is not only the dissolution of a failed marriage but the acceptance and coming to terms with that failure. It is a painful procedure but an indispensable one to move on in life.

It was Alternattiva Demokratika – the Green party that has set the ball rolling for divorce legislation when they presented the Irish and Italian divorce legislation to all the members of the Maltese Parliament in June 2010 after having included this proposal in all their electoral manifestos since 1989. They did so because Malta is a supposedly liberal and representative democracy, which is made up of a secular and pluralistic society.

The most important characteristic of any democracy will always be the majority rule but individual rights and liberties should always be protected by a responsible, compassionate and intelligent government. A number of citizens could suffer through absolute domination of the majority and ignoring the needs of a particular group of people is one of the biggest coercions in any democracy.

May 28, 2011 will be an important date for Malta. It could mark the beginning of the Maltese enlightenment with regard to the respect of basic civil rights. I will vote yes. What about you?

The author is deputy chairman and spokesman for civil rights of Alternattiva Demokratika – the Green party.