The divorce debate winners

There is finally one group that will come out well of the divorce referendum fiasco which has over the past few months masqueraded as a debate; and that is the hundreds of Maltese living abroad who will take advantage of the chance to have a cheap holiday come May 28.

In a climate where it has been increasingly difficult to decipher the ridiculous given much of what has been said, providing this group with the option to travel for the princely sum of €35 must stand out in the front row.

Not only is it a total waste of taxpayers’ money since arrangements could have been made for them to vote either at the embassy where they are resident or – why not? – even by post, and moreover would have been a good testing ground to employ such a mechanism during a general election; but it is also ironic, given that many of these expatriates can get divorced by virtue of their residential status and, to boot, it will be recognised in Malta.

Irrespective of the outcome of the May 28 referendum, many should look back at the past few months as a period of unmitigated embarrassment.

What was supposed to be a national debate was hijacked by a handful of individuals on both sides who have bludgeoned the nation through the media with their own particular view. This has neither been pretty, nor edifying, and it is difficult to think of any participant that has not been bruised.

The Nationalist Party, for one, will probably live to regret the day it opened up a clear contradiction by declaring that its MPs have a free vote on one hand, and yet made it amply clear that anyone who truly supports the party should vote against the introduction of divorce on the other.

This has stifled true debate in a party which has for at least three decades now justifiably prided itself on its ability to embrace differing points of view, and silenced those MPs who secretly favour divorce but are afraid of voicing their true opinion lest they be accused of disloyalty. There may also be fall-out among the aggrieved after the referendum.

Labour has fared better in this mire, but the extent to which it has also stifled internal debate shows that although its leader wants to portray an image of being progressive, the old lion that is the rest of the party is not at all convinced it wants to follow and has forced him to look much more hamstrung than he would like. This leads to questions over his authority.

Meanwhile, the Church started in fine fashion, making its position clear and then taking a backseat after the Archbishop sensibly stated there should be no crusades. But this stance has been undone by several of his troops on the ground who in their public statements and sermons have gone way beyond what was supposed to be their remit.

Though it is not easy to control over 600 priests, the Curia does not appear to have done enough to exercise it, and some of the faithful who expected better are, as a result, disappointed if not disillusioned.

When it became clear that the divorce referendum would be held relatively quickly, we were of the opinion that this would not be enough time to properly weigh up the issue. However, we had assumed that debate meant educated discussion. Given the circumstances, the end cannot come quickly enough.