One hopes that a modern state does not succumb to the pretext of a ‘moral majority’. Several tests can verify this assumption. In the specific case of Malta, the first two relate to the religious establishment:
One, how far is Malta’s Catholic establishment (not to be confused with the Church) willing to accept that a secular state is clearly and actively distinct from ecclesiastic power, while the same secular state guarantees equal freedom to all faiths and ideologies to pronounce their position over issues like marriage, sexual orientation, lifestyle, education, and such matters?
Two, in the interest of all and not just the majority of Maltese citizens, how far is the secular state ready to distance itself from faith and ideology?
A third test is specific to the political establishment: Are political parties prepared to support a state that is secular, even when it comes to their own ideological position?
In other words, is the political establishment also aware of its own responsibilities towards a secular state, in that the state can never become an expression of a Nationalist, Social-Democratic, Christian-Democratic, or any other ideological position, even when the majority that elected the government of the day does so on the basis of its political convictions?
To date, the attitude shown by an identifiably vocal sector within the religious and political establishments confirms that in Malta all three tests fail dismally. This is clearly evident on two counts.
One, well-known influential figures from within the religious and political establishments have been expressly arrogant in their assumption that the state must moralise on matters where it should not (I have written about this long before any divorce legislation was proposed in Parliament; see The Sunday Times, September 28, 2008).
Two, the current divorce ‘debate’ confirms that a prominent section within the establishment is blatantly illiberal, as it claims that the state must intervene in matters that concern individual liberty and responsibility.
Moreover, this amply confirms that these influential groups remain vociferously opposed to any move in favour of a secular state as enshrined in Malta’s 1974 Constitution.
The latter is confirmed by a spate of useless (often farcical) polemics concerning public morals, censorship, civic and sexual education, the arts, entertainment, and so forth, where prominent members of the legal, political and religious establishments have dug in their heels, making bizarre pronouncements, and even citing God as their witness.
Since after independence and the republic, Nationalist and Labour governments have failed to protect the secular nature of the state.
This created an anomaly where while an increasing number of citizens, young and old, duly aspire for an open society that guarantees civil and individual liberties as enhanced by a sense of social justice and equity, Malta’s ruling elites continue to hesitate when it comes to guaranteeing an open society.
Apart from doing disservice to society, the greatest disservice goes towards the freedom of moral conviction itself. This is because the more the religious and political establishments use the state to moralise over matters that pertain to individual choice, the less it is possible for Maltese citizens to express and live their diverse moral convictions freely.
For those who cannot see the real threat in this state of affairs, I would just say that beyond the usual partisan absurdities that mark Maltese referendums, what is emerging from the divorce debate is a direct threat to the very notion of liberty.
Indeed, these are testing times for voters who have liberal and reformist aspirations for Malta.
Liberal and reform-minded democrats have always been crucial to Maltese politics. We can go back to Lord Strickland and the early politics of the centre-Left within the nascent Labour Party.
More recently we can cite those who elected post-War governments such as Paul Boffa’s, Dom Mintoff’s and then George Borg Olivier’s bid for Independence; those who voted for Mintoff’s social-democratic programme and the Republic; those who, on becoming disenchanted by Mintoff’s forceful populism, supported Eddie Fenech Adami’s political reforms; and those who bolstered Alfred Sant’s modernising programme but were then perplexed by his stance on EU membership.
I am not speaking of opportunist voters. Rather, I am referring to independent-minded voters who seek meaningful change.
In a modern democracy, voting patterns do not follow grand-narratives. Idiocy, deist zeal and confessional politics will not gain these voters’ support.
Politicians must realise that divorce represents only the first of many steps towards a modern European Maltese republic. The current test is a barometer for the future, though not a forecaster for the ‘end of the world’.
Prof. Baldacchino currently teaches at Columbia University, New York City.