Moving forward amid changes

Putting aside the content of the debate about enhancing access to divorce legislation in Malta, it could be soundly argued that one significant development that has been in the making over these last weeks and months is the re-emergence of a vibrant civil dialogue, at least on this salient issue.

With relatively more on the yes than the no camp, several movements have been set up in order to put forward their perspectives. Initially, there was the setting up of Iva għad-Divorzju, Iva għaż-Żwieġ – a movement that is more targeted to the general population. Eventually, Stand-Up was created in order to focus on youths. Very recently, we have also witnessed the establishing of Kattoliċi, Iva għax Dritt.

In a nutshell, the yes camp’s arguments were all in favour of pushing forward the idea that the state and religion should be further separated, mainly because today’s society is becoming more diversified. Moreover, other issues raised were those about the importance of opening up access to all Maltese citizens and not only to those who can afford to obtain divorce from abroad.

On the other side, the no camp has also been more or less in the same boat in terms of fragmentation. First, there was the creation of the Żwieġ bla Divorzju movement. Then, we had the Kristu Iva, Divorzju Le group. Eventually, the Le, b’Rispett Lejn il-Ġejjieni movement was set up just two weeks before the referendum.

Analytically, it could be argued that this side has adopted a relatively more top-down approach, whereby, indirectly or directly, the Church in Malta and the Nationalist Party were the main drivers in conveying the arguments, first against divorce as such and then against the type of proposed divorce legislation. Basically, the main message was on the need to be cautious about the change in marriage as an institution, with a preference for cohabitation legislation rather than divorce.

This composition of both sides raises several issues about the nature of civil dialogue in Maltese society. When I mention the term “civil dialogue”, I would be referring to dialogue that goes beyond discussions between unions, employers and the government. Civil dialogue also includes civil society, usually in the form of non-governmental organisations. But do we really have a vibrant civil society that is “free” from the major political actors in this country, mainly the Church, and the two major political parties?

If I take this example of divorce, one cannot simply conclude with a straight yes or no. Starting from the two political parties, the role of the Nationalist Party has been much more explicit and visible than that of the Labour Party, mainly because of their different stands on this issue. Evidently, the PN has taken a more formal position against divorce, while letting its members vote according to their conscience. On the other hand, the PL has not taken a position, and it has basically left everybody free to vote as per his/her conscience.

On the other hand, this debate has witnessed quite clearly the re-emergence of an active Catholic Church. As an NGO, it could simply be argued that the Church had all the right to state its position about divorce. However, the problems started to arise when its position started to become so disproportionately influential on people – who are basically citizens of the Maltese state and the European Union, while simultaneously they also have the right to practise whatever religion they want.

With such a significant direct/indirect influence, this secular country still has lots to do in order to start calling itself a truly secular state that understands the fact that this country is becoming more diverse in the face of more globalisation. And, as a result, civil dialogue based on mutual understanding between different sectors in society will eventually become even more important than ever. The time for automatic loyalty is gone. Today and tomorrow will be characterised by earned loyalty and not by imposed rules. And no single institution is bigger than its “own” people.

In the face of these small but meaningful changes, people have been and are clearly showing that change in the political style is needed more than ever. Since joining the EU, the divorce debate has clearly demonstrated how far the Maltese society has already changed. Nowadays, people are more open to minorities. They are giving more importance to higher product and production standards. Moreover, there is a common understanding that nothing is earned freely. And, in addition, apart from more emphasis on more social and civil rights, people are also asking for higher ethical standards from our leading class, be it the political, religious, social or economic spheres.

Today’s challenges cannot be solved with yesterday’s paradigms. There is no sense in stopping the clock. There is even much less sense in trying to impose models that do not fit with the people’s lives.

The way forward is simply to engage with this increasing diversity while, at the same time, lead it in an equitable and more transparent manner.