Hermann Schiavone
Analysing the referendum result
At 10.30 a.m. last Sunday, only half an hour after the sorting of votes started, those like myself who were present at the counting hall were given the first indications of a victory for the Yes camp. By 11 a.m. the picture became clearer. The samples confirmed the initial indications that the margin of the Yes win was wider than one was expecting. The final outcome is now known and, unlike other referenda, the result is not contested. This is probably the most positive thing about this electoral exercise.
Why did the Maltese electorate return this result? What were the factors which may have contributed to this result? What are the consequences of this result for the political parties? I will attempt to answer these questions by looking at some numbers.
By Maltese standards, the turnout was very low. At 72 per cent, last Saturday’s was the lowest turnout in national elections in the last 50 years. Why, one may ask? Was the electorate not interested in the issue? There are a number of possible explanations for this. Saturday’s referendum was extraordinary because it was the first referendum which had civil rather than political implications. It was the first electoral exercise in which the two main political parties did not participate directly. Mass meetings normally organised in general elections and referenda campaigns were absent this time. Though their respective party leaders pronounced themselves for and against divorce, most MPs remained silent during the campaign. The lack of parties’ direct involvement in the campaign and mobilisation of voters may have affected turnout.
Throughout the campaign it has been said that, although the two parties had a declared (PN) and undeclared (PL) position on the issue of divorce, the divide on the matter was across rather than along party lines. Last Saturday’s result, however, shows that while, the Labour leaning districts returned a strong Yes vote, only three traditional Nationalist districts returned a No vote. The second, third, fourth and fifth districts returned a Yes vote almost in the same proportions as they generally do in a general election for the PL. On the other hand, the Nationalist strongholds, such as the ninth and 10th districts, returned a Yes vote in spite of the PN declaring itself against divorce. This leads me to conclude that, bar a few exceptions, the Labour supporters voted in line with their party leader who campaigned for a Yes vote. On the other hand the Nationalist vote was divided on this issue.
The PN is a coalition of conservatives and liberals. The conservative Nationalists voted against divorce while the liberals voted in favour. Saturday’s vote clearly demonstrated that there is a concentration of liberal Nationalists in the ninth, 10th and 12th districts, hence the Yes vote in these localities. In spite of voting against their party line, the liberals are still convinced Nationalists and their natural home remains the PN. Most would tend to vote PN on the PN’s proven liberal track record, particularly on economic issues, however the PN would do well to draw lessons from the strong showing of liberal voters in its traditional strongholds.
The Gozitan vote was predicted from day one of the campaign. The 68 per cent who voted against divorce are not all Nationalist as the PN’s vote in Gozo in the last general election was only 55 per cent. It appears therefore that unlike Malta a substantial chunk of Labour voters in rural Gozo voted No. The Church is an important element for many Gozitans, and the bishops’ and Church’s instructions to their faithful seem to have found more fertile ground in our sister island than they have found in the mainland.
The media and the internet too played an important role during the campaign. The blogs on the internet were definitely won by those in favour of divorce. This medium is proving to be an important tool for campaigning and the two parties will, in the coming months, seek ways to maximise their potential in the run-up to the next general election. Apart from the PN’s media which was squarely behind the No camp, the rest of the media were all behind the Yes movement.
In this referendum we have once again witnessed the power of the media and the internet. The next general election may be two years away but the battle to win over the media’s support begins now. I dare say that the party which manages to win the media’s support is likely to win the next general election.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
38 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr John Cassar
Jun 1st 2011, 19:11
Dear Hermann, your numerical analysis is clear enough and generally correct.
However one point that I disagree on is that " In spite of voting against their party line, liberals remain convinced Nationalists and their natural home remains the PN".
If this is the opinion of the think tank at Pieta, the party will face an unimaginable defeat in just under two years time.
Mr Aristide Galea
Jun 1st 2011, 16:37
Sur Joe Borg,
Ma tista qatt thallat id-divorzju ma l-abort u ma l-awtenasja jew zwieg bejn koppji ta'l-istess sess,u dan ghas-semplici raguni li filwaqt li bid-divorzju ser tkun qed taghti ic-cans lill-dawk li jkun tkissrilhom iz-zwieg taghhom jerghu jibdew hajja gdida bil-possibilta li jkollhom l-ulied(mela favur il-hajja),kemm bl-abort u kemm bl-awtenasja tkun qed teqred il-hajja.
Rigward koppji ta l-istess sess,dan qatt ma jista jigi paragunat ma zwieg bejn mara u ragel li hu dak naturali. Qed nghid li zwieg bejn mara u ragel hu naturali,ghax dawn ikunu jistghu ikollhom it-tfal,filwaqt li koppji ta' l-istess sess dan ma jista jkunn qatt. Pero dawn il-koppji xorta ghandhom ikollhom id-drittijiet taghhom salvagwardati b'ligijiet addattati ghal dawn is-sitwazzjonjiet.
Kemm zwieg bejn mara u ragel hu naturali tista tikkonfermah anke jekk thares lejn in-natura. Ma tistax tkun trabbi l-ghasafar u tilaq zewgt irgiel f'gagga u tippretendi li jkollok il-frieh. Jew titlaq zewg zrameg nisa u titama li jkollok xi boton fniek. Lanqas kelb u kelb. Mela ghall dak li hu naturali,bilfors iridu jkunu mara u ragel.
Mela bhall ma qed tara Sur Borg,dawn huma suggetti differenti min xulxin u ghallhakk trid tevalwahom b'mod differenti.
Mr Joe Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 19:37
Jhekk ma tridx tuzha l-ewtanasja, tuzahhiex. Imma toqodx timponi fuqi u tejdli x'ghandi naghmel b'hajti.
Mhux hekk irragunajna meta morna nivvutaw ghad-divorzju.
Mhux sew li is-sinjur biss li jaffordja immur barra min Malta, ghadu dritt ghal-ewtanasja.
Mhux hekk irragunajna meta morna nivvutaw ghad-divorzju.
Dan ir-referendum fetah il-bieb ghall kull dritt iehor li jezisti. (abbort, ewtanasja, zwieg gay etc)
Mr Galea ghalkem dawn id-drittijiet jistghu jidru koroh f'ghajnejk, trid tifhem li mhux kullhadd ghandu listess valuri tieghi u tieghhekk.
Meta mort nivvota kontra id-divorvju qaluli xi dritt ghandhekk li timponi fuq haddiehor, u jhekk nuzaw l-istess argument fuq l-abort, ewtanasja etc.. jien xi dritt ghandi ninponi il-valuri tieghi fuq haddiehor.
Ha naghmila cara, jien ma naqbel ma ebda min dawk id-drittijiet li semmejt u anqas mad-divorzju.
Il-mistoqsijja dejjem hija wahda, fejn ha naqthu linja ta dak li hu tajjeb u dak li u hazin. Ghax dak li hazin ghalik ma jfissirx li hu hazin ghalija.
Steve Pace
Jun 1st 2011, 13:06
@ Herman Schiavone - " Church’s instructions to their faithful seem to have found more fertile ground in our sister island than they have found in the mainland"
I am sure you meant " Church’s hysterical cries, emotional blackmail and spiritual threats to their faithful seem to have found more fertile ground in our sister island than they have found in the mainland"
Mariella Caruana
Jun 1st 2011, 10:56
now we got got out of the marriage equatiion, lets make a more liberal move and call it a civil union. this way the homosexual minorities will have equal rights.
Gerry Cowie
May 31st 2011, 20:09
Whils the result was a pretty close run thing - 52% is not a massive majority, but nevertheless a majority - what is interesting is that all those who have been clamouring for ages for recognition of minorities within a democracy, seem to be ready to neglect the 48% of people who voted against. Now why might that be>
Ramon Casha
May 31st 2011, 20:34
re the 48%... what do you suggest?
Steve Pace
Jun 1st 2011, 13:03
Re the 48 % Minority - They already have there Rights guarded. They have never been and will never be forced to apply or divorce. Minorities which need to be considered usually are fighting for their voices to be heard and for their rights to be placed in legislation. If you can tell us what rights or injustice this minority is suffering then please come up with a solution as Ramon Casha is asking you. Unless of course it is just a matter of ego which is involved in some of the commentators sour grapes attitude.
Mr Alexander Pace Gouder.
May 31st 2011, 18:58
I would say that Hermann Schiavone 's Analyse is mostly correct. What worried me most during The Referendum Campaign from feedback obtained was the many voters were very confused as how to vote due to various reasons: This was a Divorce Referendum and by the statements by PN/PL Leaders in a way turned to be a backing for the PL and maybe a vote against The PN .Maybe the PN Voters wanted again to show that they are not happy with the way The Government is pressing the nation (mainly families being hard hit) with one example: The Water and Electricity Bills? If this was the case and this is my view again and what I thing and many may not agree with me these PN voters could have wated for another time and a less important issue to show there anger towards the PN as this Devorce Bill Referedum was on a very very SERIOUS ISSUE which will effect the Nation as a whole.
riccardo borg
May 31st 2011, 17:31
What disgusted me most in the replies to comments, in the Times, at this referendum were the venomous phrases thrown at the Holy Church and Christ Himself from people calling themselves catholic. They were only serpents hiding behind the catholic name.
Just imagine us being muslim instead of catholic. How many of these foul serpents would have dared to show their vitriolic character? How long would have they lasted?
Victor Rodenas
May 31st 2011, 17:53
hafna PN ivvutaw IVE konta ix -xewqa tal leader taghhom.
Mr Joe Borg
May 31st 2011, 16:15
ir-referendum ghadda ghax il-laburisti li kienu kontra id-divorzju ma hargux jivvutaw biex ma jmorrux kontra il-kelma tal-mexxej taghhom.
Jien niftakar li meta JPO hareg bil-mozjoni biex iddahhal id-divorzju hafna nies haduha kontrieh. Umbad x'hin fetah halqu Joseph Muscat li huwa favur id-divorzju, il-vezjoni imbidlet u kulhadd beda jaqbel li ghandu jidhol id-divorzju. Poplu Pupaz f'idejn il-politici.
Jhekk hareg xi haga f'dan ir-referendum, zgur li harget l-injoranza tal-malti fl-aqwa taha.
George Cremona
Jun 1st 2011, 00:00
X'tistenna minn din il-kwalita' ta' nies? Ezempju wiehed li juri l-intelligenza taghhom: George Abela meta kien ghadu Vici Kap tal-MLP fi zmien Alfred Sant inghata ovazzjoni kbira mid-delegati tal-Konferenza Genarali tal-Partit wara li l-istess George Abela kien tkellem kontra elezzjoni bikrija. Ovazzjoni li kienet qed turi car li l-Konferenza kienet qed taqbel mieghu. Propju l-ghada, mhux il-pitghada, erbgha u ghoxrin siegha wara l-istess delegati tal-istess Konferenza tal-istess partit tghat l-istess ovazzjoni lil George Vella li kien it-tieni Vici Kap li tkellem b'insistenza favur elezzjoni bikrija.
Hemm bzonn nghid izjed biex nuri kemm verament huma nies li jitmexxew minn mnehirhom?
Charlie Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 06:30
Ma nahsibx. Pjuttost il-kontra: li l-Maltin urew fehmithom.
Iktar nahseb li l-injuranza tal-malti tidher 'fl-aqwa taha' waqt il-process tal-ghazla tal-mexxej tal-partit.
(U hawn qed nalludi ghat-tnejn li huma).
Mr Aristide Galea
Jun 1st 2011, 10:03
Mr. Joe Borg,
B'dak li ghadek kif ghidt, dwar kemm veru ghawn injoranza grassa fost
il-maltin,tista facilment tikkonfermha jekk sempliciment thares fil-mera.
Dak li hareg zgur f'dan ir-referendum hu,li il maltin bdew jirrejalizzaw li hadd ma ghandu dritt li jimponi il valuri tieghu fuq haddiehor.
Is-separazzjoni bejn dak li hu religjuz u dak li hu civili,ghanda tkun cara.
Dan qed nghidu mhux ghax jien favur id-divorzju,ghax minhix,izda ghax nemmen li dak li hu t' ALLA tih l' ALLA u Dak li hu ta' CESRI tih lil CESRI.
Mr Joe Borg
Jun 1st 2011, 14:12
@Mr Aristide Galea
Mr Aristide Galea, mela issa nisperaw li meta nigu niex indahlu l-abbort, ewtanasja, u zwieg bejn il-gay, hadt ma joqghid jimponi il-valuri tieghu fuq haddiehor, u immorru nivvutaw IVA.
Il-mistoqsijja hija wahda, fejn ha naqthu linja ta dak li hu tajjeb u dak li u hazin. Dak li hazin ghalik ma jfissirx li hu hazin ghalija.
Jien naqbel mieghhekk li ghandu ikun hemm separazjoni bejn stat u knisja.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 31st 2011, 15:55
Either Marriage or divorce! Divorce goes directly against marriage. Divorce renders marriage cohabitation. The fact that the married spouses have the possibility of divorce proves that there can never be marriage including divorce.
Remarriage after divorce is likewise cohabitation.
It is completely unreasonable to be in favour of marriage and in favour of divorce. Whoever is in favour of divorce necessarily is against marriage.
Christ is against divorce and in favour of the indissolubility of marriage. The devil is in favour of divorce. Those who love Christ necessarily must be against divorce. Those who favour divorce favour and are following the devil.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Mark Abdilla
May 31st 2011, 17:13
Dear Joe Zammit,
You lost.
Sincreley, the majority of Malta
Ramon Casha
May 31st 2011, 20:35
Would that be a new guarantee?
Mr Aristide Galea
Jun 1st 2011, 11:06
Mr.Joe Zammit.
Are you still living on the moon, have'nt you noticed that your guarantee have expired.
There was no fight between GOD and the devil. It was a fight between Freedom of Choice and Imposition.
The fact that someone voted yes in the referendum does not neccessary mean that he is in favour of divorce,but is in favour that this civil right should be made available to those who choose to make use of it. Nobody is going to be forced to divorce if he does not want to. But the fact that it is available,it makes all the differance. And this is called Freedom of Choice.
Ray Briffa
Jun 1st 2011, 19:10
Mr Joe Zammit - in the build up to the referendum you stated 1,831 times that "victory is guaranteed!" (yes I counted them all :-). In the end, victory was just a fantasy in your head....and still is......
TANIA BORG
May 31st 2011, 14:48
I have been reading all the comments posted and frankly I don't see why the fuss. I am a Roman Catholic and I believe in Christ's words so I voted accordingly. This has nothing to do with sympathatising with people who are suffering. I do sympathise, but let's not forget that these people were married in church of their own free will, nobody forces anyone to have a church wedding. I was married to a foreigner and had a civil wedding. My marriage did not work out as happens in most of these marriages, and I obtained an annulment, end of story.
What worries me though is now that divorce has been voted through by the people, who is going to pay for the divorcees? That is the question, all the parties are saying that they will legislate to help sustain the family and that is what is really worrying me. Since I am single and have been for the best part of my working life, I have been heavily taxed to finance all the social benefits each party in government has been handing out in order to get voted in government, and frankly now I am fed up of paying for the mistakes and irresponsibilties of others. Most of the people I know who have seperated do not go to work since they state they have children to bring up, and their dear husbands stop working so they do not have to pay child support, so they go on social welfare.
My question is, if you are not willing to pay child support to your first wife, how are you going to be willing to pay alimony to your second? Will the government be expected to foot the bill through our taxes? That is the question that I want both sides of parliament to answer, fine words are OK, but facts count much more. It's easy to be generous and show solidarity when it's not your money you are giving out.
And one more comment, through my experience going through one bad marriage is more than traumatic and speaking for myself, I definitely will not repeat it. Your life can go on without getting into another marriage, but probably most people are not like me and need more than one fall to get the message.
So I wish you all good luck as long as I am not expected to pay for it.
Mr Adrian Borg Cardona
May 31st 2011, 17:26
Ms Borg, while I synpathise with your situation, I just ask you two questions: (1) is the taxpayer presently paying for the families of those people who have seperated from their spouse and formed new families? (2) divorce does not necessarily lead to remarriage as you yourself state - so why all these worries about paying more taxes following the divorce law?
Nazzareno Cortis
May 31st 2011, 18:49
Don't you think that these are lost arguments now-------the people have voted,and the result is known----so there is no use of trying to revers the outcome!!!! Calm down and face facts!!!! No one is forcing married couples to divorce,not even the proposed divorce law!!!!
Mr Chris Grillo
Jun 1st 2011, 06:56
Ms. Borg..... you are so wring. THIS IS MALTA.
Many men are forced to marry through church because the BRIDE insists... I have scores of friends who married in church only because ' It-tfajla tixtieq hekk'.... and it is absolutely useless for you to deny it....
I can tell you that many many many men do not give a hoot about religion. Not me, mind you. But I have eyes and ears. Religion is no longer the comfort it once was... hardly surprising, but people are learning to ask questions that religion can never answer.
Mr Dominic Chircop
May 31st 2011, 13:27
Mr Joe Zammit, thanks a lot, for you proved to be the champion of the YES lobby.
God will no doubt cast you down into hell for all the assistance you gave to the devil.
By the way, which devil are you talking of ? Is it Belzeebub, Satan, Satanachia, Belfagor; pray which one ?
As you seem to be in cahoots with the devil, tiekol il-kirxa mieghu, enlighten us a bit !
Mr Chris Grillo
Jun 1st 2011, 06:57
Joe Zammit is preaching in a desert.
Mr Dominic Chircop
May 31st 2011, 12:19
The PN is a coalition of conservatives and liberals, so said Mr Schiavone.
Now, is that so ?
Is the liberal wing in the party appointing members of Opus Dei to certain significant posts ? And please do not try to deny this.
Our party even has in its midst members who try to dictate to us whether we should use condoms; whether we should take the morning after pill; how many eggs to implant in IVF interventions; they debar us from stem cell research and surgery; they try to save our souls rather than our bodies !!
No Mr Schiavone. You must indeed be blinkered to see the PN as a shade liberal. Rather, the last two leaders have been the paragon of Hizbollah. And do not delude yourself that in a general election all supporters will return to the fold.
Unless corrective action is taken immediately, the outflow of liberal supporters will continue. The best we supporters can do is to use their vote to get rid of the lunatic catholic fundamentalist fringe from our party. Only then will we become a lay party. All members of the House of Representatives have a right to act according to their conscience, but they should not use a once glorious party to ram their beliefs down the supporters' throats.
And last Saturday was a wake up call to the PN. Heed not at your own peril !!
Claris Galea
May 31st 2011, 11:02
To anlysise a result , you need to be neutral in your views .
Regrettably you are not !
Your gravest mistake is when you state that no Party took a side ?
Are you living in Cuckoo land ?
Malvin Debono
May 31st 2011, 10:41
@ Joe Zammit
I've vowed never to reply to you because I feel that the more attention you are given, the more you will keep churning out your nauseating words.
Please understand that honest serious politicians will have to abide by the will of the people as they asked for this in the first place. We do not live in a theocracy and there are people of other faiths who live in Malta.
Also please note that it is the scaremongering from people such as yourself which has partly led to this result. I would have thought you would have realised that by now. But somehow I feel that even though I am pointing it out to you, you will continue with your mindless repetition regardless.
Joseph Agius
May 31st 2011, 13:27
Thank God you're back Joe.
Thought you may have done something crazy over the weekend.
Keep up the good work - nothing like crazed fundamentalist ramblings to bring out a smile on a cloudy day.
Mr Joe Zammit
May 31st 2011, 10:13
To all our MPs:
Divorce is a grave sin condemned by God. It is a grave sin and will remain a grave sin.
MPs, do not be accomplices in the evil of divorce! Vote NO to any legislation favouring divorce. You must see first and foremost what God wants. God does not want divorce! It is so and so will it remain.
MPs, don't dirty your conscience by pleasing the devil! The devil wants divorce for our own detriment. Do not follow the devil in the introduction of divorce because you will be harming the whole Maltese nation.
Divorce is evil and remains a grave sin even if it is voted for in parliament. God does not want divorce for our own good.
MPs, remember that all of you have the date of death written on your heads. Be wise and follow God's law!
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Timmy Farrugia
May 31st 2011, 10:28
judging from the referendum result the "devil" is winning!!!!!!
Mr Emanuel Curmi
May 31st 2011, 10:44
The last of the Zealots
Mr William Flynn
May 31st 2011, 12:29
"don't dirty your conscience by pleasing the devil! The devil wants divorce".
Anyone see the devil casting a vote on Saturday? Joe, the Maltese people voted; are you calling the Maltese people the devil?
What happened to "the vast majority are against divorce"?
Mr Wally Vella-Zarb
May 31st 2011, 13:00
In the battle between good and evil the victory was indeed guaranteed from the very beginning and, in fact, it materialised last Saturday. The battle is over. All you can do now is to lick your wounds and to say "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa". Your tireless - albeit nauseating - efforts during the past months were one of the best things that could have happened to the 'YES' movement. Thank you so much, Mr Zammit!
Wenzu Vella
May 31st 2011, 14:55
Hi William,
Do not bother answering our dear Joe because he wears thick blinkers and ear plugs
Mr Chris Grillo
Jun 1st 2011, 06:52
Joe, WHEN, if ever will you understand that your so-called guarantees do not count for zilch? Why this senseless idiotic crusade?
The majority of the people have asked for this law to be introduced. Those who have not voted have done so because of scaremongering by the church and by zealots like you.
Get over it! Listen, I got some Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden albums I can lend you!