Referenda and interpretations

Last Saturday, Malta voted in the referendum on the introduction of divorce legislation. I will not delve into the merits of the arguments that had been presented but the result and the reactions of all the interested parties led me to look back at the referendum of March 8, 2003 when the Maltese people were asked if they agreed with Malta’s accession to the European Union.

Saturday’s result was an overwhelming yes, a result that has to be respected. Lawrence Gonzi demonstrated his characteristic leadership abilities by stating this in no uncertain terms. This is the way things should be done in a democracy and, while taking into consideration the voice of minorities, one has to make it absolutely clear that once a majority has expressed its view in a referendum this has to be respected and implemented.

In the wake of the result there was only one interpretation, Yes For Divorce, Yes For Marriage spokesman Deborah Schembri was humble when interviewed by the media after the vote and her counterpart, Arthur Galea Salomone, who was among the first to concede defeat, did so in a calm and dignified manner, without attempting to qualify the result.

Back to 2003. In one of the most important decisions the Maltese people had to make, almost 91 per cent of the electorate cast its vote, representing 270,650 voters. Out of these, 143,094 voted yes and 123,628 voted no, a difference of 19,466 votes. Overwhelming is it not? Yet, unbelievingly, the No camp decided to interpret the vote in a different way, automatically considering the people who did not vote, which amounted to 27,231, as having voted no and, therefore, using the most extreme mental gymnastics, managed to give the no vote a majority of 7,765. Unbelievably, but true, it had to take a landslide victory for the Nationalist Party to confirm the referendum result even though I am sure that, deep down, even the most diehard anti-EU supporter knew the Yes camp had won overwhelmingly.

I wonder what would have happened if the result of last Saturday’s referendum had to be interpreted in the same way as Alfred Sant had interpreted the 2003 referendum outcome. Imagine adding the 90,239 voters that did not cast their vote or did not even bother to pick up their voting document with the No vote! The No camp would have won with a margin of 75,663 votes. Ridiculous as it may sound, this is the way the Labour Party of 2003 wanted us to interpret the referendum result.

We cannot justify ourselves by using two weights and two measures. Respecting the democratic process is fundamental. Not only did Labour fail to do so in 2003, they insulted the intelligence of the Maltese people by claiming victory for the No camp. Even after losing the election of 2004 by more than 12,000 votes, the Labour camp still tried to find excuses for the defeat. This is unacceptable and tarnishes the party’s credibility.

We have to be able to accept changing realities. In this respect, nothing could be more anti-democratic than ignoring the voice of the people. Throughout the years, the PN has always respected the will of Maltese citizens. Moving on, however, does not mean jeopardising what we believe in. We have to remain strong in what we believe and try and bring the message across to our electorate.

Last week’s referendum was different in the sense it was not dominated by the political parties as we are accustomed to. This was a referendum that had people with different political opinions teaming up for a common goal. It was maybe the first time civil society in Malta had such an important voice on such a sensitive issue. In my opinion, it was a magnificent display of democracy.

In any event, both camps agreed on one thing; the importance on investing in our society to have stronger families. With that in mind, I hope we all understand the importance of dialogue on essential issues such as these. Dialogue and debate help civil society become more mature and more capable of making important decisions and we must encourage this at all levels.

The author is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.