After the scary feeling of having to continue living in a theocracy, it was with a sigh of utter relief that I welcomed the referendum results, albeit with some surprise.

Although Maltese society has clearly undergone various transformations over the past few decades, I was still unconvinced that reason and tolerance could win over superstition, fear and that inflicted sense of moral insecurity or, in certain cases, moral superiority. Although I felt that many people in Malta were ready for this change, it was still an uphill struggle since the No and Yes movements were not on a level playing field. The Yes movement did not have the resources and the political clout of the No movement, which had the backing of the all-too-powerful Catholic Church and the Nationalist Party in government.

However, it turned out that both these powerful institutions were not in touch with the changing realities of Maltese society. The Church and most of the protagonists of the No movement do not seem to have predicted that their outdated and, sometimes, shameful tactics would backfire. They thought that bringing Jesus into the equation of civil rights and family law would give them a moral advantage although it evidently did in the more conservative island of Gozo.

Perhaps they thought the Maltese people are as gullible as they were in the 1960s and would be swayed by fear of eternal damnation and refusal to administer Holy Communion. They did not anticipate the clear message given by the majority of Maltese voters that they would not be led by the nose in the execution of their right to vote for change.

This was also clear in the case of the PN and the Labour Party. Although there was a significant section of the electorate that toed the party line or followed the direction given by their party’s leader in the case of the PL, there were still many who chose to vote differently.

Admittedly, certain PN supporters may have used their vote to send a protest message to their party on issues far removed from divorce, such as hunting or the utility bills. Likewise, PL supporters might have voted yes just to spite Lawrence Gonzi. However, for me, this was also a very clear message that the majority of people want to be able to make their own decisions regarding how they want to live their personal life; that they want to give Caesar his due and that they will not tolerate confessional politics.

Politicians have every right to their religious beliefs and practices in their private life but as representatives of the people they have civil obligations not to the Catholic Church or to Catholic believers only but to every category of people in society including minorities.

Alternattiva Demokratika, the Green party, was the only political party that felt the pulse of the people and emerged as being on the “right side of history” as has been claimed by some following the aftermath of the referendum. AD has been advocating for this civil right for over 20 years. Its message has always been clear, no ifs or buts. It is the only party in Malta that took a clear stand in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation since its inception back in 1989.

It was AD that set the ball rolling for this change to happen when, last year, it wrote to MPs urging them to consider the Irish and Italian models of the law. AD is the only political party in Malta with truly democratic and progressive credentials and which does not change its tune at will. It will continue fighting for progressive change and for minority rights despite all the obstacles and hurdles put in its way, despite every effort to sideline it and to alienate the people from its achievements and its rightful place in Parliament in a modern democracy.

For example, why was AD totally absent in all the televised debates following the referendum? As the only political party with a clear stand in favour of divorce, surely it should have been invited to take an active role in the evaluation exercise following the vote. It conveniently wasn’t. It was the PL that took the political mileage from the referendum result. Even though it chose not to take a stand in favour of divorce as a party, it sought to take all the credit itself. No mention of AD’s efforts any time during the debates on our TV channels in a country that claims to be democratic and pluralistic.

Sadly, these charades will be repeated in the next general election when every effort will be made by the two other parties to project AD as insignificant while trying to usurp its relevant issues themselves at the same time. However, I am not totally pessimistic. After all, the Maltese may have realised more than ever now that if they want change they have to vote for it. If AD is voted in Parliament, there will not be any uncertainties regarding our principles. We stand by what we believe in. We do not sell our soul to anyone.

The author is spokesman for social development of Alternattiva Demokratika – the Green party.