Fundamentalism dents conservatism

About 30 years ago, some opinions started being expressed regarding the possibility of developing in Malta an improved right of remarriage. The right to separation already existed while the material effects of annulment gave one the right to remarry.

At that time there were few voices appealing for the right of divorce and they were mostly ignored, if not somehow silenced. Considering that the opposition to divorce was very strong and widespread, it seemed as if divorce would become necessary some day in the distant future and few people imagined that a few decades would be sufficient for a tendency to become a force.

A tsunami is preceded by a slow tide that is mostly ignored as it looks like a rainfall that dries in a matter of hours. However, the tide is only a preparation that a tsunami requires to arrive in high waves.

There are many factors leading to the referendum result that got together to provide the unexpected whoosh carrying divorce. I shall mention some of these, which shook the interior of the bottle to make it blow out the cork. People have been thinking about the fact that divorce exists in all the countries of the world except for Malta and the Philippines. And now it is only the Philippines that remain (this is the country where real people are crucified with real nails) – obviously for no more than a few more months as the inhabitants’ impatience with all sorts of nails is increasing in that country.

People in Malta have also been aware of the fact that a divorce obtained abroad was recognised in Malta.

This, however, required an expensive procedure that most could not afford. So there was a law for the rich and a law for the poor. Now Malta, as far as divorce is concerned, and if the will of the majority prevails, will have one law for everyone.

There is no doubt that the existence of annulment decreased the loud call for divorce as the former brought about the same right to remarry. However, grounds for annulment are very rigid, the waiting period is very long and the whole operation is very expensive. All matters related to annulment, thus, unwittingly pushed opinions in favour of divorce.

The Maltese have become increasingly sensitive about the separation of Church and state. However, politicians who cared very little about secularism, managed to force down the throats of Maltese citizens agreements between Church and state that were of a regressive nature as they led the state to abandon some of its power. This was considered unacceptable because voters do not give administrative power to a political party to see it hand it over to a private organisation that does not obtain its power of administration through voting, that is, through democracy.

Those who promoted the reduction of secularism and rubbed their hands in joy when they managed to reduce the power of the state, were short-sighted enough not to realise that their euphoria was only temporary because the state of affairs they had managed to bring about stoked sufficient disgruntlement to belie the impression that the people grumble a little for a while and then calm down, accept the state of affairs and pardon you. It is wrong to think that silent simmering means permanent submission.

I have followed a few discussions and debates before the referendum and it seemed to me that the anti divorcists often spoke aggressively and patronisingly. Obviously, they forgot to realise that even children take exception to patronising language, let alone adults.

Another important factor that led to the referendum result was the use and practise of fundamentalism as a weapon of fear. I have always recognised that there are positive elements in conservatism but when fundamentalism hijacks and attempts to swallow conservatism it has only managed to make it look ugly.

I disagree with some who participated in the referendum post-mortem discussion saying that the result favours the promotion of conservatism because people will consider social reform possible anyway under conservatism and so they need not shake a conservative establishment.

Wrong. People desire social reform without the hassle of referenda as, otherwise, a referendum would be necessary each time that a measure of social reform is to be enacted. Thus, the illusion that a Yes vote in the divorce referendum leads to an entrenchment of conservatism is pure hogwash. On the contrary, it will liberate a stronger desire for secularism.

The electability of a party will not be influenced by a referendum result refusing conservatism a short time before an election and accepting it during an election. Voters are now more inclined to vote for a progressive electoral manifesto and for candidates with a progressive mentality.

Dr Licari is a researcher in multiculturalism.