As the majority of MPs declare how they will vote in Parliament on divorce, all eyes are now on the Prime Minister. Christian Peregin speaks to analysts who say Lawrence Gonzi’s vote will have implications for his political future.
By not declaring his voting intentions, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has caught himself in the middle of a tug of war within his party, being played out largely in public.
The staunchly anti-divorce faction wants him to vote no, with people like MP Beppe Fenech Adami arguing that Dr Gonzi should be “consistent” with what he has been saying on the subject. This line of reasoning has also been endorsed by his father, President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami (who thinks the Bill should be blocked), and Transport Minister Austin Gatt.
On the other hand, a large group of backbenchers, including some who voted against divorce (like the Prime Minister’s brother Michael Gonzi), believe they should vote Yes to respect the democratic will. This includes two members of Cabinet: parliamentary secretaries Mario De Marco and Chris Said.
MP Robert Arrigo openly said he wanted Dr Gonzi to “lead by example” and others, like MP Jean Pierre Farrugia, are known to have applied pressure on Dr Gonzi behind closed doors. They insist their party’s democratic credentials override its anti-divorce stance.
The divorce Bill is expected to be approved, irrespective of how Dr Gonzi votes, but observers believe his vote would send a significant message that will have implications on his future. While any decision he takes is likely to infuriate one faction of his party or another, party sources say this is a huge moral quandary for Dr Gonzi.
According to former government adviser and pro-divorce campaigner Martin Scicluna, Dr Gonzi has no “logical” option but to vote yes because he insisted right after the result was out that the democratic will must prevail.
“If he were to abstain or vote no, his whole credibility as Prime Minister will be affected. This is not a matter of personal conscience but a matter of democratic respect for the sovereign will of the people,” Mr Scicluna argues.
Leading historian Henry Frendo agrees, saying that, while the Constitution allows the right to freedom of conscience, Dr Gonzi “also happens to be” a party leader and a Prime Minister.
“If the unwillingness to introduce divorce in Malta is a matter of principle for Dr Gonzi, he could follow the dictates of his conscience by taking steps accordingly,” Prof. Frendo says, without specifying what this would entail.
However, he adds that, in his official capacity, Dr Gonzi “can hardly vote against the outcome now”, particularly after he was the one to call a referendum and after his party fought so hard for majority rule in 1981.
While it could be premature to commit oneself to the specifics of the as yet unfinished legislation, there is a general question of principle: the right to divorce should now be sanctioned.
“For Dr Gonzi to hang on, while going against the expressed will of the majority, would be a misnomer, to put it mildly,” Prof. Frendo said.
In a recent article in The Times, media personality Lou Bondi said if Dr Gonzi voted against because of reasons of conscience, he would have to resign as the captain of the ship of state because it would be inconsistent with his promise to respect the will of the majority.
However, media lecturer and commentator Fr Joe Borg believes people are “mature enough” to prefer a principled politician to an opportunist. “If the Maltese believe that the Prime Minister’s vote – whatever it will be – is a principled one, they will respect it.”
Describing the “hounding” of MPs to see how they plan to vote as “political bullying”, Fr Borg says it would be a very sad day for democracy if any MP voted against his/her conscience just for the sake of political convenience.
“Since the decision of the majority will be respected, it is legitimate to vote no or to abstain in line with a decision reached in conscience,” Fr Borg says, adding that votes are taken at various stages of the process.
On the other hand, former Labour general secretary and head of the University’s history department, Dominic Fenech, says Dr Gonzi should vote yes, whether his decision is driven by political calculation or ethical and democratic considerations.
“I’m sure the temptation to abstain is very, very big. However, while at a stretch that may, just about, pass for a backbencher, it does not for a Prime Minister. Besides, it’s not smart for the Prime Minister to vote with the losers, knowing they are going to be losers.”
Prof. Fenech says Dr Gonzi demonstrated lack of leadership from day one and now has the last opportunity to redeem himself and say, as the leader chosen by the people, he will lead his party to respond to people’s will.
“It’s so easy I cannot understand why he has not done it already,” he notes, adding that delays continue to make Dr Gonzi’s political position suffer.