Parties in the same boat

Four days after 53 per cent of the Maltese electorate voted in favour of introducing divorce in our society, the first reading of the Bill was unanimously approved in Parliament. However, what was more evident was the ongoing debate about how our representatives in Parliament should eventually vote in the final stage. The concept of representation became the subject of intense debate.

Should members of Parliament act according to the instructions given by the electorate or should they use their independent judgement? This controversy is not limited to Malta and the prevailing issue. Numerous academic works have dealt with the arguments for and against the different forms of representation.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has already stated that the will of the people as expressed in the referendum will be respected. There is no question about that. The issue is whether MPs should all vote in favour of the Bill or otherwise.

Following a Nationalist Party parliamentary group meeting, it was decided that a free vote will be given to all Nationalist MPs. At the same time, the Leader of the Opposition tied his MPs’ hands to just two options: a vote in favour or an abstention.

In the meantime, everybody else in Malta is having a go at telling MPs what to do. Both sets of MPs have an important decision to make. The matter ought to be dealt with collectively rather than individually.

First of all we have to acknowledge that the two parties represented in Parliament have a number of MPs who are facing a genuine conscience problem to cast their vote in favour of divorce legislation. As we have witnessed in the past few days this is not a problem limited to the PN. The Labour Party and Joseph Muscat have an identical problem within their parliamentary group. The numbers may be smaller but the fact remains that both parties are in the same boat. Furthermore, we must admit that when moral matters surface, no party leader can use the whip with his MPs. The recent declarations coming from within the PL parliamentary group proves my point.

What should be done, then, to respect the wishes of MPs while adhering to the electorate’s democratic decision?

The two parties should summon their MPs and ask how each representative wishes to vote. When this exercise is completed, the whips of both parties should meet and add up the numbers. If, as expected, there is a parliamentary majority, then the matter would be settled. A joint statement about how each MP will be casting his/her vote will bury the issue once and for all. In the unlikely event that the numbers do not add up to a majority being in favour, the matter could be referred back to the parties and decisions taken in order to ensure a parliamentary majority.

What is annoying me in this matter is that unnecessary pressure is being put on MPs to abandon their values and vote in favour of divorce legislation. As I wrote previously, like the rest of us, MPs are not made of compartments and simply cannot abandon their principles on what is a moral issue. I am not going to make an argument in support of the 47 per cent who voted against the introduction of divorce like Dr Muscat did in 2003 following the EU referendum and the PL’s general election defeat. I am neither going to argue that the MPs elected from the eighth, 11th and 13th districts, which returned a majority of nays, have a moral case to vote in accordance with their constituents’ wishes.

My argument in favour of those who wish to abstain or vote against the Bill is based solely on common sense. If there are enough MPs in the House to execute the people’s decision why does one have to insist on the rest to vote against their conscience? I do not think this is justified.

Given that I am against divorce and given that I would have a problem voting for a Bill which goes against my values if I were an MP in these circumstances, I would vote against, provided there is a parliamentary majority to ensure the will of the electorate is respected. If my vote is required for the Bill to be approved I would have no alternative but to resign my seat. I am more than certain that, in the present situation, no MP will be required to take this route.

In the coming weeks the debate will continue. In the meantime, has anybody asked the President of the Republic whether he will be endorsing the Divorce Bill when it ends up on his desk? After all, George Abela too may be in the same boat.