The May 28 referendum was one occasion when the voting population was asked to give an opinion on the introduction of divorce.

The result of the referendum is not legally binding. The government can ignore the results and go in a different way. Parliament is sovereign in its decisions. No Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing any law. If someone wants to propose a referendum to enslave the population of a town to be at the service of the remainder of the island and the voting population voted in favour should Parliament also vote in favour?

Going against the will as expressed in a referendum will be damaging to any political party. This will definitely have a bearing on the passing of new legislation. One must realise that the present members of Parliament were not elected on the basis of an “in-favour-of-divorce” mandate.

Thus, the result of a vote on divorce in Parliament may be different from that of the referendum. Even the voting result of the referendum was different in terms of trends when compared to three years ago when the present government was elected.

Pressure is being placed on how MPs should vote. Should they vote with their hands tied without respecting their own opinion? Presumably, they would rather abstain. Should we ask members to declare their vote beforehand? What does the Code of Ethics say on such situations?

The representation of the result of the referendum has a special significance for members of Parliament who were elected from the Gozo district. If in Gozo the people voted against divorce, should we pressure the members of Parliament to vote in favour of something their constituents don’t want them to do? Aren’t the people of Gozo also entitled to their representation?

Only last week, in England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams criticised the government for drafting long-term policies for which no one voted. Both Tony Blair and David Cameron have said the Archbishop of Canterbury has the right to express his opinion. That is democracy.

We may say we are democratic but we then become undemocratic by criticising the bishops for preaching the truth. We want the Church to run various homes and institutes but we don’t want the bishops to preach the inconvenient truths.

Dr Williams was quoted as saying: “One of the things you will do as a bishop is disappoint people.” I would rather disappoint somebody by telling him the truth and ending up in his bad books than lie by giving him a false impression. We should remember that the bishops have no political gain from what they say. It does not affect their re-election.

The views the bishops have expressed are seen as the strongly held truthful opinions of highly-principled and learned figures. We should not try to shut them up or make them shy down but, rather, encourage them to express their honest opinion so that we can learn from it. Who are we to criticise them on the teachings of Christ? Laws without morals are useless.

We used statistics to impress during the referendum campaign. Replying to a parliamentary question tabled by Labour MP Leo Brincat, Minister Austin Gatt confirmed that the highest number of divorces obtained was last year when almost 50 people managed to obtain a divorce from a foreign court.

The answer was meant to impress. It was meant to provide a “civil right” to Malta. Then, I learnt that over 50 abortions were performed on Maltese women in the UK last year. Will this be the next “civil right” we will want to introduce? Abortions abroad have, after all, surpassed divorce proceedings. What about legalising marijuana? Where are our morals going?

Even when decision-making is democratic or free, we may act subconsciously in relation to things that affect us or are connected to our present needs or our past experiences. Gaining common support should not outweigh voting for what is right or expressing the truth. My children may outnumber me on a decision but this does not mean that decisions should be made on the basis of a teenager’s perspective.

We should equally not be self-centred when it comes to the way Parliament operates. What right do we have to impose on how people vote? In the universal declaration of human rights, everybody has the right to express an opinion without interference. Everybody has the right to impart information and ideas through any medium.

The author is an architect by profession.