Parliament should postpone divorce legislation until after the next election, Emeritus President Eddie Fenech Adami writes in The Sunday Times today.
Dr Fenech Adami says MPs have no direct mandate to vote on divorce legislation, although they cannot ignore the result of the May 28 referendum.
Therefore, he suggests postponing the vote – scheduled for July 13 – until after the next election where the issue will figure in the manifestos of all political parties.
It is the former Prime Minister’s second appeal to MPs in recent weeks as he warns about the ills of divorce – which he describes as an “attack on our national identity”.
“Malta has repeatedly found itself at the crossroads of civilisations throughout history and yet managed to maintain its identity as a Christian nation,” he says.
Dr Fenech Adami urges the Nationalist Party to stick to the position declared by its executive that the introduction of divorce is not in the national interest and says candidates will be expected to make public their views about divorce in the next electoral campaign.
“Our electoral system is ideally suited to such a situation. The electorate will choose the party to govern through their first preference vote and they can then proceed to select the individual candidate they want to represent them,” he writes.
This will give new MPs a mandate to form a government supported by a majority and each member the right to vote on divorce depending on the stand they took in the electoral campaign, he suggests.
“I see no reason for the unholy haste with which it seems Parliament wants to conclude the issue. The embarrassment being felt by individual MPs on both sides of the House is manifest. Their feelings should be respected.”
Dr Fenech Adami’s MP son Beppe is among those on the government benches who declared he will vote against the divorce Bill, despite the 53 per cent majority who voted for the introduction of divorce.
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, staunchly against divorce, has so far declined to say how he intends to vote, though he made it clear the will of the majority would have to be respected.
His predecessor maintains that divorce is not a fundamental human right and insists moral issues should not be dictated by popular majorities but by principles.