As Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi mulls over the political consequences of his own decision on the upcoming referendum vote, he has called on Labour and Nationalist MPs alike to take part in a strictly personal review of the ethical implications of their decisions – to “vote with their conscience” without paying due consideration to the clear result of the referendum.
In doing so, Dr Gonzi is subtly appealing to the moral and religious sentiments of the Maltese people, perhaps hoping to prevent excessive political backlash if the overturning of the citizens’ call for divorce is in fact achieved. His proposal carries with it the underlying implication that supporting divorce is a great stain on individual ethics. This cynical public relations tactic is very worrying indeed and needs to be exposed. Moreover, while calling for an elevated personal standard, Dr Gonzi is asking for what would be a serious detriment to political morality.
If moral considerations are truly pivotal, then Maltese MPs must view their vote on a broader scale rather than the localised prescriptive that Dr Gonzi has prescribed. Morality in governance is hardly constrained to personal preference. There is no aye or no on this issue. It must be a resounding yes.
The majority of citizens have expressed the belief that permitting divorce is not a significant quandary to the collective conscience of the island.
If the Maltese Parliament is to be a truly representative government, then our parliamentarians must respect this decision. That should be self-evident. And if Dr Gonzi now decides to ignore the people who elected him under the pretext of just representation, then it could certainly be argued the he is unfit to be Prime Minister.
But let us examine the moral implications of such a defection for the MPs. An extension from personal to political morality must be made. Morality, in general, refers to a sense of just action, action that promotes the true well-being of one’s self and one’s peers and action that carries with it some conception of fairness and equality.
Political morality, in particular, must have a heightened sense of duty. Failure to uphold the personal moral considerations of the people would be the true stain on political morality.
It is the duty of MPs to ensure that their consciences incorporate their role as representatives and not just individuals. Members of Parliament are elected to serve something greater than themselves.
Accordingly, each MP must reject the Prime Minister’s call to look only within themselves when deciding how to vote. They must replace individual egos with the will of their constituents. Morally speaking, they are obliged to do so. There is no yes or no to morality in governance.
Malta might be isolated geographically but in regards to morality it is connected tightly with the rest of the democratic world. In a speech at the Nationalist Party’s general council on June 19, Dr Gonzi called on Malta to hold fast to its traditions, whatever the influences from outside. But in reviewing their consciences, MPs are morally required to be objective and demonstrate an understanding of morality’s broad reach.
Malta is one of only two nations in the world that bans divorce! For its government to reject the demands of its people in this regard would be a severe deterrent to the democratic progress of the country. Members of Parliament must heed the citizens’ call for a more equitable society. If the Prime Minister hopes to see a truly moral vote from the MPs, he should receive more than he bargained for.
The author is political science major at the University of Pittsburgh.