Austin Bencini
The Prime Minister and the referendum
The truth must be said and the facts brought out in the open. Lawrence Gonzi will go down in modern history as the first leader of a major party to fully recognise an unfavourable result at a referendum.
In the integration referendum, the then leader of the Nationalist Party, George Borg Olivier, had requested abstention from his voters on Dom Mintoff’s referendum and had declared he would never accept integration. The Labour leader returned the compliment by not recognising the result of the independence referendum called by Prime Minister Borg Olivier on the Constitution of independent Malta.
In 1974, Prime Minister Mintoff categorically resisted every call for a referendum by Dr Borg Olivier on the introduction of the republic despite having suspended the supreme Constitution for 48 hours until the necessary constitutional amendments be passed, if need be by an absolute majority instead of the required two-thirds majority.
Few will recall that, in 1974, both parties ended by agreeing to the eccentric idea of allowing the party that won the 1977 election to remove all the so-called republic amendments by simple majority of Parliament even though they had been entrenched at the two-thirds level.
What politicians do to deny the people’s right to a referendum!
The cherry on the cake on referenda must go to Labour leader Alfred Sant who claimed his No to EU campaign had won the referendum despite the clear Yes victory by an absolute majority. He claimed so because he added those who abstained or annulled their vote to the No vote. Had the same measure been applied to the divorce referendum, the No vote should have won!
Dr Sant’s non-recognition of the EU result led Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami to call an election which had confirmed the Yes result by the absolute majority of the electorate.
What party leaders do when confronted by an unfavourable referendum result!
Finally, we have a historical throwback to 1974 when President Emeritus Fenech Adami, who had played a major role in the negotiations on the republic amendments, revived the idea of an election deciding finally a referendum matter by suggesting the divorce issue be decided finally when the country next goes to the polls.
All this leads us to the present leader of the Nationalist Party. Dr Gonzi was the first political leader to propose the referendum immediately after Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando presented the Private Member’s Bill. Not only, Dr Gonzi wasted no time in allowing a free vote to Nationalist MPs on divorce.
He also proposed the electorate be given the chance to vote in the full knowledge of the final version of the divorce Bill after it be approved by the House, including the approval of the technical elements of the Bill after the so-called committee stage, a proposal on which, to boot, he also allowed a free vote.
The Prime Minister’s compliment to the intelligence and the right to be informed of the electorate was not returned by the leader of the Labour Party who obliged his MPs to vote against and, thereby, forcing Labour No-MPs to also vote against. The implications for the latter MPs were quite considerable because they were not given the chance to attempt to remove the no-fault divorce from the Private Member’s Bill before the referendum was called.
If all this were not enough, Dr Gonzi declared that the referendum result would be respected within hours from the confirmation of the Yes result.
All this throws the spotlight on Labour. Why is it so difficult for the opposition to understand the obvious democratic and constitutional truth? Dr Gonzi as Prime Minister and the person who was voted in power by the electorate at the last election assumed the institutional responsibility to ensure that what the voters wanted they got independently of his personal views on divorce.
Having ascertained what all of Malta knew, except for the opposition that is, namely that at the vote to be taken on the second reading of the divorce Bill there were enough MPs from both parties in favour, having declared their intention in advance, meant that Dr Gonzi had seen to his duties as Prime Minister. It only remained for Dr Gonzi the MP on an equal basis of all the other individual MPs to vote according to his personal conscience in the manner he had allowed his MPs to do.
Therefore, would anyone still doubt that the opposition’s fuss on Dr Gonzi’s no vote proves that divorce has become their proverbial Trojan Horse to win the next elections?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
35 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Stephen Borg
Jul 16th 2011, 16:38
A Prime minister within a democratic nation is there to represent the will of those who elected him and not his concience. Many Maltese are against divorce and voted against it's introduction, many more other Maltese are in favor of divorce and therefore the yes vote got a majority of fiftytwo percent over the no vote so the will of the people has to be fully respected by all those who voted no including the Prime minister. What sense does a democratic referendum have if it's result is not honoured by those who called the referendum in the first place.
Mr david debattista
Jul 16th 2011, 15:37
If this is going to go on, and on, and on Mr Gonzi you will be responsible for any trouble that follows. WE DEMAND THAT YOU HEAR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE , SAME GOES FOR ALL THE REST WHO VOTED NO ! The will of the people must be respected at all times, so must the very foundation of true democracy . Stop making a circus of our rights, our lives, and our country .
Victor Rodenas
Jul 16th 2011, 10:04
`Trojan Horse`,......there seems to be a herd of trojan horses........
Mr twanny borg
Jul 16th 2011, 09:03
minn din il-kwistjoni kollha tad-divorzju il-pn spicca ahjar. kien hemm hafna inkluz nazzjonalisti horox li kienu jivvutaw pl kieku d-divorzju ma dahalx. kollox ma' kollox il-pn qed imexxi tajjeb u ma gejniex affettwati hafna mill-krizi internazzjonli bhal kull pajjiz iehor. certi affarijiet riedu jigu spjegati ahjar. l-attitudni tal-pl li kollox hazin u kull ma jigri tort tal-gvern turi nuqqas u li l-pl mhux lest jigverna.
Mr David Farrugia
Jul 16th 2011, 18:44
qed tghix fis shab sur borg? tkellem man nies u tara x impressjoni ghandhom tal gvern! Faqa l kulhadd bit taxxi u l-kontijiet u issa zgarra fil vot dwar ir referendum. Gonzi ghadu kif ghamel suwicidju politiku u l pn sar partit 'fragmented' (jekk taf xi tfisser).
Gerry Cowie
Jul 15th 2011, 20:23
Nobody has the right to demand that nobody must vote for an MP because the person making that demand does not agree with religious beliefs. Dr Gonzi is not a secularist nor will he bow to secularist pressure nor will the Catholic people of Malta bow to secularist pressure.
The majority of Maltese are Catholic - though this is ignored by those of the secularist persuasion who a have their own agenda. Malta is not a secularist outpost nor will it become totally unaffected by the religion of the people which is hated by one or two commenters.
Mr Gonzi's conscienctious vote is his business and should be respected. He has the guts to stand up for what he believes to be right. If he was not religious at all then he would still get criticism for his actions, but because he is proud of his Catholic faith in his Catholic country he has every right to vote as his conscience informs him.
Long Live Catholic Malta!
Andre Grech
Jul 16th 2011, 06:04
Gonzi used his personal vote during the referendum to vote NO. In parliament he represents the people. If he respected the result he should have voted YES. Gonzi is destroying the PN. And the country too.
Ramon Casha
Jul 16th 2011, 07:00
"The majority of Maltese are Catholic"
The majority also voted in favour of divorce. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that people in Malta - including Catholics - are in favour of separation of church and state, also known as secularism.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jul 16th 2011, 11:35
@ Ramon Casha
"The majority also voted in favour of divorce." You have to qualify that. "The majority (of those who voted) also voted in favour of divorce.
"Tha majority of Maltese are Catholic" does not refer only to those who voted.
I have also been taught to compare like with like.
Alfred Fenech
Jul 15th 2011, 18:58
Gonzi will join Sant and mintoff in the list of hall of fame. I must admit that the other rwo made a bigger bang. Its time for a new leader in the PN. In this condition the PN will go only one way.....DOWN.
A good way to enjoy his 500euros. What a waist.!!!
Mr Paul Xuereb
Jul 15th 2011, 17:42
There exist facts and myths. Dr Bencini's contribution definitely highlights the former. Prosit Dr Bencini.
Mr Tony Camilleri
Jul 15th 2011, 18:21
Dr Bencini's contribution definitely highlights the latter Mr Paul Xuereb
Norman E Grech
Jul 15th 2011, 19:59
Paul,
You seem to be of the same breed as Austin.
Thankfully you're bread is on it's way out!
The FACTS are that GonziPN's credibility has never been so low!
Norman E Grech
Jul 15th 2011, 17:21
I really don't like the way you think Austin!
You wrote a lot of nonsence! No matter how much you attempt to hide them, these are the 2 hard facts:
1. The PM played a card and he made a fiasco by playing it! He has lost a lot of credibility! I would have expected an MP to vote NO in parliament but NOT the PM who's main duty it is to make sure that democracy prevails.
2. You are too much of a hard liner and people like you should never give any sort of advice because YOU can NEVER give a truly unbiased opinion!
silvio loporto
Jul 15th 2011, 16:27
Gonzi wil now join Sant and Mintoff in THE HALL OF SHAME.
Mr J Xerri
Jul 15th 2011, 15:37
"Dr Gonzi ...........assumed the institutional responsibility to ensure that what the voters wanted they got independently of his personal views on divorce." You are right Dr Bencini : he let the others do his work for him so that he could then play the hero role and vote 'no' stating that he was no hypocrite putting some of his fellow PN MPs, who actually did what he should have done, in bad light.
Roberta Sciberras
Jul 15th 2011, 14:02
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100809/opinion/will-muscat-accept-the-referendum.321628
"I must insist that the rules governing the referendum need to be brought up to date, defining the minimum quorum of voters necessary for it to be valid and laying down the requisite of an absolute majority for it to be approved. This to avoid the likes of Dr Muscat rubbishing it later by stating that the voters who had died immediately prior to the poll should be added to the “nos”, abstentions and what-else-have-you, to suit his ultimate political strategy of winning the next election."
Are you still of the same mind Dr Bencini?... who exactly is counting the dead now? or is it OK to count the dead if you happen to be Nationalist? You decide.
Mr Victor Laiviera
Jul 15th 2011, 14:02
"Lawrence Gonzi will go down in modern history as the first leader of a major party to fully recognise an unfavourable result at a referendum."
And how did he manifest this recognition? By voting against it, that's how!
Really, Dr Bencini - do you really think that the readers of The Time are so mentally deficient? Really?
Mario Grima
Jul 15th 2011, 13:16
Because you are a lawyer you think that by twisting real facts people would actually believe what you are uttering? One fundamental issue which you chose to ignore is the fact that Dr. Gonzi shot himself in the foot. Dr. Gonzi thought that he would garner a 'No' vote in the divorce referendum, so he shifted the responsibility of the decision upon the people. But, once the majority of the people voted for a clear 'yes' he voted against the that electorate which put him in power. Dr. Gonzi has shown to one and all what a true leader should not do. If Dr. Gonzi wants to opt out of the straight jacket he himself has worn, he should resign.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jul 15th 2011, 11:38
Very well said.
And in spite of all this the opposition and its apologists still insist on calling Dr. Gonzi undemocratic, they who were the perpetrators of the most undemocratic act of all, governing for the maximum number of months allowed by the constitution against the wishes of the majority of voters.
Mr J Xerri
Jul 15th 2011, 15:26
It's not only the opposition and its apologists that are calling Dr Gonzi undemocratic about also well known nationalists including MPs and local councillors.
William Flynn
Jul 15th 2011, 11:10
How naive does Dr Bencini think the people are when he says:
"Dr Gonzi was the first political leader to propose the referendum immediately after Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando presented the Private Member’s Bill".
There was nothing noble or altruistic about his decision to call a referendum; this was his one and only politically realistic and sensible option.
In case I am being unfair to Dr Bencini and perhaps he is the one who’s is naive, allow me to explain to him:
As soon as JPO struck, Gonzi had these options:
1. A decision by MP's on divorce resulting in his humiliating defeat on the floor of the house with divorce being approved with the votes of labour plus PN Liberals; or
2. Calling an election; which we now know would have likely resulted in a PN defeat in 10 out of 13 districts on the issue, or
3. Mobilize his mates at the Curia to help him get a NO majority in a referendum. His last ditch and only option really.
About his decision to "respect" the referendum result, his options were exactly the same as 1 and 2 above.
These are basic political options and strategies. Does A.Bencini play chess?
By voting NO in Parliament yesterday, he ascertained that it was OK and expected for others to "respect" the referendum result; BUT NOT HE. We might also ask Dr Gonzi, how naïve does he think we are?
He was NEVER going to respect it; because he let his Catholic conscience motivate him, described by a fellow senior MP yesterday as "calculator conscience", rather than his sworn parliamentary and democratic responsibilities. Dr Gonzi and all the MP’s voting against the divorce bill should be impeached.
DO NOT VOTE for people who allow their decisions to be made according to their religious beliefs; vote for those MP's who can leave their own religious beliefs outside when they go to work for you as your representatives.
MP's all over the world can do this why not Maltese MP's?
T Galea
Jul 15th 2011, 20:04
Does all MP all over the world propose a law which they had not presented to the electorate before the election?
William Flynn
Jul 16th 2011, 00:29
All the time, Mr Galea. You see politicians haven't got a crystal ball, so at the time of the election, they cannot foresee every situation that comes up during their term of office; especially in Malta which is a long 5 year term. If a week is a long time in politics, years are epochs.
Politicians who try to defend the indefensible will always go down. Dr Gonzi's position is illogical and indefensible. In any other democracy, he would have been sent to the back bench by his own party by afternoon tea time on Monday 30 May.
He cannot survive; and if he does, it will be one of those "only in Malta" events; and the PN won't survive as a creditable party.
T Galea
Jul 16th 2011, 14:16
Sorry, Mr. Flynn. Divorce was not seen in the crystal ball. JPO himself had written against it before and the others - please tell me ...
Dr. Gonzi pronouced immeditaly that he is against, gave a free vote - and those who voted yes were not told - see you later, like Dr. Muscat to Dr. Adrain Vassallo. Is that a free vote?
At least we have a Prim Minister we know what he wants. He has made mistakes - he is human - but still is someone of his word. Politically he could have voted yes but that would mean that we have a Prim Minister who governs for the vote and not what for he believs in and decides what is the best for the country. He respected the vote (re. referendum) and the law is going to go through.
You know that song about war - When will we ever learn... who knows?
Mr JOSEPH AGIUS
Jul 15th 2011, 10:27
Logic and facts prevent many from ever agreeing with Austin Bencini, but you cannot but admire his loyalty to the Prime Minister when all around him is spelling the end of GonziPN. The irony of it all is that this situation is indeed partly due to Joseph Muscat's performance, but in great part the PM has only his cabinet and himself to blame.
John Lusignan
Jul 16th 2011, 07:35
Go slow!!! This has nothing to do with Joseph Muscats performance. Believe me I am a Nationalist and am disgusted at Gonzi and how he failed to respect the will of the people - in all honesty he should resign! That being said don't be fooled in thinking that nationalists like me are now ready for Dr. Muscat or that labor will get our votes any time soon. Labor pretends to be modern but still lives in the past and every move is nothing but an opportunistic one. Muscat is certainly no great leader or visionaryso give it up and get real. The nationalist party is still the party with the best vision for Malta. Unfortunately I have no faith in Gonzi anymore die to this fiasco on divorce where sadly he acted no different to labour when there was EU referendum. My internal crisis is that the 2 parties democratic principles are now equally as poor!
Victor Zammit
Jul 15th 2011, 10:13
Well, are not the 1950’s, 1974 and post also modern history? That apart, what if there were not enough MPs from both parties in favour? What if there were a hung vote with the vote of one (the PM’s?) deciding the issue? Was it conscientious in the first place to put the matter to a referendum? But if parliament decide collectively, the decision would be conscientious. Would it? Is there such thing as a collective conscience? Which may go to show that to act conscientiously collectively may be at variance with acting conscientiously as an individual. Which may also go to show that to act conscientiously in parliament after a referendum result is not to act correctly confessionally but to act correctly constitutionally.
Mr Tommy Vella
Jul 15th 2011, 12:07
Which may also go to show that to act conscientiously in parliament after a referendum result is not to act correctly confessionally but to act correctly constitutionally.
That is simply your own opinion, which may be right according to some collective (or individual)consciences but wrong according to other collective (or individual) consciences.
Mr FRANS H SAID
Jul 15th 2011, 09:05
Good article, BUT, with one flaw. I agree that Gonzi has been the most democratic leader from those mentioned, but why did have to ruin his reputation through an easily rectified fault? Why did he vote against and not abstain?
Be carefull about conscience, this is a piece of elastic. Gonzi must show that he is truly Christian and a follower of Christ, once he voted no.
A. Blasphemy - 2nd commandment
B. Work on the Lord's Day - 3rd commandment
C. Adultury - 6th commadment
D. Paedophilic clergy - Christ warned that it is better to tie a millstone and jump into the sea
E. Delays in Court. Christ was very clear about corrupt judges.
F. Hatred and spite between saints - Christ had said that the true Christian can fe seem from the love he has for his brothers.
These are only some, but enough to show that conscience cannot be used on a cut and paste basis.
Wenzu Vella
Jul 16th 2011, 15:47
Mr Said, God commandments are totally against killing of other human beings and yet this planet has witnessed tens of millions of killings, raping and pillage of cultures without the slightest interference from God. Just to name a few world leaders of late, like Hitler, Stalin, and many American Presidents, so were is the logic of the commandments that we often speak about.
As for Christ’s teaching the very Christian Church should have never been involved in so called Christian wars and the persecution of people that chose to differ from the Church’s agenda.
You also mentioned paedophilic clergy and yet the Catholic Church has a history of covering up for these people.
Mr Said, God commandments are totally against killing of other human beings and yet this planet has witnessed tens of millions of killings, raping and pillage of cultures without the slightest interference from God. Just to name a few world leaders of late, like Hitler, Stalin, and many American Presidents, so were is the logic of the commandments that we often speak about.
As for Christ’s teaching the very Christian Church should have never been involved in so called Christian wars and the persecution of people that chose to differ from the Church’s agenda.
You also mentioned paedophilic clergy and yet the Catholic Church has a history of covering up for these people.
Mr Said, God commandments are totally against killing of other human beings and yet this planet has witnessed tens of millions of killings, raping and pillage of cultures without the slightest interference from God. Just to name a few world leaders of late, like Hitler, Stalin, and many American Presidents, so were is the logic of the commandments that we often speak about.
As for Christ’s teaching the very Christian Church should have never been involved in so called Christian wars and the persecution of people that chose to differ from the Church’s agenda.
You also mentioned paedophilic clergy and yet the Catholic Church has a history of covering up for these people.
Mr Said, God commandments are totally against killing of other human beings and yet this planet has witnessed tens of millions of killings, raping and pillage of cultures without the slightest interference from God. Just to name a few world leaders of late, like Hitler, Stalin, and many American Presidents, so were is the logic of the commandments that we often speak about.
As for Christ’s teaching the very Christian Church should have never been involved in so called Christian wars and the persecution of people that chose to differ from the Church’s agenda.
You also mentioned paedophilic clergy and yet the Catholic Church has a history of covering up for these people.
Working on the Lord’s Day this is and-other myth there are many necessities were one has to work on the Lord’s Day to serve and help others.
J Farrugia
Jul 15th 2011, 08:55
Another politically blind deluded individual.
Daniel Goggi
Jul 15th 2011, 19:35
You sound awfully like the case where the pot is calling the kettle black..
Mr Jason Borg
Jul 15th 2011, 08:50
What utter nonsense!
The arguments are so flawed in logic and reason that there is a risk that even the author himself may be believing what he's written.
Dr. Gonzi has been unable to take the right decision in a time of personal conflict. He has opted for personal gratification rather than attend to the needs of the people he has been entrusted to lead. Clearly he is not able to lead.
So please Dr. Bencini, spare us your rethoric and have the decency to call a spade a spade.
Mr Joseph E Briffa
Jul 15th 2011, 13:32
@Mr Jason Borg...one must not forget that in this instance the subject of the debate and manner of voting in the House relates to a minor issue which, unlike integration, independence, EU membership impacts solely on a few thousand at most. Divorce has been here for three decades - the new bill simply introduces the facility to obtain it in Malta rather than in another country. On the other hand, Integration, independence and EU membership were a national issue, and therefore a major one.