When in a democracy the majority become frustrated and feel unrepresented, then it is time to stop and to change course. Malta is evidently in that position since it is undergoing profound cultural changes imposed from the top without the majority feeling convinced by such changes.

Equally worrying democratically is that the only attempt made to get the majority back into the scene comes from an evangelical source, as is the well meaning but politically misguided Pastor who has intimated the possibility of an ill-defined abrogative referendum on the Civil Union Act. To compound the political scene there are strong rumblings of protest based on former alignments of Christian political ideology.

Let’s be absolutely clear: I for one happen to take political inspiration in Christian social doctrine and in fact I do my best to follow the very rich and wise social doctrine of the Catholic Church especially where issues of pro-life and the welfare of the family is concerned. Yet what inspires me and tens of thousands of fellow Christian voters may not, in fact does not, inspire other tens of thousands of voters.

Therefore, flaunting evangelical references during political debate has proven to bring about a counter ideological response and all this to the detriment of the just cause, which taken rationally could on the contrary find grounds of co-operation between the so-called Christian vote and the more secular one.

In other words, there is no one party which may safely be considered as the natural party for Christian voters or for that matter for Christianophobic campaigners.

The recent debacle of both our two main parties on the Civil Union Act is enough proof of all this, if proof were ever need following the referendum on divorce.

Even to think that the voters of the Labour Party do not have “reservations” on so-called gay adoptions would be intellectually dishonest. Ignoring them on other social issues such pro-life issues can only be a dangerous time-bomb ready to explode in the Labour Party’s face. At some stage the concerns of the so-called silent majority even within Labour need be addressed before it becomes a rowdy one.

Christians, on their own, will not be relevant in any electoral confrontation if it turns into a ‘Christ Yes-Divorce No’ irrational slogan

Not only. To think that Nationalist voters have understood the stand taken by their party on the Civil Unions Act would equally qualify as intellectually dishonest. Therefore the Nationalist Party failed to make the one important reasoning, namely, what does it intend to do when back in government to remedy the “reservations” on the better interests of the child which caused it to abstain on the Civil Union Act?

It is more than evident that Christians still represent the major social component in our society even at the political level. However it is equally evident that Christians, on their own, will not be relevant in any electoral confrontation if it turns into a “Christ Yes-Divorce No” irrational slogan.

On the contrary, in Malta a new humanist majority is forming which craves for direction based on reason and dialogue where reform is concerned. The Christian vote is there and must be at the service of any just, rational and above all humanitarian initiative based on a true and rigorous understanding of fundamental human rights.

The season of divorce and civil unions is now complete. That of the rights of the undefended child, whether born or not, of the family, of the right to life in general, of the limits of genetic engineering, of the rights of the persons seeking asylum, refuge, of the dangers which accompany the good of cyberspace, all these and many more are all fertile ground for a fruitful co-operation between Christian humanism and other political and social forces which put the human being and the rights of the person and of each human life at the centre of their ideology.

Christians, however, have to learn one simple political message given by Christ himself. Namely that even he used reason whenever he confronted the society of his time on issues of justice and what is right.

One example suffices for all: Jesus did not threaten those wanting to stone to death the adulterous women with eternal damnation. Rather, he cleverly questioned them on their own imperfect human nature as the reason for them to desist from stoning to death that poor woman.

Why cannot the same be done by Christians and in fact by the Church itself by confronting society and its national political class with their own social conscience as the reason for us all to uphold humanism and fundamental rights, without judgmental declarations of damnation particularly when we are called to vote?

Doing so does not lessen us as Christians and may serve as the basis for a new social and political interaction.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.