Divorce: an electoral carrot but not an electoral promise?

Last Sunday in my regular column in The Sunday Times I proposed the holding of a referendum to decide the divorce issue. I would like to explore further this proposal in this blog as this space which is more conducive to the holding of a cyber-debate on the subject.

On several occasions, I wrote that the way forward should have been a debate on the strengthening of marriage and the family. In my opinion, several measures can and should be taken by the state and by civil society to strengthen these two basic institutions in our society. These two institutions are the heritage of humanity and no stone should be left unturned in their defence.

Legal framework for those living together

Concurrently with the adoption of such measures, we should be discussing the type of legal framework that should be adopted in the case of people living together without being married.

During the Campus FM programme - Mhux Kelma bejn Tnejn. L-Intervista tal-BOV - Prof Joe Pirotta and I discussed the legal position of cohabitating couples with President Emeritus Dr E Fenech Adami and the actual President Dr G Abela (the interview with the latter has not been broadcast yet). Both of them referred to court cases - old and recent ones - wherein a woman who had lived with a man for many years (the same applies for a man) and even fathered his children could, on his death, find herself in the streets. She has no rights whatsoever. Is not such a situation open to abuse, especially abuse of vulnerable persons?

Perhaps a possible way forward would be legislation enacting the right of persons living together for a number of years independently of the type of relationship or gender. This relationship could be of an aunt and her nephew, two cohabitating couples (males or females or male and female), two friends etc. Easier said than done, indeed; but it should be done nonetheless.

However, I digress. Let me return to the core of my argument.

Divorce by stealth?

The recent position taken by Dr Joseph Muscat, Leader of the Partit Laburista, during a conference organised by Progett/Impenn and the TVM discussion programme, Dissett has created a new situation which cannot be ignored. Dr Muscat is promising, that if he were elected Prime Minister, he would table a private members bill proposing the introduction of divorce legislation.

He would do this independently of the position of the PN on the subject, risking an embarrassing negative vote at the very beginning of his role as Prime Minister. (No prizes are given for guessing why he has taken this new position.) He would give the MPs of the PL a free vote (if it is just a private members bill is it not natural that there be a free vote?) and would prefer the PN to do the same. When he became leader of the PL he said that he would not move the private members bill unless he is assured of a free vote for Nationalist MPs.

This in my opinion changed the divorce issue into an electoral carrot - i.e. an enticement - without it being an electoral promise. People are being led to believe that a PL government would introduce divorce as its leader is in favour without having the PL formally commit itself on the position of its leader. Who would believe that a newly elected Prime Minister would not get his way on such an important subject?

I wrote in The Sunday Times: "Divorce has now become an electoral issue by stealth. This I oppose."

I continued writing:

"This attempt of having the cake and eating it should be exposed and resisted. Divorce should not be introduced - up till now the pro-divorce lobby have not, in my opinion, presented a credible case for its introduction - thanks to a conglomeration of different private mandates assumed to have been given to different MPs on an individual basis. We cannot have the introduction of divorce almost by stealth."

Divorce by referendum?

I do not think that divorce should be an electoral issue. During an electoral campaign utility bills, lack of jobs, general disgruntlement and a legion other topics are lumped up together. There is hardly ever a one issue campaign in the run up to an election. The acceptance or refusal of divorce legislation should be a conscious and focussed decision. Like Malta's entry into the European Union, the decision should be divorced from an election. It should be decided by a pre or post electoral referendum.

The introduction of divorce implies a change in our paradigm of marriage and such a fundamental and radical change should not be introduced (if it should be introduced) with anything less than the sanction of a popular vote in a referendum.

Regarding this referendum, I wrote in The Sunday Times that "During such a referendum, political parties qua political parties should have an official position - though space should be given to dissenters - but the parties should not be the motors of the debate. Pro and anti divorce movements running the campaign should emanate from civil society."

A human right?

Some may object to my line of thinking saying that divorce is a basic human right and so it should not be the subject of a referendum. I venture to say that Dr Muscat among those who share such an opinion. Were he to believe that that divorce is a basic human right it would not make sense to speak about a free vote.

Those who believe that divorce is a basic human right should challenge the present marriage legislation in court. If they lose the case then they should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. If divorce is a human right, the legal route should be sufficient for the resolution of the issue. Since no one has taken this route, I think that no one really believes that divorce is a human right.

Hoping against hope

I concluded my column in The Sunday Times: "On both sides (of the debate), there would be Labourites, Nationalist, Greens and others. In both movements there will be those who consider themselves to active and committed Catholics. One hopes that there will also be a lot of tolerance and a spirit of calm, guided by the true indicators of the situation of the family in Malta. Let us do so with brotherly love towards all. Perhaps I am hoping for too much."