Missed "meals", cash registers and the divorce debate

It seems that there is an intimate connection between meals and the process of decision taking adopted by Dr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando MP PN. It was reported that his alleged decision to vote against the St John's Co-Cathedral museum project was taken during a dinner party at the house of Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera and Architect Robert Musumeci. It was said that Dr Joseph Muscat dared JPO (blame the word count for the abbreviation) to put his vote where his mouth was and it seems that he was ready to comply.

It is being said that a missed invitation for another "meal" is at the basis of his decision to present a private member's motion for the introduction of divorce legislation. The setting and the guests of this latter "meal" were a tad more august than that of the first one. However, since the invitation did not include his partner JPO quite understandably gave it a miss.

He must have been encouraged by the Curia's opportunistic statement that had he and his partner's name been on the Government list, the Curia would not have asked any questions and would have invited them. The only way to get their name on the list is to get divorced legalised; and voila, he takes the logical step to get invited next time round.

Basking in popularity

JPO's initiative was described as a bolt from the blue. It was unexpected and took everyone by surprise. It seems that he was so determined to present it that he decided not to speak to party heads - including the Prime Minister - to avoid possible pressure not to present his proposal.

The media had a field day, commentators (especially those on the Internet) went berserk, JPO enjoyed another bout of basking in the publicity sun and several MPs took sides while others sat on the fence. Not even the World Cup fever quenched people's urge to comment. The PN parliamentary group met and just said that the discussion should continue; as if anyone could stop it!

Archbishop Cremona commented at some length, moderately and intelligently during a programme on RTK. A friend of mine asked me whether there was a similar reaction from the Curia just minutes after Dr Muscat had publicly taken a stand in favour of divorce. My memory does not take me that far back.

Quo vadis?

Where does JPO's motion leave the divorce debate?

I feel very close to the comments and arguments presented by the Prime Minister's to journalists just after the meeting of the PN Parliamentary group. These comments are very close to the position I have repeatedly expressed in this space.

This is my position.

i. The outcome of the divorce debate should be decided by electors in a referendum and not by MPs in Parliament. In one of my blogs last February or March I wrote that divorce should not be an electoral issue as during an electoral campaign utility bills, unemployment, 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."

It could perhaps be a referendum held on the same day as the election.

I noted that "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."

ii. Divorce should not be introduced by stealth and not reduced to the level of the debate about cash registers during the 1996 elections. In my commentary in The Sunday Times of 070210, I criticised the attitude being taken by Dr Joseph Muscat who was proposing a private members bill if he is elected Prime Minister. This attitude "reduces the debate about divorce to a similar level of the debate about cash registers before the 1996 election - an electoral carrot but not a strict electoral promise. How could the leader of a political party not have his position (which he now turned into his own cavallo di battalia) about such an important matter not endorsed by his party, especially when this is a party over which his control is absolute? Dr Muscat's position smacks of political opportunism not of political principles. Dr Muscat's position will turn divorce into an electoral issue without it being a strict electoral issue. 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."

iii. Parties should take an official position while leaving a place for dissenters on grounds of conscience. I believe that political parties have to have an official position. The only party (i.e. AD) that has repeatedly taken a pro-divorce stance has been trashed in one election after another. The promise of the introduction of divorce was not enough to garner it votes; or perhaps it lost it votes. Whatever the case, political parties will not be credible if they do not squarely face the issue and take a position. I also believe that there should be a place for dissenters because of grounds of conscience.

iv. Civil society and not political parties should spearhead the divorce referendum. Perhaps this today is not possible thanks to the politicisation of the divorce debate due to the opportunistic incursion in it by Dr Muscat. Perhaps the bill proposed by JPO "redressed" the balance and my proposal is now possible. I really do not know. It would be much better if civil society has the lion's share of pro or con positions during the campaign.

v. Strengthen the family. The debate about divorce should not alienate society from its duty to take all possible measures to strengthen the family structures. A lot can, and should be done. Those who present the introduction of divorce as a panacea for all marriage problems are not being realistic. The defence of the family should still remain the priority of all sides of the debate.