The Marriage Act and other Laws (amendment) Act, as the very first legal amendments presented by the new Labour government and approved almost unanimously by the House of Representatives, has given rise to reasoned discussions within the Nationalist Party Opposition, as well as the public.
This is something to be expected, considering the nature of amendments that are intimately linked to human life and fundamental institutions in society, the anthropological dimension of which is bound to raise issues of ethics and morality.
Legislation on marriage equality of rights and obligations for both heterosexual and homosexual people, like all other morally controversial laws, seems to be symptomatic of a post-modern society marked not so much by widespread secularisation but more so by pluralism with its redefinition of marriage and the family, new reproductive rights, and revisited notions of parenthood.
Minority groups behind this movement are vociferous in their claims for new civil rights and their persistent calls for autonomy in private-life decisions.
The risks of flexibility and instability in what sociologist Baumann calls ‘liquid society’ are having an impact on political parties and parliaments faced with policy formulation and legislative decisions.
The resulting critical issues which have to be addressed in such a ‘risk society’ include the relation between politics and morality and the role of the State in the regulation of morally sensitive developments brought about by social change.
One possible approach to such issues that are very likely to imply conscientious considerations might be value clarification.
Affirming a priori one’s position on the values of human dignity and the primacy of individual conscience sheds light on the basic principle that what is legally permissible might not necessarily be always morally correct.
This should pave the way for political parties and parliaments to find the least restrictive environment and the probable best fit in decisions of legalising morally controversial matters. Taking this into consideration, the most natural route is a reasoned decision based on giving members of Parliament a free vote out of respect for possible genuine conflicts of interests.
What is legally permissible might not necessarily be always morally correct
A rational balance between personal conviction and the right to a free vote emanates from the principles of proportionality and the centrality of conscience in substantive laws that influence human life and go beyond party policy and the general principles in electoral manifestos.
In my opinion, the granting of a free vote by the Nationalist Party leadership in the marriage equality law could have possibly been the best route within the context of its proposals of amendments on improving the legal draft and the open discussion between advocates of and detractors from the law per se.
I see no argument in favour of political democracy in allowing the ‘free market of ideas’ and at the same time suppressing the right of free voting at the momentous time of decisions in Parliament. There is a lesson to be learnt in subsequent subliminal legislation implied in the Marriage (Amendment) Act which is likely to be proposed by the present administration.
Signs of amending the Embryo Protection Act and introducing surrogate parenthood are manifestly clear. And the fomenting of public discussion on legalising the use of recreational drugs and the regulation of prostitution is an indication that these too are on the government agenda.
All this will happen in the name of civil liberties and the neo-liberal, pluralist European society of which Malta has become a part. The way forward, which may be suggested to the PN in opposition, is to work more towards convergence of tradition and innovation. Continuity and integration of these two complementary social processes is always possible with the right approaches and most effective strategies.
While maintaining and consolidating traditional values centred around the primacy of the human person, which have characterised the party in its long political, social and legal history, these can be translated into policies which meet the needs of people’s well-being.
Adapting grand concepts like good governance, accountability and transparency into concrete, practical actions in daily life will make concepts, principles and processes more meaningful and purposeful for individuals, families and organisations.
In other words, the movement has to be from intellectual concepts to practical, remedial actions which people can own and to which they can relate.
Moving from macro-politics to micro-politics that address the daily needs of Maltese citizens should not be understood as relinquishing the fundamental democratic principles and centrality of human values which have historically made up the very fabric of the PN’s collective consciousness.
It means a renewed political narrative of constructive equilibrium between tradition and innovation, structures and citizens as active agents of change. This is possible if equilibrium is reflected in transformative action as social capital and as dictated by new exigencies of contemporary society.
Philip Said is a Nationalist Party Żebbuġ local councillor.