Decades ago, many people with limited means had only one suit. They kept it in their wardrobe and used it only a few times a year, such as during the village feast and Christmas. That suit was not for wearing every day.

The way opinion writers refer to conscience and politicians gives me the impression they believe that conscience, like the above-mentioned suit, is not for daily use.

For example, they write that political parties should not take a position about divorce, as the latter is a matter of conscience.

It surely is. However, do our politicians confront matters of conscience only once every blue moon?

Every human act, because it is a human act, in contrast to an action by a human being, has an ethical dimension and consequently it is a matter of conscience.

Every human act implies a choice which we freely make. We have to shoulder responsibility for the effects of the act.

Before acting, we should consider the act in itself, its effect on us and probably on others. Is it good or bad?

Is my action, thought, word or attitude worthy of a human being who (for believers) is the son or daughter of God?

The same applies for decisions not to act. Omission of an action is not morally neutral. Failure to do an act of good that is required is an irresponsible decision.

Politicians are not a different species. All decisions that they take as politicians are a matter of conscience. Is not a vote on a budget item, deciding to spend the people’s money one way or another, a matter of conscience?

Is not a vote about an environmental issue, the educational system, social services, the devolution of power to local councils, and so forth, also a matter of conscience?

Each of these votes can lead to a more humane or a less humane way of living. Each vote can lead to more or less solidarity, for example.

Politicians sharing the same visions, world-views and value systems congregate together in one political party. They do this to give more strength to their individual decisions of conscience by turning them into collective decisions of conscience.

Political parties empower their members – politicians and others – by presenting to the public a common vision and the structure used to put it into practice.

Politics is the collective exercise of power in the interest of the common good. Thus, the more an issue is a matter of conscience the greater the need for political parties to take a common position.

This is what political parties are specially set up for: to take positions on important topics.

For a number of different reasons I will not go into here, it is also possible for political parties to let individuals take a different position than the majority. The minority can live with that or can decide to call it a day.

Divorce is one of the most important decisions that face our country. As it is a very important matter of conscience and principle, a political party cannot abandon its duty to take a position.

It is possible to find a legitimate reason to keep within its fold a minority having a different opinion.

However, a party has to take an official position unless it considers gimmicks more important than conscience; or it puts short-term gains before principles; or, worse still, it considers marriage as just a private matter without any effect on society.

A decision, taken individually or collectively by a political party, not to take a stand on a issue such as divorce, which has far-reaching consequences on society, on the pretext that it is a matter of conscience is tantamount to moral irresponsibility.

Conscience is not a suit one puts on only at festa time.It accompanies us in every decision we make individually or collectively.

This suit is made for wearing all the time.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt