I had promised myself to give divorce a break and not to write again about it for some time. However, three things happened yesterday, which made me change my mind. While clearing some old files I came upon the results of a survey about divorce published by the Curia’s Discern Institute in February 1998. Then in late afternoon, I found in my in-box the result of the survey commissioned by Xarabank and in the evening watched the programme’s edition on the subject. Too many convergent coincidences to ignore the subject, I told myself.

Xarabank on divorce

Let me start from the programme.

The panel was four against divorce and three in favour. I am not very clear about the positioning of the family therapist (who was sitting on the side) and the validity or incisiveness of his contribution. Jean Claude Micallef, Helen Damato and Andre Camilleri were very good. Their message was strong and direct. As a country, we should work more to strengthen the family structure and marriage, they said. All the other members of the panel acknowledged this.

In my writings, I have repeatedly stated that discussions about ways to strengthen families and marriage unite us while discussions about divorce divide us. Let us do the latter but let us not be alienated from the former. Divorce or no divorce, we still have to do our utmost to strengthen families if we really believe that happy families are an intrinsic good and the most valuable asset that a country can have. (My latest contribution in this vein was made in The Sunday Times, September 19, and can be accessed from http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100919/religion/family-breakdown). Undoubtedly much more can and should be done. I propose that people from the anti-divorce lobby approach people from the pro-divorce lobby to embark on conjoint studies about ways to strengthen the family in Malta. However, I feel I have to note that the comparison between what the country spends on the family commission and the restoration of bastions was weak and inane. The country spends much more on strengthening families than the pittance it spends on the national family commission!

I have on more than one occasion criticised Jeffrey Pulliciono Orlando. I strongly criticise his method and content on this occasion as well. His references to the study done in Ireland do not give enough importance to the caveats attached to and interpretations given to the study. (In fairness sake, I add that the use of studies and statistics that is sometimes made by some in the anti-divorce lobby is made so lightly that they make me cringe.) However, I must admit that his performance was good from a televisual point of view: clear, calm and consistent (even if for the more discerning he, at times, superficially dismissed facts presented to him). The one-to-one interview with JPO was rather weak. It concentrated more on JPO’s strategy (very important, I concede, but not the heart of the matter) than the content of his proposed legislation. I also have a positive reaction to the performance of Dr Debbie Schembri.

On the other hand it was a pity that a calm and intelligent person such as Fr Vince Magri SJ came across as an angry and hesitant if not also ill-informed person. His perceived attempt to avoid the “sin” question and his waffling about and non-verbal features when he was pressed for an answer is – to say the least - unfortunate.

The programme started in the most disastrous way for the pro-divorce lobby. A very weak argument by Vinny (the trump card of the anti-divorce lobby) who seemed ready to shred marriage of any level of commitment was immediately demolished by Jean Claude and by the gentleman who spoke soon after him. The early auto-goal (by the pro-divorce side) and these two very early goals sealed the fate of the programme. These first hand personal experiences together with the position of the Commissioner for Children, more than anything else, were the greatest asset of argumentation of the anti-divorce lobby. While usually, the pro-divorce lobby is the winner in the emotional dimension of the debate, this time it was the loser.

The two surveys

The Discern Institute survey published in early 1998 found a country strongly against divorce. Almost 63% were against divorce; almost 14% were in favour and another 14% were in favour in some circumstances. Twelve years later, it is a very different ball game. The Xarabank survey (I let others more competent than I to comment on its methodology) gives us a more secularised country which is struggling between our traditional (and I believe excellent heritage) and a new world (which for me is everything) but brave).

Faced by a straight question about the introduction of divorce legislation, almost 47% say no while almost 40% say yes. There is a strong relative majority but the balance will eventfully be tipped by the 11% who are not decided. The difference, however, is considerable and the balance would probably go for the no option. Note also the decline in the number of no-es since 1998: it is more than 1% each year! Similar results are given for mass attendances. Faced by a question which qualifies the type of divorce that will be introduced the majority says aye. Fifty six per cent said yes to the question: If during the referendum, the question is ‘If Divorce should be introduced in Malta for couples who have been separated for more than 4 years, after they have tried all possible means to reconcile and there is a guarantee on children’s’ maintenance would you vote?’ JPO seems to have the majority. There are similarities between both surveys: males are more in favour than women are and those of a younger age are more in favour than those of an older age bracket.

Conclusion

Let me make these different positions:

i. I believe that the issue should be decided by a referendum which should be held before the election and where the question is a straight one between pro- or anti- divorce. Then parliament should legislate (or not legislate, hopefully) accordingly. A referendum tied to legislation is pre-empting of the question without any popular mandate to do so. This Parliament is not competent to provide for divorce legislation. The option of a question plus legislation option can make logical sense only if that law includes a provision stating that it can only be changed by another referendum which cannot be held before of a ten year period.

ii. The Church should make its voice heard. This is a duty towards the teachings of its Founder and a duty towards society. However, the Church should be conscious of the changes our society is going through (as evidenced in this case by the two surveys I mentioned) and plan its long term pastoral strategy in the light of eventualities which are, in my opinion, inevitable.