At the end of the day, it will probably be up to the 69 members of the House of Representatives to decide whether Malta will introduce divorce legislation of not.
They have to do a lot of soul-searching and grappling with their consciences before they decide. Divorce implies a change in the marriage paradigm, a most radical innovation for our country. The pros and cons have to be carefully weighed in the light of our social reality and the effects the introduction of divorce had in other countries.
However, as the Prime Minister quite rightly and aptly said, our MPs cannot take a decision unless we, the electors, give them a clear and unequivocal mandate.
This means that the current Parliament does not have a mandate to legislate on the matter. The only party which had divorce on its electoral agenda was thrashed at the polls. The PN and the PL never hinted at the possibility.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's draft bill for the introduction of divorce is consequently an anti-democratic act, as it attempts to usurp the rights of the electorate and legislate divorce by stealth and deceit. His underhanded approach is not a dignified one.
A popular mandate can be given only following a general election or through a referendum. I prefer the latter alternative.
An election is hardly ever a one-issue contest. The nearest Malta came to this state of affairs was the 2003 election which was mostly fought on the EU platform. Generally, people vote on a number of issues, ranging from the principled to the most mundane.
I do not think it would be wise to have a one-issue electoral campaign with the main issue being divorce.
On the other hand, referendums, by their very nature, are one-issue contests and, consequently, should be a more apt instrument than an election. Some said it is not right for the majority to decide on a need of the minority. This position implies a very cynical attitude towards voters.
It implies that people are not at all principled. It implies that they do not care about others. I do not share this cynical attitude. People's sense of fairness and justice would make them reflect on the needs of others, hopefully seen in the parameters of the common good.
Some can say that divorce is a basic human right and the exercise of such rights should not be subject to a majority decision. Even if divorce legislation is presented to Parliament, its approval will end up as the result of a majority decision - a majority of MPs.
I prefer to trust the general population with such a decision. If divorce is a basic human right, then references to free votes in Parliament do not make sense at all. Those who believe divorce is a basic human right should challenge current legislation in our courts and, if need be, in the European Court of Human Rights. The country will then move accordingly.
None of the above means political parties should not take an official position on the subject. They should and must take it within a holistic policy about family welfare and marriage. They cannot keep on trying to keep a foot in both camps.
They should also leave space for dissenters on grounds of conscience; but an official position is a must. Then, for and against coalitions can be formed by people of different parties, religious convictions, etc, to front the campaigns. We had something similar during the EU referendum. One can build on that experience.