As always, all the important issues that have to be discussed in Malta end up being politicised to some or large extent. Legalising divorce has not been different. Apart from debating the wording of the referendum question, many other important aspects have to be analysed in more depth.

In an ideal world scenario, our House of Representative would have been in position to legislate on the basis of an electoral mandate. However, since both major political parties did not include any reference to divorce in their electoral programme, I think that it was morally right to let the citizens decide on such a sensitive issue, especially when taking into consideration that our political system is based on a representative democratic model, and not on a direct model.

With regard to the wording of the referendum question, a yes or no question would have made sense only if the Parliament had been able to come up with a finalised legislation for the electorate based on compromises that reflect both sides. However, as a country we are not even there yet. We are still at the stage where we are divided not only on the basis of what type of divorce we should have but also whether we should have divorce at all.

The latter touches a very important issue about the type of Maltese society we are aspiring to be in the near future and beyond.

The choice is between a confessional society that promotes one religion with the implied consequence of having a difficult relationship with minorities, or a liberal society that accepts all individual opinions based on individual freedom. Promoting either one or the other is never the whole answer to a well-functioning society that aspires for sustainable relationships that promote stability but freedom at the same time.

Unfortunately, the debate seems to follow this black/white division – between a confessional and a secular state. When we voted in favour of Malta becoming a member of the European Union, we did not only vote to get financial support from our richer EU partners. With our yes vote for EU membership, we also confirmed that we are aspiring to become more European, not only in terms of standards in infrastructural projects but also as a society that promotes individual values, attitudes and behaviour with the result of accepting the fact that minorities can decide as much as the majority.

This debate cannot be either black or white, i.e. whether we support one type of society or the other. The debate should not even revolve only around the issue of whether the question really represents the proposed legislation that still has to be finalised in Parliament; possibly ending up with certain important changes especially if the final vote proves to be divided almost equally.

History shows that the Maltese vote has always been almost divided equally between the yes and no camps. Assuming that history repeats itself for this issue as well, I strongly believe that no such important issue with big ethical implications can be imposed on the other half without important compromises. For this reason, the debate should become more mature and start focusing on how our national policies can be further improved in order to assist the traditional family in remaining the major institution that provides stability to children, while also allowing for less traditional forms of family to aspire to become more stable and closer to the traditional model.

Moreover, the fact that our Maltese society is becoming more individualistic even without divorce means we should go beyond the issue whether divorce should be introduced or not (because in fact it already exists due to a past legal decision to accept international divorces), but it should focus on what type of divorce we are going to accept as a society.

The Maltese society is changing, whether we like it or not. The past is important not to make future mistakes in promoting unsustainable practices. Moreover, our economic model promotes individualistic behaviour, be it in education, health, taxation, housing and other important policies. One cannot pretend to promote individual consumption over two decades and then condemn the effect of consumption based on individual freedom. During these last two decades we aspired to be more European, and therefore, we accepted the fact that there is grey in every situation by continuously searching for the right balance between societal goals and individual freedoms.