I became a Nationalist Party activist in the early 1980s, when my main concern as a young student was the fact that the Socialist government was doing its utmost to attack the concept of freedom of choice in education by engaging itself in a needless battle against Church schools. I went through the ranks: the PN youth movement, local councillor and, for the past 15 years, an MP. But the slogan that has always encapsulated what my party stands for has still remained, to me, the rallying cry of the 1980s: work, justice, liberty.
Times change. The fight for fundamental liberties was won when the majority of the electorate got the government it voted for in 1987 after five years of minority rule. The shameful interpretation of the 1981 result which, due to gerrymandering, led to a majority of seats in Parliament being given to the party with a minority of votes will forever sully the Labour Party’s history.
The PN, under Eddie Fenech Adami, was also in the forefront of another seismic societal development: EU membership. Once again the PL ended up on the wrong side of history when its leader, Alfred Sant, refused to accept the will of the majority as expressed in a referendum held in 2003.
The past years have tragically seen a dramatic rise in marriage breakdowns in Malta. We would never have believed a time would come when the marital breakdown rate would top 22 per cent, rising to 30 per cent if one were to take annulments into consideration.
This was why I presented a Private Member’s Bill aimed at putting responsible divorce on the parliamentary agenda. I was not imposing anything on my fellow MPs. I simply wanted to stimulate a debate on an important subject that has been put on the back-burner for far too long. My colleagues would have been free to vote as they deem fit.
The Standing Orders of the House are based on those of the “Mother of all Parliaments” – the House of Commons. It is worth noting that an English backbencher’s Private Member’s Bill was instrumental in the abolition of the death penalty in the UK. No one accused that honourable gentleman of “political disloyalty”.
I was initially opposed to the idea of holding a referendum on this issue, which I deem to be one of minority rights. Dr Fenech Adami took a similar stand. However, my present leader, Lawrence Gonzi, won me round to his way of thinking. He rightfully said the issue should be decided upon by the electorate in a referendum as it would have a profound impact on our country – marriage being the foundation of our society.
I agree. This is why I could never accept the stance my government was taking in this respect. The government was planning, without an electoral mandate, to legislate in favour of the increased formalisation of cohabiting relationships. The opening address for this legislature, delivered by President Fenech Adami, makes a direct reference to this. Although I will not go so far as calling this political disloyalty, I am completely against this happening in the legislative vacuum that exists at present. In the absence of responsible divorce, legislating in favour of cohabitation is tantamount to a declaration against the institution of marriage.
I have profound respect for Dr Fenech Adami. We will never see eye to eye on the divorce issue but, at least, he is honest enough to admit the true reason behind his anti-divorce militancy: “Jesus Christ, who is not any other philosopher but the Son of God, said divorce was bad for society. This is the truth and it is what I believe in. I will not budge from this position” (January 28).
What I find hard to accept is his reasoning about the institution of marriage: He challenged the notion a second marriage was better than cohabitation. “It is only better for the individuals because it gives them a higher social standing in a society that still values marriage,” he said (January 28).
I ask: What is wrong with having a society that still values marriage? We should thank God this is the case! We should not prohibit those who prefer to cohabit from doing so. It is a personal choice one should be allowed to make. But why are we afraid of allowing individuals whose first marriage has broken down irrevocably from giving new, caring relationships they have embarked upon the stability of a marital contract if they are responsible enough to wish to do so?
I will respect the will of the majority in the coming referendum. I cannot fathom how some of those who, like me, stood aghast at the anti-democratic stands taken by the PL in 1981 and 2003 can now state they are planning to ignore the referendum result unless things go the way they want them to. After having consulted with Evarist Bartolo – the co-presenter of the Divorce Bill – I will withdraw the Bill if the majority of Maltese and Gozitans decide on voting against responsible divorce in the referendum on May 28.
Is it morally acceptable to use your personal beliefs to justify the imposition of parameters for others when it comes to their liberty to pursue happiness and fulfilment?
Dr Pullicino Orlando is a Nationalist member of Parliament.