The divorce issue has in the past week assumed the likelihood of turning into a major political development, even as the growing debate about it continues to wriggle into all sorts of incorrect positions.
Austin Gatt has blown strong wind into the sails of that possibility with the self-imposed public commitment to resign, should his party decide in favour of divorce legislation.
That is not to say Gatt does not have every right to position himself in that manner. Every MP, wherever s/he sits, has that right. That’s what individual conscience on such an issue is all about.
I have no doubt that the minister was expressing a personal position. Yet neither do I have any doubt he made his position public in order to exert political pressure on his fellow Nationalist MPs.
His party was still maintaining an official silence on its collective position. Gatt jumped the gun before that was announced. Thereby, he turned the screw on his leader and Prime Minister also to chisel his position in stone.
Lawrence Gonzi has said often enough he does not agree with divorce legislation. But he has not committed himself to what he would do if Parliament approved it in principle, with the necessary backing from a minority of members from within his own party.
So far it has been understood that he would give a free vote, this being a matter of individual conscience.
Gatt has put-paid to all that. Knowing who is in a position to know who among Nationalist MPs want to put divorce legislation on the statute book, has effectively challenged Gonzi to stand up and be counted publicly. Will he stay on as Prime Minister if the party he leads aids a positive vote on the dreaded legislation?
So far Gonzi has not exerted pressure on his PN colleagues by threatening or declaring that he would call it a day if the House of Representatives adopted the principle of the House through aid from within his own quarters.
Gatt demonstrated that he is not about to dither while his leader plays the political diplomat. He has calculated that, if heavyweights make their move publicly against divorce, the few MPs from within their party who are in favour of making divorce possible would rethink their voting position, even to the point of going against their belief.
That goes beyond Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who cracked open a hornets’ nest by putting forward a Private Member’s Bill in favour of divorce in strictly defined circumstances, and later compounded his stance by allying himself with Labour MP Evarist Bartolo to promote divorce legislation.
The probability before Gatt went public was that Pullicino Orlando’s ‘yes’ vote would be offset by a ‘no’ vote from within the Labour ranks. But the internal discussion within the Nationalist Party indicated that Pullicino Orlando would be accompanied by one or more other Nationalist MPs when he broke rank.
The position now is that, sooner or later, the Prime Minister and possibly other ministers will have to decide whether to emulate Gatt and say that there would be no place in the PN parliamentary group if members within it helped to introduce the principle of legislating for divorce. Given that Gonzi has committed himself to bring the issue to the fore, voting on the issue will have to take place.
According to Gatt it would be ludicrous for a Catholic to share the bed of those who help pass the principle of divorce. Though claiming that the Nationalist Party is a lay party with ample room for different shades of opinion on various matters, Gatt would out. So, would Gonzi and other MPs stay in?
The pressure thereby created upon a few Nationalist MPs who, left to the devices of their conscience, would vote in favour of divorce legislation is tremendous.
Should enough of them hold out, and should the principle of making divorce available in certain circumstances be adopted, it is quite likely that the Cabinet would unravel and that Gonzi would have to consider calling a premature election.
It remains to be seen if Gatt’s gamble to force the issue upon his leader to make him take a similar stand, will work or not. Meanwhile the divorce issue remains simple. It is a civil legislative matter. Catholics cannot choose to divorce and be on the right side of the Church, though it is up to our forgiving and loving God how to judge them.
Yet neither do those who oppose couples divorcing, whatever the circumstances, including that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, have the right to deny the victims of a broken marriage the right to try to make a fresh legal start.
This is the fault that lies at the heart of the ‘No’ movement. They are right in wanting the family to remain strong. Who can be against that? But they are not right in attributing broken marriages to divorce legislation.
Marriages are breaking up in Catholic Malta and separations are running at a horrible rate, without there being provision for divorce. No one, not even a huge majority, has a right to deny those whose marriage has failed the right to start again.
Gatt is entitled to pressure his colleagues and to resign if some of his colleagues vote in favour of divorce legislation. Yet no one has the right to impose his will on others.
It is not ludicrous for practising Catholic MPs to vote in favour of lay legislation. (It will happen when voting on cohabitation arrangements take place.) It is unmentionable for anyone, whether in a majority or a minority, to impose on others what to do in their individual circumstances.