The ongoing discussion about divorce has brought to the fore the difficult task faced by politicians exercising a public function in a secular state, which professes the Roman Catholic religion as the religion of Malta, while fulfilling their civic duty to represent all constituents whether Catholic or not, practising or otherwise.

One of the first duties of politicians is to listen to different viewpoints and to inform themselves objectively about the effects of divorce.

Politicians are called upon to reflect on the society we live in and on the impact divorce legislation will have on the society we should aspire to have. The family has traditionally been the nucleus of society and there is objective evidence to suggest that strong families make stronger societies. It is a myth to state that marriage breakdown is a matter of private concern or to argue that the form and nature of families or pseudo families is not a matter of public concern or common good.

Policy makers are called upon to decide whether social policy should be family centric or not and the divorce debate should be placed in this context.

One of the most difficult aspects of the divorce debate is responding to the needs of spouses whose marriages have irretrievably broken down without ignoring the long-term effects of divorce legislation on society in general. Unless matters of inalienable fundamental rights are at stake, the balancing act played by politicians in reconciling differing “interests” is not uncommon in taking policy decisions. Serious consideration of the impact of divorce legislation on society is critical in deciding whether the introduction of divorce is prevalently a matter of providing a remedy to aggrieved spouses regardless of the long-term effects of divorce on society at large or, alternatively, whether consideration of society’s common good should prevail while providing all the necessary support for failed marriages.

The extent to which religious belief or moral conviction should have a determining influence on law or public policy has long been an issue of controversy. The dichotomy between law and morals is often invoked by the pro-divorce lobby to suggest that an anti-divorce stance is, in effect, the imposition of a Catholic view on an otherwise secular society. The state, it is argued, should not legislate morals, it should allow maximum freedom of choice including the facility to divorce and it is then up to every individual to choose whether to divorce or not.

An anti-divorce view is not tantamount to an imposition of morals. It is a pro-family and a pro-society stance, which happens to coincide with the Catholic view on the indissolubility of marriage. A truth is a truth regardless of who professes it. The fact that a Catholic viewpoint happens to coincide with a well-thought-out family centric social policy strengthens rather than detracts from the validity of an anti-divorce stand. My Catholic conviction inevitably colours my pro-family anti-divorce stand but I can also rationally draw the same conclusion independently of religious considerations.

Apart from formulating informed views on divorce, politicians are inevitably strategising about the opportune political stance in order to broach the issue. While debate on the issue is healthy, it is clear that neither party has the mandate to actively promote divorce in the current parliamentary term. A Private Member’s Bill is certainly not the best means to debate an issue of fundamental importance.

The choices faced by political parties for the next election are varied, ranging from courageously taking a clear stand either in favour or against divorce, possibly elevating the matter to a differentiating electoral issue. Political parties may also choose to avoid taking an unequivocal stand on the matter or delay consideration to the next term either by pledging to refer the issue to a referendum or, alternatively, to a free parliamentary vote after the next election. In any event, gone are the days when politicians can sit on the fence. Having informed themselves about the effects of divorce, politicians have a duty to stand up and be counted by disclosing their views either in favour or against divorce at the opportune moment while respecting opposing viewpoints.

The divorce issue calls for a mature extensive debate coupled with conscientious reflection and discernment by all, cognisant that the outcome of the issue will leave an indelible mark on Maltese society for years to come, for better or for worse.