The Nationalist Party yesterday confirmed it is taking a formal position against divorce because, the PN maintains, its introduction would change the definition of marriage as a “permanent bond” and would not be conducive to promoting family values.
The boast that comes from the party is that unlike everyone else, it is “not afraid to take a stand on delicate issues” and is not afraid, in the national interest (that overused term crops up again), to take decisions that may not suit it electorally.
On the face of it, this is a stand of true principle. The same stand, it would like us to believe, taken by its then leader Eddie Fenech Adami (but significantly, not by the party in those days) before the 1981 election at a time when it was rumoured that Dom Mintoff’s government may introduce divorce legislation.
Given his consistency on matters of principle, it should not surprise anyone that Dr Fenech Adami’s position today has remained unchanged. However, it is complete distortion of the scenario that has unfolded before us in recent weeks to suggest that today’s Nationalist Party mirrors that stand.
If the PN wanted to take a truly principled stand against divorce, as the party in government it would not have entertained the idea in the first place – as was the case throughout Dr Fenech Adami’s tenure. And had one of its backbenchers attempted to introduce a Private Member’s Bill without consulting anyone else in the party, it would have shown him the door.
Of course, as Alfred Sant discovered when he committed political suicide after clashing with Mr Mintoff in 1998, taking a principled stand does not necessarily make for good politics. And in no way are we suggesting that the PN should have gone down that route in this instance.
However, the least it could do in the circumstances is refrain from pontificating on principle when it is clear to everyone outside the party that it is just doing whatever it takes to hold together its delicate parliamentary majority. This is a classic case of political expediency.
Not to mention inconsistency. As a number of commentators have pointed out, how can a party that says it believes in the family structure and the permanency of marriage so readily legitimise cohabitation? How can it in conscience give its MPs a free vote?
How can it not seek to amend legislation enacted in 1976 which allows Maltese to obtain a divorce abroad and then remarry in Malta?
Perhaps worse than all this, however, is how it has chosen to handle the mechanics of taking a decision on divorce.
People were first told that they would decide whether divorce is introduced. Yet after yesterday’s PN executive meeting it emerged that a referendum is conditional on the outcome of the parliamentary vote on Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s Private Member’s Bill.
If this proves to be the case, it would be grossly unfair on the people – a con, no less – as well as contradicting the position the Prime Minister himself adopted in an interview with this newspaper just last month. “Once we politicians don’t have a mandate,” he had said, “we will tell the electorate to vote, not the (69) people who haven’t been entrusted with this responsibility.”
Whatever the result of the vote on the Bill, the people must be given the opportunity to express themselves on this issue – preferably without any interference from politicians, and in particular the Nationalist Party, who have so far only managed to mess things up for the sake of political games.