Though closely related, the debate on divorce has, since Saturday, shifted from whether it should be introduced or not to whether the decision should be taken by the people or by their elected representatives in Parliament.
There seems to be general agreement, including by the two big political parties and their leaders, that none of them has an electoral mandate to introduce divorce. Add to that a number of public declarations made by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who is also leader of the Nationalist Party, on the need for the people to decide themselves on divorce and one can easily understand why Dr Gonzi and his party can be accused of suddenly moving the goalpost on this delicate issue.
Looking closely at what happened and what was said before and after Saturday one can only conclude the PN’s action is, again, dictated by convenience rather than conviction. As our sister paper, The Sunday Times, very correctly put it, the PN has, “so far only managed to mess things up for the sake of political games”.
In this case, Dr Gonzi and his party cannot have the cake and try to eat it too. They must also realise that invoking the “common good” – which can mean so many different things to different people – will not help.
What the PN decided on Saturday neither satisfies those who insisted MPs must shoulder their responsibility and vote for or against divorce nor the others who say nobody but the people have the right to decide on this one. This is because MPs may say yes but then the people could throw the law out of the window in a referendum or, on the other hand, MPs could say no but there could be a majority within the electorate that wants divorce to be introduced.
What the PN has proposed is not a half measure. It is, to quote The Sunday Times again, a mess, and a big one at that.
How can the Prime Minister say that by taking the stand it opted for on Saturday, the PN was not closing the door to anybody? Does he not realise that if the Bill is defeated in Parliament the people would not have a say?
There will be three stages when parliamentarians can stop the Bill: at first, second and third reading. Between the second and third reading the House resolves itself in committee and scrutinises and votes on each clause of the Bill. Here, the PN will be proposing a new clause making the Bill, if approved, subject to a referendum.
Both leaders have agreed to give their parliamentary group a free vote and both of them have expressed their own views clearly if not forcefully too. Will that influence MPs? Hopefully not.
What is the way ahead?
If it truly believes the people must decide, the PN should review its stand and perhaps consider moving a resolution in the House that would lead to a referendum on whether divorce should be introduced or not and only then proceed with a debate on the Bill.
If not, MPs who put their constituents and their conscience before partisan interests can unequivocally declare their stand on divorce in the House and explain they would be voting for the Bill only so a referendum can be held. They will then proceed to campaign publicly according to their conscience and use their influence and the trust they enjoy to help people decide how to vote in the referendum.