I'm convinced the first of the two big parties unequivocally to commit itself in favour of divorce legislation will win the next election hands down. Here's why.

The current reasoning at the PN/PL war chambers seems to be as follows. (a) It's quite likely that the majority of Maltese are uneasy with the idea of divorce, to the extent they would vote against legalising it in a referendum; (b) winning an election entails getting the majority of the national vote; (c) it therefore makes sense not to commit the party in favour of divorce.

Proposition (a) may well be true. There's a good chance that the majority of Maltese are in fact against divorce legislation.

The reasons are various and include deceptive public discourse (divorce is often discussed in tandem with abortion, for example), misguided rhetoric about 'family values', and a general gut feeling that we must somehow be a bastion of conservative Catholicism.

The upshot is that I know people who have wriggled their way through two or three marriages and are still 'against' divorce. Mad but true.

Proposition (b) is true but misleading. The last thing a party needs to win an election is to consider the majority. What matters is that sliver of people (probably around 25,000 strong) who are to some extent flexible. Those, that is, whose antipathy to the 'enemy' is not deep-seated enough to prevent them from switching allegiance.

The rest of the electorate is dead ground as far as electioneering is concerned. It is made up of Nationalists who think Labour is the devil's spawn and would never ever vote for it or abstain, and vice-versa. It is interesting to note that in 1987, for example, following all the mayhem and with Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici as Labour leader, the PN still did not manage any major inroads into pure red territory. In the circumstances, it won by a whisker.

A very significant and durable whisker though. Eddie Fenech Adami's leadership created and nurtured a sense of forward-lookingness and optimism that consistently won over the flexible vote. Election after another (save for VAT96), those '25,000' have tended to vote Nationalist.

For these last 30-odd years, the PN has stood for free market principles (not just in the economic sense), a certain plurality of choice, and 'European-ness', whatever that means. The flexible vote loved it, and it didn't really matter that on other counts the party was as open-minded as a Bible-belt gay-basher.

Now that the idea of a comfortable lifestyle has seeped into the unquestioned, however, the conservatism is beginning to rub people the wrong way. The Maltese live well but they will not continue to thank the PN indefinitely for it.

Meanwhile, the PL lingered in a mist of doom and gloom. Joseph Muscat has changed all of that and there's a palpable sense of optimism in the air. So far, however, I'd say it has to do with him not being Alfred Sant. Muscat's big on progressive-speak, but I've yet to hear him propose anything tangible. It's rhetoric and more rhetoric.

The political freedom, the comfortable lifestyle, and the EU are now givens. The stage is set for a new contest, and I suspect it'll have to do with liberal attitudes and freedoms like divorce legislation, women in public posts, gay rights, and such. The party that gains the upper hand will very likely win the next few election, just like the PN did following the revamp by Fenech Adami.

Since we've agreed to ignore the majority, so to speak, let's concentrate on our '25,000'. The category is likely to include people who (used to) vote AD, as well as types who are relatively open-minded in some way or another, possibly because their own biographies have suffered enough at the hands of the inquisition to make them think twice about partisan allegiance.

They might be gay and cohabiting with their partners, separated people going through the costly and humiliating mise en scène of annulment, or first-time voters who would like to live in a country where a condom machine on campus is a non-issue.

Or simply middle-class sorts whose families turned their backs on Labour in the 1980s, and who have since been floating about PN territorial waters.

They're now up for grabs, and they're also in a bit of a dilemma. Will it be the PN, prone to firing broadsides at single mums and hobnobbing with the mothballed fogeys from Cana and Doha? Or will it be the PL, so progressive and moderate and vague about both?

It is here that divorce legislation comes into the picture. Given it's played well - and both parties are well-placed to do so, what with their media arsenals - the issue has great potential. It could very well become a symbol of a new liberal-minded agenda, just as chocolate and toothpaste were symbols of a new freedom-minded one in the 1980.

Just like Mars and Colgate, it's not so much the actual object that matters, but rather what it represents. A stand in favour of divorce legislation would likely be seen as a symbol of a truly progressive party. One that respects Cana/Doha even as it relegates them to just another opinion, or one that dumps gutless rhetoric for actual proposals.

The option is more of the same, i.e. a party hoping to win an election by feeding off its past, and another hoping to win by default. That, as the neck and neck result of last year's election showed, is a risky and unpredictable game.

Since I'm now effectively adviser (ahem) to both parties, do I get €80,000 a year?

mafalzon@hotmail.com.