Libya and divorce dominated most people’s attention last week.

At the time of writing, Muammar Gaddafi was still in Libya, the head of a government that has lost its head. This tyrant seems to be ready to sacrifice all and everything to keep himself in power.

I hope that by the time you read this he would have joined Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak. But I have my doubts.

When I reflect on what is happening in the countries in North Africa I am struck by two things. The spark that ignited the volcano was not some presidential decree or law enacted by Parliament.

An overzealous, low-level functionary in Tunisia booked a university student who was working ‘illegally’ to earn what should be his by right: a living. The student set himself on fire; a fire which engulfed whole countries.

This could only have happened because these countries were living a lie. The façade was strong and massive. The interior was rotten and corroded.

These were not countries built on dialogue. The monologue of continuous propaganda was so loud that the impression was created that there were no other voices that should have been heard.

The rulers spoke only to those capable of echoing their voices. These sycophants were thought to be the most loyal among the loyal of followers. On the contrary, they were the most disloyal as they nurtured an illusion instead of grooming reality; they preferred monologue to dialogue.

The voices of the masses which were held silent for decades are now deafening the whole world by their sound. Had there been real dialogue there would have been mutual respect; and had there been mutual respect the catastrophe could have been avoided.

Mutual respect is, unfortunately, lacking in the current debate on divorce we are going through. Many, on each side, are so busy listening to themselves they have no time to listen to others.

Lack of dialogue brings with it the mushrooming of stereotyping and the demonising of the ‘others’. Those with whom one does not agree stop being individual human beings and become the ‘others’.

In this scenario, the divorce debate stops being a discussion. It develops into two parallel monologues.

On one side, there are those ‘bent on breaking families’, while on the other there are those who ‘are insensitive to battered wives’.

On one side, there is Christ, while on the other there is the devil. On one side there are the ‘evil ones’, while on the other there are those who want ‘to drag us to the darkness of the Middle Ages’.

If one says the other side has a good point he is shouted down as a traitor of his or her group. Without dialogue, we will not be able to find common ground. Without dialogue, we will not be able to understand and respect each other.

I offer for your reflection Minister Austin Gatt’s concluding paragraph to a series of articles he penned in The Times about divorce. He presented his case strongly and assertively but he never lost sight of the respect those holding an opinion contrary to his should have as of right. His attitude towards the referendum is worth emulating:

“Inevitably, there will be winners and losers and, hopefully, we, as a country, can accept the result whatever it will be without imagining any personal affront if our view has not prevailed.

“I have already stated and will repeat: I do not expect Maltese society to share my values, and if it does not it is my problem, not that of society.

“I have an option to live somewhere more congenial to me. I have the right to do my utmost to change opinions but I have no right to belittle, insult or take it out on someone else.

“Hopefully, that sentiment will be shared by all, no matter on which side of the divide they lie.”

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt