The divorce issue is not about divorce but whether divorce is conducive to strengthening the family. All local data indicates problems exist but not to such an extent that divorce has become necessary to have a well-ordered society. Austin Gatt addresses the issue in this series of articles.
The divorce debate is well and truly on. It cannot be avoided any longer and, to a certain extent, it is about time we faced the question. The method used to put it on the national agenda is certainly not to my liking because it is incomprehensible and indefensible from a party point of view.
Parties and political groupings are built on the basic premise that, while it is normal there should be policy discords, it is also normal policies are discussed and developed internally. Mavericks there have and will always be but the maverick cannot have the cake and eat it. The simple, inescapable reality is no one in the party would have objected – or could even object – to the debate being kick-started by a motion to discuss the issue at executive committee level. This route was ignored in preference to the media splash without the Prime Minister, the general secretary, the parliamentary group, the executive council or anyone in the party knowing what was happening. Hopefully, these standards will not be emulated!
Be that as it may, the issue is now with us; we will not avoid it any longer. I suppose there are many who have still not formed an opinion but there are others who have, both for divorce and against divorce. None of these are unbiased observers; their preference is declared. Nothing wrong with this at all as long as it is clear it is not wrong for both the anti-divorcists and the pro-divorcists – something not all “innovators” (read pro-divorce campaigners) concede to the anti-divorce lobby, especially whom they usually label as “conservative”.
I am one of the “biased” observers. I am “not for turning”, as Margaret Thatcher famously once said. I have formed my view on divorce and that view is not about divorce but about the family. I firmly believe in a strong family relationship and that the state has to develop policies favouring strong family relationships and assist when marriages run into problems. I do not believe divorce helps in achieving that policy aim. We may not be doing enough to promote that policy; we may not be investing enough – financially and from a human resource point of view – to realistically achieve that aim but it still remains the basic policy aim I and my party believes in.
This debate will not mature unless we clearly declare what aim we want to achieve and we will end up talking at cross-purposes unless we do. I am against the introduction of divorce in Malta but this is only a consequence of the value I believe in – the family – and not the value itself! In fact, divorce per se is rather irrelevant to the intrinsic debate because if the value is not the family then divorce is only one way of many in which the marriage bond can be dissolved. This is why the emphasis has to be on what we want Maltese society to be.
I am also, however, part of a society and do realise that my opinion is far from sacrosanct and may be anachronistic if that society is so far removed from my values and opinions that I am irrelevant. I cannot expect everyone to agree with me and I therefore have to view the question from a different angle as well: Has the society we live in evolved to such a state that the original family relationship is not important and marriage breakdowns are so common that, as a society, we need divorce to have a regulated society?
In other words, I am and will remain for the family and view a divorce system as inimical to the family but I can certainly live in a society that thinks otherwise, where divorce is part of the laws I operate under. I will do so while remaining true to my principles and values (including religious beliefs) but clearly not expecting that judges or parliamentarians ignore the laws of the country.
Obviously, I expect as much from the pro-divorce lobby if my view prevails!
It is extremely important we agree what exactly is the purpose of this debate. It is no use saying the aim is “to introduce/not introduce divorce”. Divorce is a tool to achieve a goal. If we have different goals, let’s say so but let’s not pretend to have the same goals if we do not.
Different goals will lead us to different policy options. Any social reform worth its salt is done in order to reach a particular aim. It would be nonsensical otherwise.
In introducing divorce in a social regime that previously did not recognise it one could very well argue that this is a “right” and, therefore, its implantation is a “matter of principle” and the aim is the maximum possible liberty to the individual to do as he pleases even without agreed conditions to ensure a minimum of rights to the other party. In this scenario – the sort of “quickie divorce” regimes – everyone does his own thing and the devil take the consequences. This, of course, is the libertine view and while not predominant is present in a good number of jurisdictions.
There are, however, other so to say “conservative” attitudes to divorce, attitudes that, while recognising divorce as part of the social structures of a country, lay much more emphasis on the consequences it brings about, tries to mitigate them even by making divorce not so easy to obtain and ensuring divorce is considered as a personal right which, however, has consequences on society at large. This is, obviously, the more conservative view and it would seem the pro-divorce lobby in Malta is closer to this view than to the “quickie divorce” group.
When one examines both the pro- and the anti-divorce arguments brought forward by the respective proponents in Malta there is a rather surprising similarity in the aim both seem to want to achieve.
The anti-divorce lobby maintains the aim of Maltese society should be a strong family relationship and argues that introducing divorce provides an easy way out for persons with marital problems. This lobby argues that, if divorce were to be introduced, family relationships would become weaker. In a “political” context, this view emphasises the need to establish programmes for a good marriage preparation, programmes which assist the family and which advise persons at risk of marriage breakdown.
Bottom line: the anti-divorce lobby aims at a strong family unit at the base of society.
The pro-divorce lobby turns this argument on its head but arrives at the same conclusion. This lobby argues if – for serious reasons – a marriage has broken down and the break is irreversible why stop only at a separation and not give the right to re-marry? The pro-divorce argument is that the well-being of society in general – and not simply the personal well-being of individuals – is best served by giving persons the opportunity of a new beginning if the previous marriage has irretrievably failed. The solution, according to this argument, is actually fully in line with the strong family argument because it is the only way that “new” families can be created. Divorce is therefore portrayed as the only means whereby individuals who, unfortunately, go through a marriage breakdown can actually achieve the cherished aim of a strong family relationship.
In other words, the pro-divorce lobby is saying we are not doing it for egoistical reasons but we are doing it because it is good for Maltese society!
But is this so?
Dr Gatt, a Cabinet minister, is a former general secretary of the Nationalist Party.
Tomorrow: We seem to have a common aim