Next Sunday (February 6, 2011), in my regular column in The Sunday Times, I will write why it is highly irresponsible for a political party not to take a formal and official position about the introduction of divorce legislation. I will summarise my arguments and then tackle other aspects of the debate.
Some say that the introduction or otherwise of divorce is a matter of conscience and, ergo, political parties should leave the decision to its individual members. In my opinion, this is a totally mistaken position.
Every decision we take – and this applies also and a fortiori to our MPs – is a matter of conscience. We cannot be human and divorce our actions from our conscience. The same applies to our decisions not to take an action. Inaction is not morally neutral. We can go against our conscience by acting or by failing to act.
What applies to individuals acting alone, applies more and more to individuals acting in groups e.g. political parties. Individuals form political parties to take action together. The more important an action is the more imperative it is for a political party to take a position. The more an issue is a matter of principle and conscience the more obligatory it is for a political party to take a position.
Any political party, which decides to abdicate its responsibility and abstain from taking a decision on divorce, would be committing a grave act of moral and political irresponsibility.
I write more on this subject in my column in The Sunday Times. Book a copy!
Why there should be a referendum
I have repeatedly written in favour of deciding the divorce issue by a referendum. To-day I am writing that political parties have to take an official position on divorce legislation. Does this not mean that they should go the whole hog and also take a decision themselves in Parliament and be ready to shoulder the political responsibility afterwards? No, it does not mean that.
Our Parliamentarians are not absolute rulers. They are not the seat of power. We, the people, are the seat of power. We delegate our authority to them for a period of time. We decide what should be delegated and what should not be delegate. Before a general election they ask us for this delegation, telling us at the same time how they would manage the power we delegate to them.
This does not mean that our elected representatives can do nothing unless it is written in black and white in their manifestos. The country would be in a sorry state if we were to limit their delegated powers in such a way. Things crop up; unexpected events come our way; new opportunities offer themselves; unpleasant developments have to be managed, etc. We elect leaders to lead. They have to decide on these issues even if their decisions are unpopular ones.
However, there are decisions that are so momentous that our elected representatives should not take them unless they were duly authorised by us – the electors – to do them. Divorce is one such decision. Only one party asked us for our consent before an election. That was Alternattiva Demokratika. It was trashed one election after another.
Today no one in Parliament has a mandate to vote for divorce legislation. Our MPs can get this mandate either by putting the proposals in the electoral manifesto of their party or by asking us directly in a referendum. I think that it would be a grave mistake to tangle the divorce issue with electricity bills, the rise in salaries for Members of Parliament; the non-asphalted roads in one’s neighbourhood, etc. This is what would happen if divorce is an electoral issue.
Divorce should be decided through a referendum. Referenda are generally one issue events. It is true that some people can use a referendum for a different purpose e.g. to show that they are not happy with government. The nature of this referendum will probably attract a very small number of such voters.
We the electors sould decide in favour or against divorce legislation.
Should basic human rights be subject to the will of the majority? Definitively not. Divorce is not a basic human right. No international convention recognises divorce as a basic human right.
Is it correct to let the majority decide on the needs of the minority? This is what we do all the time. This is the nature of democracy. Divorce should not be treated differently. Our democratic system is based on the beief that the people are to be trusted to take the right decision. They do not always do so. True. However, even judges and magistrates do not always take the correct decision. Should we scrap the system?
I believe that the Maltese people will consider the different sides of the arguments carefully. Most will go into the rational and emotional aspects of the debate. The vote that will finally emerge will not reflect an egoistic people but a mature population. Their decision should be respected within the parameters of the democratic system.
O what a farce
Someone sent an email to a friend. This friend sent the email to other friends and acquaintances. These latter friends and acquaintances sent it to more friends and acquaintances on their mailing list.
This happens all the time. It happens everywhere: government departments, schools, industry, homes etc.
All of us receive jokes, chain letters, inspirational advice, political messages all the time. We read them or just junk them. Since electronic addresses are not spatially bound, many have one electronic address which they use for business and pleasure. When one sends an email one does not know whether it will be accessed from work or home or the countryside or the seaside. It is no big deal. We have learnt to live with this undesirable by product of the digital era.
Recently someone sent an email to someone asking the latter to support the anti-divorce movement. It did the rounds as all other emails do. No one with a modicum of digital literacy would have been annoyed or found his privacy threatened or his honour offended. However now we know that Mr John Bencini, the big boss of the teachers’ union, knows about these things of the digital era as much as I know of the things of the pre-historic era. He judged such an email as an abuse of power and as a possible infringement of the Data Protection Act. Wow! How awful and how disgusting was such an act to elicit such ire from such a warrior for human rights.
What a farce!