The case of Edwin Vassallo’s stand on same-sex marriage has highlighted the situation in which the Nationalist Party has found itself. I will not go into what happened or in the morality of the entire affair. Rather, I will highlight certain facts that came out of this episode and how the party can move forward in the coming months.

First and foremost, the party’s ideological basis even in an age where ideology is supposedly dead, has had a common thread, based around Catholic social principles.

If there has been a thread that has united the entire party’s history, at least since the amalgamation of the Partito Democratico Nazionalista with the Unione Politica Maltese in the 1926, this has been its Catholic social principles. Embracing values that emanate from Catholicism have been a hallmark of the PN.

We all remember Eddie Fenech Adami’s lead in the struggle for democracy and personal freedoms in the 1980s. Were they not inspired by a deep understanding of Catholic social thought? Yet, so far, no one objected that in the process any social category was excluded.

When speaking about Catholic values, it is the humanistic aspect of them that strikes out. For, where would the entire basis of our civilisation be were it not for the cradle of Christianity?

Universities, education, even the very basics of human rights owe an immeasurable depth to Christianity and Catholicism in particular. In our case, Catholicism is the very foundation of Maltese identity.

All this places us in the perspective of Vassallo’s refusal to vote like the rest of his party on the Marriage Equality Bill.

His decision might not have been in line with his party’s Whip but was it so different from how the PN’s fellow EPP parties in Europe vote? Have the PN pundits taken into consideration, when they hosted their fellow PPE members in Malta, how these vote on social issues and how this compares with the PN’s voting trend in the last four years?

Sometimes, one wonders whether the PN nowadays still feels part of the EPP or is it still there not to miss out on being part of the largest political formation in the European Parliament. Perhaps, they should join other political families and come out clean with their true intentions.

And there is a deeper, even more troubling trend with regard to this; the imposition of a Whip on an MP’s conscience is a clear signal that a democratic deficit is in the making.

A silenced conscience is the first step towards a dictatorship

One might ask: was not the legislation voted upon a move to guarantee protection for minorities, therefore, if we put it the other way round, what if the majority agreed to take away that protection, should not those who object fall under the Whip?

Furthermore, it has always been a sign of a democratic party and of the democratic body politic in general to respect the individual’s conscience.

Failure to respect that conscience could open the way for a dictatorship. It might not be so clear but a silenced conscience is the first step towards a dictatorship.

This brings us to another point: why should the PN respect a free vote if the Labour Party does not?

The answer is simple. Each party is duty bound to defend freedom of conscience and failure to do so is deemed to be dictatorial.

Is this not what distinguishes democrats and totalitarians? The ball, therefore, is always in the court of those who insist they champion democracy.

This brings us to Vassallo’s position on the Equal Marriage Bill and how right or not he was in taking the position he opted for in Parliament. In my opinion he was right on three accounts.

First, because it was a vote in line with his conscience as a Christian and no one has a right to dictate a person’s conscience.

Secondly, it is clear his stand had the backing of a part of his party’s electorate who, like the rest, have a right to be represented in Parliament.

Failure to do so means that the PN only considers these people as vote giving cash cows who, in turn, have no right to have their voice heard in the legislative process.

And, finally, Vassallo saw his actions as being made for the common good and his defence of Christian values as an act that will benefit everyone.

Does this mean that those who, out of their free will, voted in favour of the Bill were wrong? Not at all, provided the vote was free and without undue pressure.

At the time of writing, it is to be noted with satisfaction that the principle of a free vote on matters of morality has been accepted by all four candidates running for PN leadership.

Hopefully, this principle will be kept no matter who the leader of the party will be.

And may this principle be adopted by both sides of the House.

Carmel Borg is a history graduate and has a Masters in international relations.