The seasonal lull in politics and public debate has set in. Yet this year it might be short-lived. In less than a day parliament will be debating the second reading of the divorce bill which will turn the electorate's resounding verdict into law.There was never, and there still isn't, any question about the people's will becoming the law of the land. By all accounts, around two thirds of the House will put divorce on the statute books in the sweltering heat of August. A rather symbolic end to an issue which by the PM's own assessment xeghlet il-pajjiz ("fired up the country").
But for the government, parliamentary life between tomorrow and the fateful vote is anything but plain sailing in a light Mediterranean summer breeze. It will not be the numbers totting up the predictable majority in the House which will matter. It will be those totting up on the government side which will.
The PN has 35 members representing it in parliament. Following some checking I've done this morning, it transpires that around 15 of them will vote in favour of the law, or abstain. This is already quite significant. The PN's parliamentary representatives will in their absolute majority be voting against divorce, against what the people have decided.
Let us delve deeper, moving from the PN's parliamentary representation to the government itself. By my estimate, there is also a majority of cabinet members who will be voting against the law, a majority which will be proportionately even bigger than that of the PN's parliamentary group. How the primus inter pares, Lawrence Gonzi, will vote is still a mystery, although the rumblings are that he will vote against. If so, it would not be just another 'no' in an alphabetical parliamentary roll call. It would be the 'no' of a prime minister, the captain of the ship of state.
If the divorce vote pans out as predicted above, it will amount to two very perturbing facts. First, the majority (20 out of 35) of the PN's representatives in parliament would be voting against the people's will expressed in a referendum which the very same MPs had decided to hold. Free vote or not, the PN as a political party would be flouting a popular vote.
Worse still, much worse, the executive arm of the state, that is the government, would be doing the same. Effectively, we would have a government going against the people's will. No genuine democrat could find this state of affairs palatable.
This is not what the Nationalist Party has been all about for the last three decades. The maduma has been the stepping stone for men and women from all walks of life to assert their political will and thereby improve their lives. It was never meant to be a weapon to be hurled at people who had the temerity to vote against what the party wanted. And it certainly was never used to attack the foundations of democratic institutions. That job was always left to the destructive flames of the torca.
6 comments:
Hi Lou,
This is an interesting post and I'm aware that your views are shared by many, including myself to a certain extent. I'm in favour of the right to divorce in Malta. This said, and without claiming expertise in this area, I'd argue that the following assumptions require even deeper investigations. One should perhaps take the lenses out again :)
(1) Given that the referendum was consultative rather than binding, then if it was treated as binding (as the blog post seems to suggest), the electorate's voting decisions (including the Yes, the No, and the abstaining) would (or should) no longer be ethically effective (due to manipulation). It may be argued that this is the case because many thought that (A) the result would be a NO for divorce, and/or (B) even if the result would be YES, the law wouldn't pass, because the referendum was consultative.
(2) Your entire argument seems to revolve around the idea that the manifestation of democracy would in this case require the Government to respect the voters' will. I'd be surprised if this was entirely correct. The idea of consultative referendum (as a mechanism) is the result of a democratic process. One cannot claim that misusing consultative agreements is what renders something democratic.
(3) The Government has access to more information than the electorate has. It is therefore, in certain circumstances, in a position to act paternally. Such paternalism would however also be rooted in democracy, because the people acting paternally are elected democratically. This is in my opinion what justifies the existence of consultative referenda.
So, in my opinion, politically speaking it might be madness to contradict the public. Legally speaking, probably not. Ethically speaking, MOST probably NOT (anzi bil-kontra).
As I said, my opinion is far from an expert one in this case. Comments welcome. My bottom line is that in principle the right to divorce should be introduced. Religiously, it should all be about free will. If you don't want to exercise the right, then don't. However, I'm not sure on whether the right to divorce would serve the best interest of the Maltese, culturally and economically... I guess that the Government should be in a better position to decide.
@ Christian
I'm sorry to say that your argument about the referendum being "consultative" is flawed. The reason is that it was held because our Parliament claimed that it did not have a mandate to take a decision on divorce.
So they have asked the electorate to make a decision. And so we did. The minute that MPs passed the buck to us (abdicating from their responsibilities), they have turned themselves into a "rubberstamp" on this issue.
All the MPs had the opportunity to vote according to their conscience - and that task was carried out in the polling booth.
I reiterate: the objective of the referendum was more than consultative. This assertion is just political spin.
Like many other people, I will never show any form of respect towards those MPs ignore the people's will. Respect does not come with your Job Title; one has to work very hard to achieve it and eventually maintain it.
Yet, it is so easy to lose.
Lou- i think what this really reveals is how shallow our political class really is. They fail to grasp the fundamentals of a democracy and exaggerate their self importance by sticking to a position because of some moral dilemma. This issue was so straightforward its not funny yet we as a nation have managed to equate a couple of steps behind legalising abortion!
Self interest as displayed by that dickhead Joe Cuschieri, sums up what this 'game' is to our elected representatives. We get the Government we deserve - never more so than in two years' time when that motley crew take over....
So you mean that the electorate's decision is legally or ethically binding, or both? It doesn't seem to be legally binding to me.
Christian. No, it is not legally binding but the "instructions" to the electorate were quite clear: you have to make a decision about divorce. We made a decision so now they need to rubberstamp it.
All this talk about the referendum being consultative is nonsense as the objective was not to consult the electorate but for the latter to make a decision which our MPs were unable to take.
@ Mark:
Thanks for the clarification. I see where you're coming from, and you do have a "good" although weak basis for your counterargument.
Your position is based on a couple of political generalisations in favour of the introduction of the right to divorce. There's nothing wrong with this, as long as they are presented and recognised as such...
Post a Comment