I accuse : a writ of summons
Over the past few weeks the intelligent Maltese voter has had the opportunity to witness at first hand the abdication of its politicians from their duty as effective representatives. Two of the three branches of an effective democracy have been all but neutered and hijacked in the name of political opportunism. This opportunism is a direct result of the constitutional interpretation of our politic by the two main parties fettered as they are by the chains that they have wrought around our constitution through practice and custom.
Government and parliament have shed aside their duties towards the electorate and engaged in a battle of confutation motivated by their eternal short-term concern for the 50+1 Holy Grail and in absolute defiance of any representative logic. The first foul committed was the turning the debate over a civil right into the cliché ridden political football we have long gotten used to. The second, greater foul, was the treating of the electorate like a cheap strumpet – easily bought and easily shed away. In this there is no distinction to be made between the conservative nationalist heritage and that of the progressive labourite – both are contriving to scrape the bottom of the barrel of zero-sum partisanism where losing out only means surviving in opposition warming the benches of the smaller side of parliament.
J’accuse would like to denounce this sorry state of our nation and its inability to maturely discuss an issue such as the civil right to remarry. I have prepared my inquisitorial accusation on the following points:
- I accuse the partisan parties of PLPN of willfully failing to treat a civil right with the dignity and relevance it deserves, of falsely imputing moral reasons to their machinations and shenanigans when it is blatantly evident that the paramount concern is the electoral vote come the next round of elections;
- I accuse the conservative and supposedly progressive parties of failing to assert a basic set of principles which they believe in and in which a voter could identify himself come election time, of preferring the rainbow spineless option where ‘anything goes so long as it gets us votes’;
- I accuse the nationalist party of lack of conviction, of declaring that it is against the introduction of divorce while toying with the representative element of parliament by allowing a free vote to members of parliament who have absolutely no popular mandate on the issue – whose vote would consequently transform into a personal usurpation of a seat obtained by public vote and support;
- I accuse the labour party of crass opportunism and of manipulation of the misinformed, of willfully misleading voters to believe that support for a referendum is tantamount to a position on divorce, of hijacking the possibility of any debate by linking a civil right issue to the making or breaking of government, of being unable to put money where its mouth is when it comes to explaining what being progressive is all about, of abusing – in the same way as the pn – of the pretext of the free vote in parliament in order to abdicate from its responsibilities;
- I accuse the academic and informed establishment for not speaking out sufficiently on the ridiculous notion of submitting a decision on a civil right for a minority to the vote of the general public, of not having taken a reasoned position on the issue – whether individually or collectively in groups purposely assembled for the purpose – of why a civil right is not an issue for referenda in 2011;
- I accuse the fourth estate, made up of what is left of the independent media, for having actively collaborated with the cheap thrill of “controversy” stirred up by the media machines of the partisan establishment and thus for having contributed to shifting the debate from the real point of divorce to that of “who wants a referendum” (read who is a friend of the people);
- I accuse the third parties and movements (AD, pro- and anti- divorce) for not having come out strongly against the idea of a referendum, for not holding the partisan parties up to their principles, for not boycotting any referendum solution that allows the pontius pilates of this nation to thrive on confusion, for not insisting on a parliamentary solution – preferably after an election by popular mandate;
- I accuse the Maltese public and voter, for whom I should have the utmost respect, for once again allowing the circus that is our representative political system to take him for yet another ride and allowing himself to be convinced that the “yes, no, maybe, depends on the majority and on how they vote” way of politics is actually a serious way of running a representative system – and for measuring the PLPN by that meter;
- I accuse the Roman Catholic Church in Malta for not sufficiently believing in its power to convince believers to do the right thing in an open and liberal society where the door of divorce is open to whoever wants to take it but is not forced on anyone, of being unable to instill among its political flock the idea of an open and tolerant society in which they are free not to divorce but in which others, who might not share the same beliefs (or for whom those beliefs no longer hold true) are granted the civil right to do so, of not sufficiently believing in itself and in its capability to transmit the messages upon which the idea of indissoluble marriage is built;
- I accuse myself of not having sufficiently contributed to the debate and of having allowed myself to be disheartened by the huge wave of ignorant rhetoric and opportunistic politicking that has invested the Maltese political landscape for the umpteenth time. And yes, that is a proud and pompous statement from this blogging wankellectual.
I hereby summon those who are still willing and able to take on the gargantuan movement to join J’accuse in this struggle. It is not a revolutionary struggle that will be fought in the squares with bombs and molotov cocktails. You will need a pen, the instruments of modern democratic expression – such as this blog and social networks, and plenty (but plenty) of patience.
Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter
(your knowledge is nothing when no one else knows that you know it)
Related articles
- Referendum law: Of pipers and tunes | Editorial (guardian.co.uk)
I must confess my disappointment at the above post. If there is a lack of information on the issues that concern the introduction of divorce legislation (personally I do not see any glaring gaps so would be delighted to read about said gaps/canyons etc), than this is an opportunity to provide these missing arguments. We all know about the plpn concept, but is it so wise to keep throwing it at anything that moves at the risk of being itself seen as crass political opportunism?
You want gaps in information? here’s the Times vox pop on the difference between separation, annulment and divorce:
Karmenu Galea, 52, of Fgura
Divorce means your wife is not recognised as your wife anymore. Annulment means the marriage never existed and separation is when both parties go different ways and the situation is decided through court.
Italo Mizzi, 20, of Ħamrun and Chantelle Galea, 18, of Naxxar
With divorce you can remarry and with separation you can’t. With annulment you can remarry in Church.
Carmel Zammit, 68, of Żebbuġ
I don’t really understand or, rather, I’m not really interested. But I don’t agree with divorce. The difference between divorce and annulment is that one is through the Church and the other through the court. With annulment you can remarry but with divorce you still have many problems.
Martha Azzoppardi, 21, of Naxxar
Divorce is when you separate from your partner and everything is final in terms of documentation. Annulment I’d assume is the annulment of all the papers soon after the marriage and separation is when you’re not divorced as such but there’s still some link between the two.
Matthew Fenech Farrugia, 18, of Buġibba with Dario Galea, 21, of Dingli
Divorce is by law, separation is when a couple is married and then splits but we don’t know what annulment is.
Maria Vella, 45, of Buġibba and Yanika Portelli, 18, also of Buġibba
Separation is when you are not living with your husband. Annulment means the marriage never happened and divorce is when you can marry another person.
Fr Ivan Sant, 32, of Birkirkara
Divorce separates husband from wife. Annulment says the marriage never existed and separation is the same as divorce but divorce is more official.
Natasha Galea, 34, of Tarxien
Divorce dissolves marriage between husband and wife. Separation is via the courts and God only knows when you will get it and annulment is through the Church.
Julie Balzan, 67, of Valletta
I had a happy marriage and am now a widow. The problem with cohabitation is that it is not allowed by the Church and it is up to them if those living in such a state choose to live in sin. I lately heard someone explain the difference between divorce, annulment and separation on television. With annulment, people can get re-married in Church. Separation can be authorised by the courts but I know nothing about divorce. I heard that when it was introduced in countries it was a disaster for families. However, having said that, there are families which have broken down here.
Lorraine Attard, 40, of Swieqi
Separation is when two people will have separated but still deal with each other, in terms of property. Divorce is when they don’t have anything to do with one another and annulment is when the marriage never happened.
Tks for your reaction. I have refered to gaps in information available not gaps in the understanding of that information. can u imagine replies to ‘what parties stand for’ prior to any election? should we then move back to the 1800’s and have qualified voters only? at least some of the above replies do betray some knowledge of subject matter.