Playing Chicken (and egg)
What came first? The chicken or the egg? We might never know the answer to that one but what we do know is that the PN conclave has taken a position about taking a position on divorce. It’s not really a full position on divorce unless you engage in philosophical somersaults tantamount to the Catholic Credo of the Holy Trinity or, if you want a less blasphemic comparison to the separation of powers in the EU set up.
The Nationalist Party’s Executive Committee will be voting on a motion (reproduced below) that is a logical, step-by-step build up to creating and justifying an agenda for the institutions of representation and government insofar as the divorce “issue” is concerned. The path that has been chosen is threefold:
1) discuss divorce in parliament
2) vote on a bill in parliament
3) get the people to approve/disapprove the bill via referendum
That is the agenda. How will the PN perform within this set-up? Well the PN is basically (and rightly in my opinion) reminding the world that its valued opinion on divorce is that it is a no-no. The executive committee reminds anyone who cares to listen that divorce conflicts with the idea of a permanent marriage and since the party strongly believes in the idea of permanent marriage then it cannot give its nihil obstat to divorce.
Fine. The party then goes on to acknowledge two realities: firstly, that there are differences within the party as to the idea of divorce – no secrets there. Secondly, the party hangs harps on about electoral mandate. The lien is clear: this electoral mandate business is the Pontius Pilate bowl of the political class. It does not irk the nationalist party one bit that cohabitation is also not on the electoral mandate table but it develops sudden qualms of conscience about this particular issue called divorce.
Worse still, by abdicating from a clear and direct position that includes a “not on my body unless you elect me to specifically do that” statement, the PN is playing chicken with its values. This is after all a government of a numerical minority when it comes to the voting population. Are we to assume that it should have submitted every issue it has governed upon to the same referendal form of scrutiny? After all if the PN is such a firm believer in the power of public consultation you’d hate to be living in its shoes… legislating at every step with a parliamentary majority that is the result of constitutional machinations and which does not reflect a real majority.
The final straw is the sequence set for the agenda. A very difficult YES vote for divorce won in parliament would have to submit to a second scrutiny in a referendum. “Bleak” doesn’t even begin to describe the chances of a double whammy victory for the YES to divorce legislation camp.
The flaw in this last bit is simple for all to see: If the political parties are unable to take a position and both seem to be oriented towards a free vote for their MPs then there is absolutely no logical justification under the sun for the referendum to be held AFTER the bill is voted upon in parliament and not before.
Any failure to alter the sequence of events planned by the nationalist executive will only serve to unmask the truth behind the fickle words of the motion. And in case you need it in words here it is:
“The nationalist party executive does not give a flying f**k about what the people think in a referendum. The whole kowtowing to the idea of “public consultation” because of the absence of an “electoral mandate” is a load of circum tauri. If they did value your opinion they’d be voting for the referendum to be held BEFORE the bill is discussed.
P.S. Circum tauri is bullshit in Latin.
That’s Classic bullshit…. does it remind you of anyone? (with apologies to Bulgaria’s disgraced opposition leader)”
THE MOTION
THE NATIONALIST PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
“1. Notes that there is unanimous agreement that the family unit is the cornerstone of society and therefore it deserves total, firm and consistent support so that it can continue to be strengthened.
2. The committee reaffirms the consistent political position of the Nationalist Party that the family in Malta should be built on permanent marriage between a woman and a man, which marriage is the best structure for a stable family environment for the children. The PN therefore reiterates its commitment to take whatever measures are necessary to strengthen marriage preparation and to facilitate family life.
3. The committee recognises that there are circumstances which lead to the break-up of marriages, with detrimental consequences to the family, the children and society.
4. In such circumstances, the committee declared that the solutions which the State should seek should give top priority to the interests of the children. All measures should therefore be constant with this purpose.
5. The committee notes that according to the most recent census published by the National Statistics Office, in 2005 the vast majority of the Maltese had a stable marriage. The census showed that 60% of residents of Malta were married, 6% were widowed and 4% were separated or divorced.
6. For these reasons, the committee declares that the political position of the Nationalist Party should remain in favour of the unity of the family and against the introduction of divorce because it feels that the introduction of divorce is not the best way to promote the value of the family since divorce changes the definition of marriage as being a permanent bond.
7. The committee recognises that within the Nationalist Party there are contrasting views on the introduction of divorce but it believes that the debate now needs to be concluded while respecting the different opinions.
8. The committee also notes that no political party in Malta has the electoral mandate to propose legislation for the introduction of divorce and, therefore, the parliamentary approval of a Bill for the introduction of divorce should not be enough for the law to come into force and this should be confirmed through a referendum.
The committee therefore recommends to the government that:
a) Parliament should, as soon as possible, discuss the Bill for the introduction of divorce.
b) Should the Bill be approved by a majority of the House, the coming into force of the law would be conditional to approval by referendum, held within two months of approval of the law by Parliament.
c) The committee also recommends that the Prime Minister and leader of the party should allow a free vote to the Nationalist MPs so that they may vote according to their conscience in all stages of the passage of the bill.”
Honestly Jacques. You should know by now that – after all we have discovered about genetic sequencing, speciation, and the evolution by artificial selection of individual subsets of domestic birds – the egg obviously came before the chicken. (What laid it? The chicken’s immediate predecessor in the evolutionary table…).
Meanwhile I disagree with your take on the double whammy business. With the present composition of parliament the bill is unlikely to pass, so no referendum will be held. This may look like a defeat on paper, but it is really only a small setback. All it means is we will enter elction year with the matter as yet unresolved. It gives the yes lobby ample opportunity to petition candidates before the election, in a bid to elect a more favourable selection of MPs (bearing in mind that parliamentary motions can be resubmitted, and new ones can be tabled).
Losing a referendum would on the other hand represent an altogether more serious hurdle, which could take decades to overcome.
You are right, however, regarding the illogicality of the before/after dynamic. But from a purely strategic point of view, I think it makes it easier, not harder to introduce divorce.
Agreed re: possibilities for divorce.
Still very damning about the PN and public opinion.
A parliamentary vote prior to any referendum seems to be required by the Referenda Act. It states that a referendum shall be on “proposals set out in a resolution passed for that purpose by the House.” (An abrogative referendum can skip that requirement, of course.)
Two things re PN and public opinion. 1, the Prime Minister doesn’t seem to care very much about publicly contradicting himself, does he? What happened to his statement that the issue was ‘too important’ to be decided by 65 MPs? That was only a few weeks ago…
2. something tells me the PN has yet to realise that its ‘surprise’ position (surprising to anyone whose head’s been stuck in the sand for the past three decades) has seriously shaken the faith of many in the Nationalists’ reputation as a serious party that can be trusted to always take the right decisions on important policies. Might be jumping the gun here, but I suspect the fallout from this position was not factored into the party’s calculations before making its stand public. They may yet be in for a nasty shock…
Almost certainly, the proposal to introduce divorce would/will be defeated in a referendum.
If pro-divorcists can be selective about their vote in the coming elections, so can anti-divorcists. In fact anti-divorcists may already be asking if the PL can be trusted to respect public opinion about the matter, given that the majority of its MPs and core voters appear to be pro-divorce.
Raphael, strangely you may be underestimating just how strong some people’s faith actually is. There, I believe, lies the crux of the matter. This goes beyond strategy. We’re in the realm of faith here. Which is precisely why it’s so scary if you’re on our side of the fence so to speak.
I totally agree with David.
I have always said this, you cannot expect a party which has the 2 top post occupied by Gonzi and Tonio Borg, 2 arch conservatives like few other to take sensible decisions in matters of faith.
I do agree that the faith issue will have a bearing short term. But long term, given the church’s very vulnerable dogma, will see its power-position weaken when it stalls divorce legislation. The lost faithful deprived of divorce will ask how come Catholics in say the US Australia England etc have little problem in getting a divorce and staying in the church and how come all major religions, including major Christian such as the very orthodox, tolerate divorce. They will then discover the Pauline principle stating that a Christian is not bound in a marriage when the non-believing partner calls it a day, not to mention the famous ‘except for bad marriages’ line. The church is in my opinion playing a self debilitating game. Pity.
See your point David but I’m not talking the great masses here. Bear in mind election outcomes are decided by a hatful of votes. You don’t need a wholesale diaspora… only a few disillusioned voters to cross the Rubicon…
But kindly explain how the bible belt PN is in favour of cohabitation. I cannot understand how they use the religious card to block divorce but then are in favour of pugguti.