“Nationalist MP Peter Micallef said yesterday that the result of the consultative referendum on divorce would in no way tie him down when the vote on the Divorce Bill was held.” The plot thickens.
Isn’t Peter right? It all boils down to the meaning of the vote that he exercises in parliament. Is it Peter‘s vote and his alone – making him free to tie it down with his heavy (or light, as the case may be) moral convictions? Does it belong to his constituency or the couple of thousand electors who rushed to casually elect Peter to his cosy seat in parliament? Would a quick head count among his electors convince Peter to vote in accordance to their will?
On the other hand does his vote belong to the nationalist party that worked so hard for men like Peter to get to his p’mentary seat? In that case Peter could only follow the PN’s guidance and in the event of their “position” (we don’t like divorce but our MPs will have a free vote) he is granted a one off chance to use his vote according to his cerebral and spiritual likings.
So what of the people? Peter is not Muammar after all. He cannot say “they love me all” and he definitely knows where they can stick their collective advice in a consultative referendum. It is consultative after all and this particular MP has been admirably frank and open about his position as to how much he values the opinion of the people in this particular consultation.
But is Peter wrong? How can he be? This has become a free for all in lascivious political nonchalance. It is what happens when we cut ourselves loose from all the “lawyering” and “legal niceties” and “verbal somersaults”. Parties with no position except for the fact that they have unleashed a collective of pussyfooting MPs to do as they like. Disquistions on referendum questions that are ultimately purely consultative – and as such allow geezers like Pete to say “I won’t be tied by the people”.
Which is why J’accuse still insists that there is only one way divorce can and should be introduced. On a party manifesto that wins the election and introduces the right to remarry via a legislative motion in parliament. Business as usual in a normal world.
In un paese di coglioni ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011.
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)
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.”
What makes or breaks a modern political party? Can we still talk of the terms “christian-democrat” and “socialist” (or the masacara “progressive”) when it comes to the nitty-gritty of politics in Malta? Is it just Malta that has entered a Bermuda Triangle of party values?
The nationalist party might hold the “Fehmiet Bazici” (Basic Beliefs) document to its heart but how is it to reconcile that with the calculated vote grabbing net that is elaborated every five years? Joseph Muscat may have declared a new era of progressive liberals but his party is having a hard time trying to appease the weird animal that is the “conservative proletariat”.
The “socialists” were never socialist to begin with. Even at the worst of the church-Labour battles their worry over the fact of being buried in non-consecrated ground or their sacristy marriages betrayed their Peppone like interior. Beneath the wannabe socialist revolutionaries were Catholics who were really stung by the fundamentalist church moves. Had they really been convinced of their socialist, lay battles they wouldn’t have given two hoots about being interdicted from a church that was supposedly not theirs.
The nationalist party lost its moral compass right after 1987. It was on a life-saving machine all through the EU campaign having placed its bets on the right horse but once the fog of the EU War subsided (thank you very much Waste-Our-Bloody-Time-Sant) it fell apart like Humpty Dumpty – unable to string together a coherent plan of action and a victim of the Young Battlers of the EU Campaign clamouring for a piece of the victorious pie of government. The worldwide economic crisis did the rest of the trick.
So when an issue like divorce hits the parties when they least expect it, they are unable to react as political parties. Or at least it seems so. James Debono has done a(nother) wonderful job of assessing the different scenarios with regards to divorce and the two main parties: “Divorce: When principles and convenience collide“. Even if we were to set aside the issue itself (divorce) and focus on the party reactions to what is basically a “principle” or “value” changer in society the results are rather bleak.
The stand taken by Austin Gatt might be old hat but it is after all what you’d expect from a party MP. Austin’s stand is about the PN stand not about what Malta thinks. He is spot on when he says that if he (Austin) disagrees with divorce legislation then he cannot fit in within a party that actively promotes divorce legislation. J’accuse would go one further. Resign from the PN in case it decides to back divorce legislation but do not resign from parliament.
Paul Borg Olivier’s recent interview on Dissett points to a possible development for the PN. It is the possibility of acknowledging that the party itself is in favour/against divorce but leaving its members free to vote. The question J’accuse would like to ask is: Does this count as a party position on values? Is the acknowledgement that a discussion such as divorce is one that has both pro- and con- partisans within the same party sufficient to say that party values are safe?
Even Labour, with what is supposed to be a less confessional set of values (actually it claims to be progressive) has difficulties taking a stand on divorce. Granted that there is no denying that Joseph Muscat’s Labour has a proven track record of opportunistic bandwagon politics this particular nut will be a tough one to crack. Muscat has his own Gatt on his side of parliament (Adrian Vassallo) and surely other conservative proletarians will follow suit.
Which leaves us with Alternattiva Demokratika. What started off as a party with a strong green agenda at the time of its affiliation with the Verdi/Greens can now boast of a wealth of political positions in the social sphere – from property rights to gender issues to divorce. The party position is unequivocal and clear: they want divorce legislation.
The D’Hondt relative majority has done much to whittle away the party backbone for the party in government. It lives each day nervously wondering which backbencher (or government member) might step out of line and threaten the fragile structure that is at wits end. It has gone from “Par Idejn Sodi” (a pair of strong hands) to “Kuljum bir-Roghda” (everyday shaking). The PL is at sea trying to desperately loop in any possible voter and trying not to tread on anyone’s toes in case their vote is needed come d-day. Which leaves us with a gaggle of spineless politicians unable to take a clear stand on matters that count. Or does it?
J’accuse believes that for the first time Alternattiva Demokratika has a chance to assert itself as something more than a party aspiring for the third place. The l vacuum opened up by the PLPN (ironically as a direct result of their tweaking of the D’Hondt Relative Majority) opens up the same possibilities as those seen by the UK Liberal Democrats before the last elections. AD should no longer aspire to be a third party. On paper, it has every right and chance to aspire to be a major role player in the next elections and technically it should be the most spineless of the PLPN duo that suffers.
That of course does not take into account the partisan vote base. Which will stick to its PLPN guns come hell or highwater… or come divorce.
One and cross (clue) : Cut cord and vie for marriage terminal (7). J’accuse presents the breeding ground for a public discussion in graduated stages. You’ve been mentally challenged. About f***in’ time…
Think of it as a J’accuse version of RAI3’s “Blob” – the unmissable programme on Italian TV. (P.S. It’s not “me” in Gensna)
Both the pro- and anti-divorce movements are in favour of marriage. The pro-divorce movement has announced its logo. It’s negatively atrocious – and sends out all forms of wrong signals. The only positive was the emphasis that even a pro-divorce movement is in favour of strong marriages. We’re all set for the Grand Debate of 2011 in Malta: Divorce pro or con?
All that is left is to understand whether it will be a referendum, a law, none or both that will represent the culmination point of this latest chance to take sides. Don’t know why but with the announcement of the logo for the pro-divorce movement I could only think of this song as interpreted by Johnny Cash.
Addendum: I remembered why. It’s the Maltese phrase “Kullhadd ghandu alla tieghu” (Everyone’s got his own god). Très Depeche Mode. Let’s all reach out touch faith.
Come to think of it even this version is very apt:
