It was to be expected that the issue of divorce continues to be politicised right till the day we will vote, and most probably afterwards too. The debate started on a political note, continued on a political note, and the two parties continue to render it a political issue, in spite of the fact that it should not be so.

Divorce is a matter of conscience, a civil right that should have been introduced long ago and yet, here we are in 2011, still discussing it. Unfortunately, we have managed to give divorce a political tinge – especially through the position against it taken by the Nationalist Party. The Labour Party has been more open-minded on this by not taking an official stand so as to allow each and every one of its members, especially the MPs, to talk freely about it.

The latest dispute is on the 2,800 young people who will be deprived the right to vote because their name is not on the Electoral Register published in October, which will be the one to be used for the 28 May vote.

The Labour Party has said that it is the PN’s fault because the electoral commissioners representing the government did not agree that the referendum writ is published on 18 April to allow for the April register to be published. The PL is arguing that after the Electoral Commission had initially agreed on such a “reasonable solution”, the commissioners nominated by the Prime Minister changed their mind.

On the other hand, the PN accused the PL of trying to twist the electoral law and that, after all, it is Labour’s fault that these young people will not be voting – because of the timeframe established by the Opposition Leader in the parliamentary motion, which said that the writ had to be signed by the end of March. It is not true, the PN said, that the publication of the writ could have been postponed by 18 days to allow for the publication of a new Electoral Register.

The PN is not saying the real reason why these 2,800 young people will not be allowed to vote – it knows that, in all likelihood, the majority of these youngsters would have voted in favour of divorce.

With the PN taking a stand against divorce, it is using everything in its power to increase the possibility that the ‘no’ campaign wins. The fact that these 2,800 people will not vote has therefore increased the PN’s chances of “winning”. The twisting of the electoral law claimed by the PN is just an excuse to hide the real motive behind the PN’s move.