The Nationalist Party knows full well the value of the 2,800 votes that will not be cast in the upcoming divorce referendum, and it appears to be playing the electoral game with a deft hand.

The 2,800 vote mark is close to twice the margin by which the PN won, seemingly against all odds, the 2008 general election. 2,800 votes could very well mean the difference between a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’ vote in the 28 May referendum. 2,800 votes could make all the difference to a party that has staked so much on its staunch stance against divorce.

In a country with an electorate the size of Malta, 2,800 votes from any segment of the population are a great many indeed. But those 2,800 votes mean even more within the context at hand.

These 2,800 votes are the votes of 18 year olds, the most youthful of the electorate and those who would have had their first opportunity to cast a ballot - in a decisive vote that will in so many ways determine the future course of the country they are to inherit.

Those 2,800 votes represent not only the country’s future but they were to have been cast by those who still have their lives ahead of them, who are still to get married and settle down, those who have a direct stake in the country’s future legislation, or lack thereof, on divorce.

It is widely known that there is a strong anti-divorce element among today’s youth, while, on the other hand, it is the country’s youth that is also perhaps more inclined to vote against the status quo than preceding generations.

Both groups of new adults will now be deprived of their democratic right to cast their ballot and as a result of these recent electoral antics, the country’s voting age has effectively been pushed higher by five months. The fact that this, and perhaps worse, has happened in the past does not justify it taking place today when the country is supposedly in the process of reforming its electoral law. This latest voter registration debacle does not bode well for the future of that reform.

We will not delve into the merits of the arguments at hand – whether Labour botched it, or whether the PN has sought to take unfair advantage of the situation.

We will reiterate our conviction that the issue, which is one of civil rights, should never have been politicised and those who would continue to do so are doing a disservice to not only those who are being deprived of a vote, but to the whole of the electorate.

Of course, the Opposition is perfectly right to cry foul and in doing so it should not be accused of politicisation. This is an issue of democratic representation and it should be no more and no less than that.

Whatever the legal arguments, whatever the diligence to sticking to the electoral rulebook, whatever the justifications - it is the country’s democracy that will lose out as a result by being 2,800 votes short of full representation.

At the end of the day, the issue is not about whether divorce will be introduced – it is about democracy and democratic representation, pure and simple.

If the intention is simply to ensure as much as possible that the electorate upholds one party’s point of view, such games will be played and they will continue to be played in their different forms for the remainder of the lead up to 28 May.

But if, on the other hand, the political powers-that-be are truly interested in consulting the electorate on the issue of divorce, they should practice what they preach and find the means to give a vote to those who have been denied it.