In the end, even those who were confident that the ‘Yes’ vote would win in the referendum were taken by surprise at the extent of the victory. Up until the last minute, those who were predicting a win were cautiously optimistic, saying it would be a very close result.

The numbers, however, speak for themselves.

A 53% ‘Yes’ vote speaks volumes, and at the same time it simultaneously points to something unspoken. It is now patently clear that there was a silent majority out there which did not wish to voice how it stood on the divorce legislation issue.

The reason for the silence is also starting to slowly come to light. It is apparent that there was a lot of subtle pressure on those who had a lot to lose if they ‘dared’ say that they were voting ‘Yes’. It appears that people whose jobs are in some way connected to the two institutions of Church and Government were very careful to stay firmly out of the whole debate. While you had a substantial number of voters who were quite vocal about their voting intentions, especially online, the complete silence in some quarters was very noticeable.

The decision not to take sides is, of course, completely understandable. Who would risk their livelihood because of a referendum? Many people obviously reasoned that it’s best to keep their mouth shut and then simply cast their vote: After all, despite assertions to the contrary, no one is with you in the voting booth. On the other hand, this also indicates that where freedom of association is concerned, there are still a lot of hidden shackles which are reminiscent of the more unpleasant aspects of Malta’s contemporary political history.

Those who stayed mum because their jobs are somehow linked to a Church organisation were also in a highly risky position because of clauses in their contracts which prevented them from expressing beliefs which go contrary to Church teachings. Deborah Schembri’s dismissal as a lawyer with the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, in fact, underscored this in a very visible way, and many took heed of the message. While legally the Church might have the ‘right’ to enforce this kind of clause with those who are in its employment, one wonders how wise it is to attempt to censure people in this way. As we have seen, that tactic can backfire badly.

Some employees within certain government entities were also forced to play the silent game for fear of possible consequences. For although technically this was not a political issue, the fact that the Nationalist Party took a clear, unequivocal stand against the introduction of a divorce law forced people to be non-committal. Put simply, they did not wish to be seen to be going against the Nationalist administration because they knew which side their bread was buttered on.

All this seems at odds in a country which proclaims to be free and democratic. It also indicates that we have a long way to go before we truly have freedom of expression and freedom of association without fear of reprisals. Ultimately, the fear factor employed by the ‘No’ campaign in this referendum proved to be its own undoing. The silent majority which had been gagged stepped out from the shadows and cast its ‘Yes’ vote.