Scholars and great thinkers have written shelves-full of volumes that theorise, rationalise and philosophise about democracy over the ages. When one scrutinises the status of democracy as practised and applied in different countries, though, one encounters all kinds of different democracies, each one unique and in its uniqueness differing not only from others of its genre but also from the theories found in literary works. Up till some decades ago, the Iron Curtain split Europe into two blocks. The countries within each block called themselves democratic.
The majority of the people in an eastern democracy, at least initially, decided to place the ideal (socialism, communism, and bolshevism) as the central focal point of their democracy. This was done initially by (at least) apparent consent and will of the majority. As this turned sour, it was changed by the will of the majority. The common ingredient lies in the expression of the will of the majority.
On the other hand, majorities in the West decided to place the individual as their focal point: the individual’s welfare, freedoms of movement, association, thought, expression, etc. Again, the common ingredient is the expression of the will of the majority. Just as much as individuals differ, so much also these majorities – countries − differ among themselves. And they do have the right to differ so long as the will of the majority is manifest to be expressed
Theorists and philosophers sometimes make attempts on what changes and/or improvements particular majorities ought to implement. Such individuals might well, at times, convince these majorities to implement some changes. But then too, this patronising, especially if persistent, vociferous and even insistent after rejection, constitutes an abuse both of democracy and of any amount of tolerance to diversity the majority decided to permit because it challenges and undermines the expression of the will of the majority.
Whatever is thought and said, at the end of the day, it is the will of the majority that counts, unless one wants to turn democracy upside down. That is why, de facto, different majorities view minorities in different ways and light. Again, it all depends on the will of the majority. Very often too, majorities establish norms and customs that define the character and the public identity of the same majority. That, if and where it occurs, is also an expression of the will of the majority. If it is the express will of the majority to conserve such an identity, then no minority or members of a minority have the right to over-rule either that will or the ways and methods by means of which a majority wishes to use to see that the norms and customs which project its true image are upheld. One of these methods is, of course, censorship. A majority uses censorship to protect its identity.
While one majority, however hypocritically, opts to be strict, so also another majority might opt to be lax and allow a republique and a free for all. Both majorities are right, irrespective of the epithets showered upon them, because they have so expressed their will. Anti-democratic would be those minorities that would want to impose their will over that of the majority. Being democratic also means to accept the will of the majority in which one lives.
I would like to apply this democracy thing to the introduction of a divorce law in the majority called Malta. First a premise: I take divorce to signify the legal process by means of which a person, who has previously changed his civil status from ‘single’ to ‘married’ by contracting marriage, regains his ‘single’ civil status. Therefore the person with this regained civil status can legally contract marriage anew. That is what I am writing about.
The majority that is the State of Malta has the expression of its will asserted and delineated in the Constitution. That is the highest, the most indisputable and the most evident place where it can be expressed. The nature of this location itself renders the playing about, the questioning and alteration of the expression of this will well outside the reach of any one or any group other than the majority itself. All of this is being kept occluded from the members of the majority called Malta.
This majority has willed what other majorities, especially European ones, have not. Most, if not all, of the European majorities have expressed their will to give their respective lawmakers a free hand on what laws and with what legal content to enact. Not so the majority called Malta. The majority called Malta, at least by acceptance, back in 1964 had expressed as its will that there were to be unsurpassable constraints and parameters within which its lawmakers have to stay when enacting legislation.
One of these parameters and constraints is the assertion that the Catholic Religion is the religion of (the majority called) Malta. That assertion ties this majority by its own will to a religion and distances this same majority from other majorities that are secular. Yes. In spite of all the pretences of our politicians, all parties included, our majority is not a secular majority. And this really weighs extremely heavily on the shoulders of local politicians. It weighs so heavily on them that they are always desperate to occlude and obfuscate this fact from their counterparts who come from other majorities. This is the reason they are being so deviating about the introduction of divorce laws. They feel embarrassed in the presence of others who are different. They would like to be and appear like them but they cannot.
They are altar boys de facto because of this article. Just imagine Gonzi-Muscat among their European counterparts: the former dressed as altar boys, surplice and all, the latter dressed in the most lavish tuxedos and evening gowns. They have every reason to feel embarrassed. This article gives to Church the right to meddle at least in the politics of law-making. Of course, they are altar boys, Gonzi-Muscat. And, as the leaders of the majority called Malta they do feel belittled and inferior in comparison to their counterparts.
They do have an option: between them they can get a big enough majority in Parliament to remove article 2. That would be much better than having to find and orchestrate devious methods to circumvent the implications of article 2. With it there, Gonzi-Muscat remain altar boys, only a bit mischievous, but altar boys just the same.
The assertion of this majority’s will not only restrains, constrains and obligates our lawmakers but it also obligates the top hierarchy of the Catholic Religion, within this our majority, to act as the watchdogs over the lawmakers in this regard. And this is something that our politicians can never really take down, whether they be Religio et Patria or whether they are ‘more Catholic than the Pope’. The status of the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church as watchdogs over the law makers is conferred and confirmed by the same article: its second part guarantees to the Catholic Church the right and freedom of evangelising its creed. In short, this second part of the second article recognises the leadership of the Church as the owners of the creed called the Catholic Religion. But then, again, there are the politics of authority and command, and convivial relations by the Church hierarchy with the polity. Just because of this fact, an accommodating, politically oriented hierarchy has transferred its onus as mentioned above onto the shoulders of its faithful after vesting it in the moral and religious garb of a moral obligation.
Lastly, one has to consider the minority (providing it is a minority) who would want the introduction of legal facilities wherewith one can re-attain civil single status. The majority has already come quite a distance forward by, first instituting civil marriage and secondly by recognising civil single status attained elsewhere. It is high time now, therefore, for the minority to stop hollering and raising a rumpus and stamping their feet like spoiled brats, and come themselves a little distance forward and accept the will of the majority called Malta.
Is it too much to ask a minority to respect the will of the majority that tolerates them and has come as forward as the pre-established parameters established by the majority itself permits? Is the minority democratic or an arrogant, oppressive dictatorial imposing regime? Only this kind of regime challenges the expressed will of any majority.
Frank Galea
ZEBBUG