Joseph Muscat certainly has the courage of his convictions when it comes to the divorce issue. Even before taking over his party’s leadership he had already declared his intention to address a problem everyone was writing and talking about, and using it sensationally as a red-rag theme to fill up television studio-halls, but otherwise doing absolutely nothing about it.

Then Joseph came on the scene and we all know the rest of the story as 28 May suddenly beckons. At last, thanks to the Labour leader this nation is doing something about it, even if it is doing so in a typically nonsensical way, but it is always a beginning. The Irish, for example, had to have more than one go to finally achieve it.

I was there when the “yes” movement finally won over the people, ironically to interview the then Vatican Nuncio in Dublin, the recently deceased Maltese bishop Emmanuel Gerada, for a Maltese Sunday newspaper.

We’ve also had on record Prime Minister Gonzi, who has chosen to burden his party with his own opinion on divorce, declaring publicly that he thought divorce was an option that would probably be needed in the future when the problem becomes more acute. Even if ludicrous as a statement, considering present-day realities, it still unravels a situation of inevitability. So why prolong the suffering of today’s frustrated minority?

Hopefully, the Maltese will get it right first time. It won’t be the first time they have shown such a sense of anticipation. Political animals that we are, probably the result of too many centuries of servitude and submission, history shows the Maltese often won rights and privileges, including self-government, well ahead of other bigger and stronger nations victims of the same plague of colonialism and the vicious spread of imperialism and military rule.

Joseph Muscat declared in Hamrun on May Day that, if need be, on the question of divorce as a civil right he will stand alone because he believes in tolerance and compassion. The response of the thousands listening to and cheering his speech must have already convinced him that he certainly won’t be standing alone. Just like when previous socio-political leaders had after all not been, against all odds at the time, when they emphasised the need for independence and a republican Constitution, the recognition of Maltese as the national language, universal suffrage, a national insurance scheme, assisting the genuinely jobless and the handicapped, a fair system of income tax collection to back the introduction of even more social benefits, civil marriage as a right, decriminalisation of homosexuality and so many other innovative, progressive moves on behalf of the nation.

Today, a more secular Malta is less likely to succumb to the sporadic, desperate attempts of those same dark forces that kept her in a stranglehold for what must have seemed to be an eternity. The numbers may add up one way or the other when the referendum results start coming in, but whichever way it goes, Joseph will find he is not alone despite having decided against doing it the old, traditional way – as Gonzi’s has been – that is letting the party dictate what its followers should do or not do, actually telling people how to vote on a question hinged to obvious personal conscience.

Joseph will find that many Maltese of all political colours and hues agree with him on the issue. He has not been afraid to let his party colleagues follow their conscience and for the people to decide. As we have already seen, this no-imposition attitude will earn him brownie points with those who genuinely believe in European values regarding tolerance and compassion.

There will also be those who have suffered or continue to suffer from the effects of broken marriages making sure Joseph does not stand alone. Thousands of men and women, children, mothers, fathers and grandparents who have seen loved ones despair by being denied the chance to re-discover love and security. There is no party that can claim to being detached from this social reality, but while one openly wants to see it addressed, the other (less two of its brave MPs) prefers to sweep it under the carpet of political convenience.

As against the imbecile use of “crying Madonna” tactics and some puerile priestly antics, there are many citizens who have an honest and realistic view of the issue who will go to vote for a civil right that is recognised all over Europe, including our own Malta provided it is obtained somewhere else less hypocritical. They cross party and ideological lines and they come from both ends of the north-south electoral divide. They have had enough of the double standards and the pretence our society is still engulfed in.

No doubt there will be Labour Party supporters who will vote yes simply because they know their leader is, personally, for the introduction of a responsible divorce law, and not out of their own personal conviction, just as much as there will be Nationalist Party faithful voting against because Gonzi, quite unethically, has told them to do so.

But many will also refuse to be led, or misled, solely on party stances or non-stances. I seriously believe it will be this army of “conscientious objectors” that eventually decides the course the referendum will take, one way or the other.

Let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking this is a one-time only opportunity. Just as a no vote in the European Union membership referendum would have undoubtedly triggered yet another one and, possibly, another one until a yes was mustered, so will the divorce issue continue – rightly so – to haunt us as a society. Not simply because it is a civil right denied, but also because there is just too much suffering to be ignored any longer.

Mark my words: Joseph Muscat won’t have to stand alone on this. Ever.