The divorce campaign has been unique in many ways.
As we enter the final week and prepare ourselves for the vote − which I sincerely hope will be a majority of ‘X’ marks in the ‘Yes’ box − we can all start looking back at the inevitable changes that this past year has brought in our way of thinking.
First of all, the absence of the political parties from the debate has been outstanding. But the two parties have chosen this strategy for different reasons.
The Nationalist Party took a stand against divorce, but it soon realised that many of its supporters were irked that the party they support was attempting to act as their spiritual leader, rather than allow freedom of thought. They were annoyed that the PN took a position against what they see as a civil right, a way for people to get a second chance if their first marriage failed.
So it immediately took a step back and has kept its distance, with Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi staying away from making any comments on the subject matter. He has refused interviews with all the media that requested one, including this newspaper. More or less, it is the same attitude that was adopted by the ‘no to divorce movement’, which was reluctant to face journalists right from the start, fearing that its narrow-minded views could be challenged, or else making life difficult for journalists by imposing strict conditions if interviews were eventually given. Otherwise, the anti-divorce lobby group’s contributions were repetitions of the same misguided and often misleading statements – it was like listening to a tape-recorder.
What’s worse is that, in a short comment given to One TV last week, Dr Gonzi accused the Labour media of not being balanced in their reporting, conveniently forgetting that the PN TV station and newspapers have been one-sided in the way they covered the campaign – in favour of the ‘No’ vote, of course.
Whether the outcome is a yes or a no majority, the PN stands to lose, and it is now in damage control mode.
A ‘Yes’ vote would go directly against the position taken by the party, and would deal it a huge blow in the eyes of the voting population. It could easily be interpreted as a vote of no confidence. We are two years away from the next election, but the effects of next Saturday’s vote will continue to reverberate till then and beyond.
A ‘No’ vote would really annoy the liberal-minded Nationalists, who would then blame the party for its role in keeping Malta stuck in the past and not giving people whose marriage has failed the possibility to start a new chapter.
Although secular reasons are given in opinions against the introduction of divorce, the religious aspects have made the headlines very often, particularly if you have ministers who seem to have a direct link with Our Lady. The imposition of religious beliefs should never have come into the issue because what we are dealing with is civil divorce, but unfortunately that is what happened right from the start.
Evarist Bartolo was spot on when he described the State-Church relationship as being similar to that of Siamese twins.
The irony of it all is that the PN is thinking conservatively in terms of divorce, but on the other hand it is taking a liberal position as it is planning to enact a cohabitation law that will make it possible for same-sex relationships to be formalized. Nothing wrong with that (although I wonder what the Church will say about it), but the PN seems to have lost the plot in this scenario.
A ‘no’ to divorce coupled with the non-regularisation of relationships if one or both partners have been married will be a double blow to separated people, and the PN will not be forgiven for it.
Those Nationalists who are thinking of voting ‘No’ to please their party should think again. If they are convinced that divorce is the way forward, they should not be voting ‘No’ in an effort to save their party. The party cannot be saved from embarrassment whether the ‘No’ vote goes through or not.
Comparing the two scenarios, a ‘Yes’ vote will have less negative consequences on the PN than a ‘No’ vote. A ‘No’ vote would make the PN look like a party and government in a religious state. A ‘Yes’ vote will be something like an EP or local council defeat for the PN (apart from a victory for freedom of choice).
The Labour Party has also kept rather quiet, but it did so because it has not taken an official stand, leaving it up to its individual members to vote according to their conscience. However, party leader Joseph Muscat, whose personal choice is ‘Yes’, has not shied away from the media.
One other thing that stood out in this campaign is the misleading information and the scaremongering tactics that have been used by the ‘No’ movement. We had several reports involving a number of priests whose sermons and actions were blatantly directed at forcing people to vote ‘No’.
Apart from this, representatives of the ‘No’ movement very often resorted to issuing misleading information, not to mention the ridiculous statements that were made about bald men and size 10 women. Coming from people who know what the reality is, one can only describe these falsities as having been deliberately intended to misguide the people.
Their insistence on referring to “divorce without reason” was nauseating; hopefully it will have the reverse effect, as it hurt all those who have ended a relationship and did so for different and serious personal motives. Nobody abandons his/her home without good reason.
This is the last time I am writing about divorce before the referendum.
Divorce will not bring about the breakdown of marriages. Divorce does not cause relationships to collapse. It just gives the possibility of a way out of a marriage that is already irretrievably broken.
Children have been mentioned time and again as being the main victims of divorce. But children are already suffering through separations and annulments. And they suffer even more when they live with parents who are at each other’s throats, morning and night.
Give people a chance to be happy again.
I rest my case.
[email protected]