The results of the 28 May referendum on divorce are not an occasion for triumphalism. But it is a moment to savour

In the face of all the power and coercion of the Maltese Church, and the political resources of the Nationalist Party, the overwhelming result in favour of the introduction of divorce legislation is a clear-cut victory for justice, freedom, fairness and Maltese civil rights.

I said that this was not an occasion for triumphalism. Punching my fist in the air is not my style. But having sparked off the public debate in 2009 – and been excoriated for it in some quarters – it gives me considerable satisfaction to see an outcome where the forces of argument, tolerance and common-sense have won the day.

I will be particularly glad not to read again the bigoted views of the man from Paola who is so intellectually bankrupt of ideas that he can only make a point by writing in block capitals. Or the blinkered opinions of the columnist in The Sunday Times, who is so blinded by his religious beliefs and his political adherence to the Nationalist Party that his judgements on any subject must always be called into question.

The 28th of May 2011 is the day Maltese democracy finally came of age. Malta has at last grown up. The Dark Age of Church-State relations of the 1960s has finally been put behind us – exorcised, in a word Gozitan Bishop Grech will understand.

For, let us be clear, the real losers in all this are the Maltese Church which, through its bullying tactics, has diminished its own standing and trust with its people. Despite all the threats, over 122,000 of the faithful voted freely against what the Church purported to stand for in this referendum.

This is a tragic development – a self-inflicted wound. The Maltese Church has done, and is still doing, a huge amount for Maltese society. It is a basic force for good. Its work in the parishes, in old people’s homes, in schools and the many institutions it supports is outstanding. For centuries before Malta’s independence the Maltese Church was the sole source of charitable social support. Its core values are outstanding and to be cherished.

But it does not hold a monopoly on establishing the moral foundations in society. While its views are to be respected, they are a human institution, like any other, lobbying for their particular view of the world. But ultimate responsibility for the kind of society which a secular, liberal, parliamentary democracy like Malta should adopt lies in the hands of our representatives in Parliament, reflecting the sovereign will of the people. The need for a radical re-calibration of the balance between Church and State in Malta is long overdue. It is one of the key lessons to be drawn by politicians from this referendum.

As to the Maltese Church, the lesson which Archbishop Cremona should learn from this debacle is that he has been badly advised. Those around him were so obsessed with the exercise of Church power in a secular context, so blinded by their own self-righteousness and zeal, that they lost all sight of the charity, compassion and tolerance that are the hall-marks of their faith.

The Archbishop, who strikes one as an intrinsically good man, has been weak in dealing with the rigidly conservative and out of touch elements among his advisers. Like all politicians – and being an Archbishop or Pope is to participate in the world of politics – he needs now to carry out a ruthless cull of those around him to bring in the younger elements in his Curia and secretariat who are in closer touch with his flock. Without such action, the continuing decline of the Maltese Church will become unstoppable. No amount of hypocritical ‘expressions of regret’ can salve their actions now.

As to the politicians, the Nationalist Party, which hid behind the Church’s ample skirts, also demeaned itself. Against Prime Minister Gonzi’s better judgement, the Religious Right in his Cabinet hijacked the agenda and bounced him into taking a clear-cut public stance against divorce when all his political instincts told him that this was too delicate an issue of conscience to treat in this way.

While it is difficult to pin-point the culprits, one must see the ill-judged nine thousand-word series of articles by Austin Gatt in The Times in the run-up to the party’s general meeting as the catalyst which pushed the Prime Minister off the cautious path which he had been navigating. Up to then, he had carefully nurtured a more flexible and open approach since he knew only too well that divorce was an issue which divided his own core supporters.

The intervention of Tonio Fenech in The Malta Independent with his preposterous and fundamentalist faith-based views on divorce did nothing to help the Prime Minister’s position. They only served to demonstrate a severe lack of judgement by the person holding perhaps the most important office of state in the government. If the Religious Right was hoping to repeat the Nationalist Party’s feat of winning elections by coming in on the Church’s slip-stream, it has been proved spectacularly wrong. The involvement of their apparatchiks and apologists in the press did not help their cause either.

If it is not to hurt its electoral chances further, the party will now need to examine its stance very carefully in the wake of the clear-cut message which the electorate has sent to its representatives in Parliament. Members of Parliament have an obligation not to impede the sovereign will of the people. While the conscience of some Members may prevent them from voting in favour of the legislation, they now have a moral duty to honour the people’s wishes by enacting the best legislation possible to reflect the decision to introduce responsible divorce in Malta as soon as possible.

As to the winners in this referendum, while Żwieg bla’ Divorzju ran a largely honourable campaign, they were inevitably handicapped by having to build bricks without straw. The ‘Yes’ campaign takes the laurels. Against all the odds, in the face of an over-mighty Church and with the most pitiful of financial and administrative resources, its arguments ultimately prevailed. For this, Malta has to thank three outstanding individuals. First, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando who, with considerable courage, was prepared to risk the opprobrium of his party colleagues to draw up a Private Member’s Bill to right what he perceived as a moral wrong in our society.

Secondly, to Evarist Bartolo, who had the breadth of vision to realise that this was not a party issue but one which should transcend party politics. This is the first time in Maltese parliamentary history that there has been a joint Private Member’s Bill of this kind.

Above all, however, the campaign saw the birth of a new Maltese star in Debbie Schembri, the chairperson of the ‘Yes’ campaign. Debbie Schembri epitomises the new breed of Maltese women, in their 30s and 40s, who are an unsung national asset. She bore the brunt of the campaign debating and public presentations. Her calm, reasoned command of the key points of the argument ultimately made the case for the introduction of divorce unanswerable.

Martin Scicluna is a member of the IVA Campaign and the lead author of the Report ‘For Worse, For Better: Remarriage After Legal Separation’