The result of the divorce referendum has made it abundantly clear that a substantial majority of voters have approved the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta. The people have spoken, and what remains now is for the people’s representative to ratify the people’s wishes. Although this referendum was a consultative one, not a binding one and, if our honourable Members of Parliament seriously consider themselves to be the people’s representatives and believe in democracy, then they are duty bound to honour the people’s mandate. And if they really have a clear conscience in this respect, it is honouring the people’s wishes not voting against them.

Throughout the process of debating on whether Malta should finally join the rest of the world (except the Philippines) and introduce divorce legislation or remain an outcast, the despicable manner in which the local Catholic Church conducted its crusade against the introduction of divorce was predominant. While not denying the right that the Catholic Church has to guide its flock in spiritual and religious matters, one must not forget the fear it instilled in its faithful that was reminiscent of the Dark Ages, the Inquisition and/or interdiction. Most of the clergy, excluding the truly conscientious ones, berated the evils of divorce from the pulpits, during the ceremony of Our Lady of Sorrows, and by controversial and disgraceful billboards. Some Catholics were even denied the sacraments when they were prodded to express their opinion on this issue and turned out to be in favour of divorce introduction. And on the island of Gozo, our brethren the Gozitans were terrorized into believing that they would be sinning if they voted “Yes” for divorce. The law not to discuss this matter on the day before and during the voting period was blatantly abused by nuns and clergy alike by exerting their influence to vote against. When the voting process was completed, and on realizing that the “holy” crusade of the religious hierarchy was turning sour, the Bishops of Malta and Gozo expressed their sorrow and forgiveness over campaign damage. In the eyes of many, this was nothing more than a remedial action too little too late, and fundamentally an admission of guilt by the Church Authorities.

My admiration and respect go to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who went against the grain of his own party by tabling the motion of Private Member’s Bill for the introduction of divorce legislation. He was admirably backed by Evarist Bartolo, member of the Opposition, and other members including the Leader of the Opposition. The latter was consistent on this issue and was willing to risk his political career had the vote been in favour of the “no” to divorce. High praise is also due to the chairperson of the “IVA” Movement, Dr Deborah Schembri, who consistently debated the divorce issue with intelligence, calmness, and conviction. The numerous journalists and most of the English language newspapers editors, who fulfilled their obligation of educating the people to make the right choice, also merit high regard. Finally, but not least, thanks and grateful appreciation are due to those members of the electorate who voted unselfishly to enable cohabitating couples to exercise their right to remarry and start a new life if they so desire once responsible divorce is obtained after a period of four years.

On the other hand, the same cannot be said about our Hon. Prime Minister who has been most inconsistent and deplorable. Initially, he was adamantly against the introduction of divorce. But when he was pressed by Parliament, which had approved a Private Member’s Bill for the introduction of divorce tabled by a member of his own party, he decided to play the trump card by proposing a referendum. He gambled on the dominance of the local Catholic Church over its faithful and was confident that the vote would be against divorce legislation. His manoeuvring has failed miserably as the people of Malta has spoken against his intentions in a substantially much greater majority than the miniscule hairline majority by which his party was elected to power (of some 1,700 votes) mainly obtained by electoral corruption. As regards this miserable failure, the only honourable way out for him now is either to hold early elections, or to resign.

Raymond Sammut

MELLIEHA