I have been following the divorce debate in Malta from afar for some time now and was hoping that the Yes vote would prevail for several reasons, one being that individuals in a secular state have no right to impose their morality on others.

Another more practical reason is that individuals who have made mistakes and have not committed any crime deserve a second chance and even a third chance at legalised long-term companionship. There was a small third one – and that was to cement the removal of the Church’s fundamentalist approach to Maltese society though the imposition of dogma with veiled threats of sin and everlasting hell and, even worse, social opprobrium.

Well, it seems that the Yes vote has won. Or has it? There is clear majority of 14,546 more yes votes than no votes. The PN holds onto government with a one seat majority on a margin of a mere 1500 votes. In 2003, the PN obtained a larger majority of around 12,000 votes. So in the context of recent Maltese political history (the last 10 years), – this is a landslide against the government. The same government who would not make a decision on divorce, the same government that held a referendum and asked the people to make the decision for them.

So the decision has been taken and the government is having great difficulty accepting it. Some MPs are also saying that not they will not only abstain but will also vote no.

The Prime Minister and his party need to acknowledge that Malta is a secular state and that religious beliefs should have no part in the political process. The result of this referendum clearly outlines a seismic shift in the social thinking of the Maltese population. This thinking did not change overnight; it has been developing over the last several years. Many politicians did not recognise it and have been left wanting. I think many would agree that the yes vote would have been much larger if there had not been any influence and fear mongering by the Church and its strong political backers. The challenge now is for this seismic shift to be reflected in the political landscape.

There has been lots of talk about conscience. There are two consciences battling each other here – the religious conscience and the democratic conscience. If any politician chooses his/her religious conscience over his/her democratic conscience than he/she has no place in a secular democratic state.

This is a very difficult position for the Prime Minister who is a genuine believer in the Christian doctrine. But his beliefs should not deny or influence the democratic process. If he does not want to go down in history as the man who enabled the introduction of divorce in Malta he should resign now and call an election. If however, he wants to be remembered as the man who upheld democratic principles over religious principles and lauded for his strengthening of secular values, he should vote Yes to the proposed Bill and direct his party to do the same. History will more likely recognise his difficult but courageous stand for secular values much more positively than any other action he chooses to take. He will also be able to maintain the PN’s record on democratic principles and again be seen to translate these principles into action. Action is much stronger than any word. To any believer of secular values he would be regarded as a hero.

Raphael Dingli

CANBERRA

AUSTRALIA