I have nothing but respect for President Emeritus Edward Fenech Adami. Over the years I may have agreed with him sometimes and disagreed with him most times, but nobody can ever detract from the fact that he has been a political servant of Malta for too long a time to garner anything but respect. This is why the comments by the President Emeritus leave such a bitter taste. Dr Fenech Adami saw fit to give us his comments as to the role of our Parliamentarians following the divorce referendum.

Many of us remember the constitutional upheavals following the 1981 election results. Those who are too young to remember must be properly informed of what occurred in 1981 and how Parliament, led at the time by a Labour Government, voted to change our Constitution in such a manner as to allow for the respect of the vote of the electorate at all times. This was intended for two reasons. One was to allay any fears of uncertainty in the forming of a government, the other, more important, was to ensure that the country got the government as voted for by the majority. This same reasoning has to be applied to the divorce referendum.

The people, put simply, have spoken. Parliament must now follow suit. To do otherwise is tantamount to disrespecting the will of the majority as expressed voluntarily by the referendum result. This is why, after all, the government chose to hold the referendum. The government felt it needed to know what the people felt about the issue of divorce. Now the government knows and has to do its utmost to ensure that the appropriate legislation is passed through Parliament. Not to do otherwise would be a disservice to our democratic ideals and could lead to calls for the resignation of the government.

Dr Fenech Adami feels otherwise. His opinion is that the referendum vote may be “another form of totalitarianism, concealed under the appearance of democracy”. He also states that “I have always maintained that moral issues should not be decided on the principle of democratic majorities but, rather, on the principle of what is morally right.” Herein lies the million dollar question – what is morally right? Are the Taliban morally right? Is communism morally right? Was Archbishop Gonzi morally right in the 1960s? Is Joseph Muscat morally right? Is the editor of this paper morally right or is the editor of another paper morally right?

The truth is that everybody has the right to his own opinion and the very essence of democracy lies in the fact that the will of the majority is to prevail, with proper respect to the rights of minorities.

To be morally right is to accept the will of the people. The will of the people must be respected, and yes, our MPs must stand up and be counted – on the side of the majority as defined by the referendum result.

Simon Micallef Stafrace