This has nothing to do with what happened yesterday, it is neither about the storm nor the local council elections.

Whatever the party leaders may think, the most important development for the country during this legislature has been the introduction of divorce in Malta.

We all remember the controversy, the slanging matches, the aggressiveness shown.

Now that the dust has settled, we can have a look back and see things in their proper perspective.

First of all: there has not been a divorce tsunami. There were no queues at the Law Courts. And those we know who did get divorces do not seem to be in any hurry to remarry.

Now this runs contrary to all the dire predictions we were doused with during the referendum campaign.

There are cases, and we all know of such cases, in which people who vociferously expressed themselves as being in favour of divorce, somehow seem to have postponed taking the plunge. Of course, we do not know the personal details why such a thing has happened, but, at the same, time we cannot help but wonder.

The Maltese people, in other words, have decided (as they do on major occasions) on the way forward by a wide margin, and in such a way as to make this choice irrevocable. But then it was in no hurry to go and get it, in other words to use this new-found right.

I have been thinking for a long time on this apparent contradiction but now, after due reflection and listening to people around me, I think I have found the reason.

It is the same reason, though on a very different level, why people may carry a gun but not necessarily use it, why people may learn self-defence but not necessarily use it.

Having divorce on our statute lists, our people seem to be saying, is fine, but that does not necessarily mean we will use it. But at least, if we have to go to that length, now we have the means. Before, we did not have the possibility.

And this seems to have brought a period of peace and serenity to situations that were at breaking point and which, prior to last October, people did not have any way out of except for terribly costly ways. You either had to go abroad. Or obtain a Church annulment. Or a Civil Court annulment. In both latter cases, you had to prove your marriage had been a sham right from the beginning and not every couple could prove that, especially when the split was a contentious one. Some got it (let’s leave aside the usual innuendoes about how such annulments are come by as long as the two agree to get it). But others did not.

Those who for one reason or another did not obtain an annulment were stumped for a solution. Their marriage had broken up, they probably despised the very sight of each other, the children grew up in an atmosphere of ceaseless arguments, fights and worse. But they had to remain married, chained to each other for life.

It was this, I hold, that created so much anger and hatred. Remove that, as we have done with the introduction of divorce, and things get much calmer, much simpler. Gone was the real possibility that you could get a negative answer. This was uncharitably termed during the divorce debate as the ‘no fault’ method. Those who argued this way should be ashamed of themselves, for it is precisely because divorce proceedings as stipulated in our new legislation do not attempt to pin fault on any one side of the equation which has made the procedure easier on people.

Ironically, there are those who for one reason or another still go for Church or state annulment procedures and when they get a negative reply they simply sink into despair. They are the unfortunate ones, whereas before the introduction of divorce all could have found themselves in this same sticky position.

With divorce being available, it is as if you get a back door out of which you can escape if things do not work. Before, that door simply was not there. Or if it was, it was mostly shut and bolted. It might as well not have been there at all.

We are now realizing, or at least I am, how many of our marriages are a sham, how they have covered up years and years of ill-treatment, humiliation, abuse et al. Over the years, many found their own ways of managing the situation, either by taking a lover or else by being indifferent to what their partners did. They both acquiesced in the failure of their marriage, and stayed together in a relationship as cold as ice. That is possibly why there has not been any rush to the courts.

The fact that there is today the possibility of divorce does not mean they will take that road. But it does mean that, if things go from bad to worse, that road is open to them and they can cut their losses.

We normally speak of divorce and think of those people whose marriage have broken down and for whom divorce opens the way to settling the outstanding issues. But there is another angle to it. The introduction of divorce did not just help these people who are floundering in their lives. It also helps people in normal, healthy relationships and marriages.

It tells them to give their all to love and cherish each other but if worse comes to worst there is always the possibility of divorce. People getting married today are, whether we like it or not, in this precise frame of mind. That’s the way it is and no amount of quibbling can change things. To force the people getting married to deny what they believe, what they know deep in their hearts they can do, will just not work.

So if people today and in the foreseeable future remain married, that will be not because there is no way to get themselves out of the commitment they made to each other, but because they both believe it is good for them to stay together. If at some point, either of them cannot continue to live up to the commitment, each is free to take the necessary steps.

This amicable way of settling matters was theoretically always there but we all know how very few marital splits took place amicably and how many of them ended in violence or worse, traumatising the children and leading to aggression both in and out of court.

It could also be that with this gradual easing of tension that we have learnt to manage these situations in an adult, sophisticated, modern way rather than in the uncouth, primitive way where honour had to be avenged like in a Mafia film.

My point today is not only to take a long view at what has happened in the months since divorce was added to the legislation of the country, although the country should always carry out a post-mortem on such controversial pieces of legislation.

My point is also that divorce was never mentioned in the last election. It was never on any party’s (except Alternattiva’s) electoral manifesto. When the subject was brought up, as we all remember, the party, one of whose members came up with it, reacted in horror and spent an inordinate time anguishing as to what its stance should be.

The other party, if I remember correctly, first wavered this way and that, then saw an opportunity to embarrass the other party in a big way and went for divorce. In the end, that almost upset the applecart and could have kept divorce out of our statute books until the next generation.

In the end it was the sheer determination of the small team who, among a thousand difficulties, piloted this thing through that enabled the divorce victory. In the end, of course, it was the support of the majority of voters who voted for the introduction of divorce that mattered. Those who, for one reason or another, stayed at home had no hand in the decision.

At any rate, the Bill is now law and the procedures in court have begun. The will of the people has triumphed but the people have been prudent and cautious in exercising its new-found right. This is as it should be. Had there been a rush to the courts, which would have been a sign of an immature electorate, and it would also mean that the majority who supported divorce at the polls was an immature one. It was not an immature majority and it has so far used its new found right in a very mature way.

In other words, the electorate, and that small band of MPs, sensed what the people out there wanted and got it done. By their action, they showed up the stagnant parties for what they were – irrelevant to the country, especially the party that had long been in power and which had not been through the trauma that electoral defeat and being in opposition bring with it.

The victory of this small band, and the victory of the majority that supported it, show up the inability of those in government to understand what the people really want and need.

Now, rather late in the day, sunlight has broken through the clouds and where previously there was complete opposition to any modernising of legislation, there is now talk of same-sex marriages, cohabitation rights et al.

I cannot deny that one very important part of this new process that came along with the legislation of divorce is an increased freedom by many to come to terms with their sexuality, sometimes with devastating results. This is a positive development and I can quite understand why such people would want what for heterosexuals is normal and right. What I warn about is parties using this debate as part of the electoral process, trying to squeeze out more votes from pockets of such voters without understanding what all that is being so glibly talked about can imply to society.

The same glib and shabby approach that kept divorce off the electoral manifestos in 2008 seems now at work to promise what this country maybe is not ready for. It’s not just yesterday’s winds that veer round the compass.

Ultimately, as we learnt (another very valuable lesson) in the divorce question, the best way to tackle, discuss and decide on such important matters is through a bi-party approach (even if some party leaders would not want to be party to such discussions) rather than using such issues and concerns for their electoral calculations.

[email protected]