Malta’s press was euphoric this last week following the Republic of Ireland’s referendum results which legalized abortion, with the consequence that it failed to concentrate on Labour’s internal problems following the IVF Law. Instead, local liberals sought to take the opportunity to push their cause, while at the same time, expecting to have the conservative vote behind them.
The truth is that liberals are with Muscat on his agenda, with the difference that they harbour academic animosity towards the Catholic Church. Muscat is a politician and whether one likes his progressive moves or not, he does not push them out of personal belief but as a winning horse by which he has divided the opposition.
Both international and local media defined this result as a defeat for the Catholic Church in Ireland and a victory for secularization. After this result, the introduction of abortion in Malta is now a matter of time; no longer a question of if, but of when.
From a demographic point of view, I wish to comment on the implications of this vote with regard to our local politics. The question is whether embracing the abortion cause in Malta would be a winning card in the next general election. The answer is to be found in the deconstruction of Ireland’s abortion referendum.
In terms of figures, the result was at par with those obtained in the same-sex Marriage Referendum in Ireland. But forget specific figures. What I am interested in is the turnout of voters. 68% of those entitled to vote exercised their right. This was reported as being a big turnout. And in fact, for Europe, it was. But, for us in Malta, this would have been interpreted as a low turn out. However, had the turnout been bigger, what would have been the result? This is very difficult to answer as I do not have the complete data of the situation. No doubt, the younger generation voted in favour of abortion. In their majority, only those in the 50 + age bracket voted no.
How would one describe this vote? Would one say that the no-voters are more conservative or perhaps more mature than the younger ones? One would rightly conclude that the youngsters are far more prepared for change, irrespective of whether this is for the good or for the bad.
Secondly and more importantly, the Church did not take centre stage in this campaign. She was seriously bruised after the many scandals that engulfed the female religious orders under whose tutelage fell the care of orphans and young unmarried mothers. Statistics are showing that these stories had the most negative impact on those below the age of fifty.
There has also been, over the past decades, an academic onslaught to change and diminish the historical importance of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Until then, the Christianization of Britain was taken to have started from Ireland. The trend now is to revise this history, and diminish the importance by showing that those individuals who came over were mere upstarts driven, not by pious motives, but solely by greed and personal earthly ambitions.
While anyone with equanimity ought to be able to rationalise and realize that there is good and bad in everything, such stories, whether factual or otherwise, are likely to influence negatively the younger generations whose knowledge today is very superficial. This is thanks to the educational system that for long has diminished the importance of the study of history from the main educational curriculum. The result is that we have more individuals who are now simply made to follow what the political agenda of the day dictates, irrespective of the long-term consequences.
Interestingly, Ireland’s vote came at a time when, in the US, there is now a move to restrict abortions and reverse the laws there. This is quite curious as historically the Irish population constitutes a large segment of American people. How did the Trump factor influence the Irish voter? Perhaps, it had a negative effect on the younger voters, who see Trump as a conservative. More importantly is Trump’s decision to stop state funding to organizations that support abortions.
In the US, abortion cannot be presented in the same manner as in the 70s, when it was considered a form of social revolution and interpreted as economic advancement. In the past years, economic advancement has started to decline in the US. This explains why abortion can no longer be associated with economic progress. Hence Trump’s success with his slogan America First and the support that he is rallying to restrict abortion.
If one looks at the abortion progression in Ireland, one finds that this country went first through divorce, then same sex marriage and lastly abortion. To an extent, this is the path that Malta is following. This itinerary is different to that that undertaken by the UK and France. The UK went through divorce first, abortion second and same sex marriage third. In the case of the UK, same sex marriage was proposed by Cameron, a Conservative, who eventually lost the Brexit referendum and this ended his political career.
France experienced the same political itinerary. First, it had divorce, then abortion and finally sought to introduce advanced concepts related to same sex marriage, which included IVF assistance to same-sex couples. These measures brought about the downfall of Hollande. The situation in Spain was again very similar. After Zapatero’s government had introduced some of the most advanced laws regarding gender issues, he lost the elections.
Therefore, when abortion was introduced before measures related to advanced concepts of IVF, European politicians ended up smarting with the voters. Reversing the process may appear to be the winning card.
This may also explain the political itinerary that Malta is following at the moment. Following the introduction of divorce, the Labour Government did not push the abortion agenda. On the contrary, till today, it is stating that Government has no mandate to introduce it. Instead, it has introduced issues of same-sex marriage and these have been done over a number of years. The last move was the introduction of an advanced IVF law. This time round, the Opposition was united on this issue, which ended up damaging Labour; for the first time, Labour appeared divided.
Dissenting voices were heard within Labour regarding these gender issues, as is the case with the former Labour Minister George Vella. Others expressed their disagreement internally. I am told that at one point Muscat threatened those dissenting voices that he was ready to leave if the parliamentary group was not united behind him in parliament. Incidentally, he made this statement even in public during the 1st May celebrations in Valletta. This is why, as leader, whether convinced or not, Muscat wants to show a strong grip and cannot afford to delay the IVF laws.
Therefore the formula of same-sex marriage first and abortion afterwards does not necessarily work in Malta. Elections will not be determined on the issue of abortion even though, as a country, Malta may be showing the same trends as Ireland, and the younger voters tend to embrace more progressive ideas than the older voter. Still this is no guarantee for an electoral victory. Muscat has only his lucky stars to thank for the existence of a weak Opposition and a strong economy. Should there be a change in the economy, the progressive voice will receive a natural blow.
At the same time, Government cannot rely, as in the case of Ireland, on the abuses committed by members of the church in Malta. Whether one likes archbishop Scicluna or not, one has to admit that he has the character and the stuff of strong leadership. Like any institution, the church has its good and its bad sides. But unlike Ireland, people in Malta are still seeing also the good side of the church and in my opinion, this explains the current social media attack on the persona of the archbishop. He is the only leader in Malta who can rally the support of the powerful ‘conservative’ vote.