Of hijacks and hiccups

Imagine the village supporters of Saint "X" doing all the necessary preparations for the celebrations of his feast. They congregate in front of their parish church, bands and all. The awaited moment comes. The enthusiasm of the supporters knows no bounds. The church door opens and surprise surprise, the statue of Saint "Y" is being triumphantly carried shoulder high by his supporters while the statue of Saint "X" meekly follows. The supporters of Saint "Y" succeeded to hijack the occasion and steal the limelight!

A surreal situation if there ever was one.

"Lejn zwieg b'sahhtu bid-divorzju!"

What did not happen during our village festas happened during the national conference organised by Progett Impenn with the theme "Lejn Zwieg b'sahhtu." Divorce instead of marriage took the centre stage of the conference. This was indeed a surreal setting. In the last few weeks, we had two national conferences on the family. The conference organised by government discussed ways of strengthening the family while the one organised by the Church unfortunately ended up almost as a prop of the divorce lobby!

The hijack

Dr Joseph Muscat hijacked the conference big time and stage-managed a good part of the discussion from the audience. Some can say that what he did was not fair. On the other hand, one can say that Dr Muscat was given a platform for his ideas and he could not but feast on it.

Pre-conference publicity said that since Dr Muscat had a happy marriage what he would going to say has a greater value. Will the same thing be said now, after he said it? (They said the same thing about Dr Gonzi.) Hats off to Dr Muscat for the mini coup he did. He not only stole the headlines but also used the occasion as a build-up to the policy speech concluding the party's conference.

The positions on divorce among Labour party MPs is quite varied. Evarist Bartolo is saying that if they are a moviment tal-moderati u l-progressivi they should include the legalisation of divorce in their electoral manifesto.

On the other side, there are those who say, "divorce over our dead bodies."

Dr Muscat enters this scenario after enrobing himself with the cloak of reason and moderation. He strongly advocates the point that everyone has a right for second chance in the guise of a second marriage (will there not be a third, fourth and fifth chance?) and consequently he will personally introduce such a bill in Parliament, if he becomes Prime Minister.

This, he hopes, endears him with the progressives. However, he hastily says that those who disagree with him can vote against this bill. This, he hopes, will endear him with the "conservatives".

This scenario looks like a win-win situation. It is the best example of having one's cake and eating it since it apparently leaves a place in the Partit Laburista for those in favour, against or with no position about divorce. The Partit Laburista strategists are effectively saying: "vote for us and you can get divorce" as well as saying "vote for us and possibly bye-bye divorce." St Paul had said something in the tune of being all things for all men (and women); but this takes the Pauline statement to new heights (or should I say, lows?).

The hiccups

There are also a number of hiccups.

First impressions could lead one to accept the position of Dr Muscat as a principled position; however, on scrutiny it opens itself to the accusation that it is principally a strategic move to attract the pro-divorce vote, which is on the increase.

Up to a short while ago Dr Muscat was saying that he was prepared to embark on this task (i.e. the legalisation of divorce) even while being a Leader of the Opposition. He placed one condition. The PM had to give a free vote to Government MPs. This was a sine qua non for Dr Muscat. One assumes that it is due to this non-compliance by the Prime Minister that Dr Muscat is ready to shelve his proposal until after the election.

Dr Muscat is now ready to bite the bullet even if the PN refuse to give a free vote after the election. His minor condition is that he will only move forward if he becomes prime minister.

The logic of this approach baffles me. I would have thought that his argument (no free vote on both sides = no divorce bill) would stand for both scenarios. If the argument is not valid for both periods can anyone explain why it is not?

On the other hand, if it is equally valid, why wait? Why not take the plunge now. Could it be that in the remaining months before the election we will witness a movement in the Partit Laburista (parallel and in tandem with the movement to mobilise moderates and progressives, whoever they are) to squeeze out those against the introduction of divorce?

If Dr Muscat, as a novel and brand new Prime Minister, presents a private member's bill which is not approved (thanks to the PN's refusal to give a free vote and the "conservatives" within his own party), what would he do? Will he just say: "Sorry guys but I did my best. Tough luck."? Or will he resign? Or will he just go on as if nothing has happened?

Civil society: a more apt forum

Dr Muscat should have left the issue of the legalisation of divorce for civil society to debate and tackle. We would have had civil society forming pro and anti divorce movements in the run up to a referendum on the issue.

The debate is surely a political debate (it is about the kind of society we want to build and to live in) but it should have happened away from party political structures. There would have been Labourites and Nationalists in both fronts. There would have been active and committed Catholics in both fronts.

In such a scenario, it would have been more than legitimate, perhaps even obligatory, for Dr Muscat and other political leaders to state their opinion on the subject. This would have been a position expressed within the context of a debate propelled and fuelled by civil society.

As things stand now I think it is legitimate for people to expect political parties to take an official position on the subject as a political party. Both could then leave room for dissenters, if they believe that this is not such a fundamental issue that there should be no room for intra-party dissent about it.

I do not think that it makes sense for the leader of a political party to have a position on such an important issue without it necessarily being in synchronisation with the rest of the party. Stating that a newly elected prime minister would present a private member's bill to introduce divorce (in contrast to a government induced bill) cannot be taken seriously or considered to be a principled option.