Ranier Fsadni can be a thoughtful and witty commentator, whom I often read with great interest. However, in my opinion, his piece ‘We don’t need a First Nanna’ (April 11) is not up to his usual standard.

Fsadni believes that the president’s argument that a referendum would be the fairest way to decide on the abortion issue is “a sign of wobbly judgement”. But the holding of a referendum on abortion is far from unusual from an international perspective, precisely because of its highly changed nature and because various and clashing rights and values are involved.

It is what happened in Ireland most lately in 2018, and what is happening right now in various US states in the aftermath of the revocation of Roe vs Wade.

These referenda and, more importantly, the discussions and citizens’ participation leading to them are widely seen as instances of democracy in action. Can it really be said therefore that all these processes are signs of a wobbly judgement?

We may all agree that rights are innate in us as humans, but the contours of such rights must be defined by each political community. This is particularly true for a right such as abortion, which after all is relatively recent in many countries.

So even if we believe that a right is innate, it still needs to be explained and anchored in the population. Moreover, without support from the people for individual rights, they risk being short-lived in practice (again as the US case testifies). So again, a referendum does not seem far-fetched.

There is a precedent to this suggestion in Malta, the referendum on divorce. The issue of divorce, though different, bears some distinct similarities to abortion in that involves issues of conscience, private and public morality, and faith. Thus, a referendum is not in any way unprecedented or going against Maltese political culture.

Fsadni also advances that the issue may become “characterised by partisan differences” as an additional reason for the president to refrain from making her opinion known. I suppose by this he means that the two main political parties will come down on different sides on this issue. It is worth noting that this has not so far been the case as the Labour Party recently back-pedalled on what became internally contentious legislative proposals.

A referendum is not in any way unprecedented or going against Maltese political culture- Anna Khakee

For Malta’s sake, let us dearly hope that this will not become a partisan issue in the future either: the abortion issue has poisoned American politics for decades. It is quite probable, for instance, that Donald Trump would not have been elected president in 2016 were it not for the abortion divide, which is so deep that it threw evangelical Christians – a crucial voting bloc – in the arms of the quite worldly Trump.

In fact, this is an additional reason for, rather than against, a referendum. A more balanced interpreter may have concluded that this might have been what President Spiteri Debono was thinking of. More to the point, it is more likely that supporters of both political parties are split on the issue: the main cleavage on abortion, as the president pointed out, is age.

It is rather preposterous of Fsadni’s article to give the impression that he is a better interpreter of the constitution than President Spiteri Debono, and that she has an “uncertain grasp of the confines of a president’s role”. The lack of any reference to the specifics of the constitution leads me to think the issue needs more careful and legally based analysis before passing judgement.

Suffice it to say that it is not uncommon even for unelected heads of state in Europe (i.e. kings and queens) to speak in general terms on issues such as the need for integration. This is precisely because, whatever opinion politicians and citizens take on new migrant arrivals, there is usually rather widespread agreement that society is better off if people who are here to stay are integrated.

This attempt to explain the constitution to President Spiteri Debono and the far from witty ‘first nanna’ comments give Fsadni’s opinion piece a rather stale whiff. I respect Fsadni, so will refrain from returning the compliment by calling him an occasionally grumpy nannu.

Anna Khakee is an associate professor in the Department of International Relations.