Lawrence Gonzi’s vote: a question of conscience or appearance?

As soon as the referendum result on Sunday 29 May was announced, a solitary Prime Minister addressed the nation in a pre-recorded interview.

While making it clear that the result would be respected, MPs will have the full freedom to vote against or abstain.

With hindsight, one can say that he had himself in mind when he made this contradictory statement, which ushered weeks of uncertainty on whether the Prime Minister would respect the result through his vote. In this way, divorce remained a millstone tied around his neck.

It was only minutes before the vote was taken that Gonzi declared how he would vote No in the full knowledge that there were enough MPs to pass the bill through.

The fact that Gonzi had ensured an arithmetic majority in parliament so that divorce passes diminishes the value of his No vote. In view of this, his No vote looks more like a conservative fetish than a vote of principle, an anti-divorce badge through which the PM can safeguard his place in history as the Prime Minister who voted against a divorce bill being introduced during his term of office.

Still, at the end of the day, Gonzi cannot but blame himself for setting in motion the process, which led to a referendum yielding a pro-divorce majority.

It was he who first hinted at a referendum when declaring that divorce was too big an issue for MPs to decide on. He did so in his immediate reaction to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s bombshell last summer, in what was interpreted as a way of shelving this hot potato to voters.

Initially, both Pullicino Orlando and Joseph Muscat were against a referendum being held. But public opinion polls showed that a vast majority supported Gonzi’s call for a  referendum.

It was only at a very late stage that the Nationalist Party had cold feet by proposing that that the referendum should only have been held if parliament approved divorce.

But by that time, it was to late to stop a train which had already been set in motion by the formation of Yes and No movements. 

This enabled a crafty Joseph Muscat to build a parliamentary majority to push through the referendum he had initially opposed. Moreover, this enabled Muscat to choose the wording, which was most favourable to the divorce cause.

But had Gonzi never mentioned the referendum in the first place, it would not have been held.  

Ultimately, the question facing Gonzi is: how can he vote against the result of a referendum he had been first to propose?

Why shelve the decision on the people… and then vote against their decision?

A matter of principle?

The Prime Minister now stands accused of defying the will of the majority of voters in order to remain at peace with his own conscience.

This shows that Gonzi’s conscience is triggered more by matters of religion than by matters of state.

In parliament Gonzi defended his choice saying that his oath of office “says clearly that I must act according to conscience and without fear or favour.”

But an equally conscientious Prime Minister could well have chosen to respect the will of the majority by voting Yes despite his personal conviction against divorce.

In this case, the Prime Minister would have justified his decision by arguing that he is more conscientious about democracy and the need to respect the will of the majority than about divorce. Such a conscientious Prime Minister would have felt more troubled by voting against the democratic will than by voting for a law with which he disagreed.

Secondly, an even more conscientious Prime Minister who could never bring himself to vote for divorce because of his strong moral convictions – but who still valued majority rule – would have taken a more honourable path. He would have resigned from parliament and let democracy run its course. 

In this way, he would have recognised that there is a price to pay for one’s convictions. Instead, Gonzi undertook the more contorted path of ensuring a majority for divorce, which gave him the luxury to vote No. If voting for divorce was such a matter of principle, he should have either resigned or did everything in his power to stop it. Instead, he voted No, while being certain that the bill would pass.

Ultimately, it was only thanks to the vote of some of his colleagues that he was able to keep his conscience clean.

One must acknowledge that resigning from office would have been an unprecedented drastic choice, which would have triggered political uncertainty. 

But that was the only choice available for a Prime Minister unable to choose between what his personal conscience dictated and his duties as Prime Minister of a democratic country where the people are sovereign.

A diminished stature

One cannot accuse Gonzi of being a political Machiavelli, because his No vote seriously weakens his stature as a leader.

Leading his party with the anti-divorce tag firmly attached to him might prove problematic when reaching out to pro-divorce voters.

His No vote ultimately damages his credibility among a vast sector of voters who believe that majority rule should have been respected by all MPs, irrespective of their views on divorce.

This view is deeply rooted in a party which stood up for majority rule in 1981 and for respect of the EU referendum result in 2003.

His No vote also gives ammunition to the Opposition to question his democratic credentials.

Rather than bring closure to an issue which has created a rift between Nationalist voters, Gonzi has reinforced it.

Rather than shifting the political debate to other matters by boosting the government’s reformist agenda, he has kept the focus of the media on himself and divorce.

Inevitably, this raises questions on whether he is the suitable candidate to lead the PN in the 2013 general election.

Last Wednesday’s vote presented an opportunity – one which Gonzi missed.

Had he voted Yes after campaigning for a No vote, Gonzi would have sent a strong message of unity, especially towards liberal voters, that the PN is still their party.

Just a few weeks ago, Ranier Fsadi had advised Gonzi to follow this path, arguing that his conviction against divorce was known enough for a Yes vote to be interpreted as that of “a man of conscientious duty: one prepared to undergo the ordeal (for him) out of concern for a broader range of issues than those directly raised by the referendum.”

On the other hand, Fsadni sternly warned that a No vote “would see a large part of the electorate dismiss first his (Gonzi) conscience, then his government.”

Spending the next two years justifying his vote against the people’s will does not bode well for an embattled Prime Minister.

Whether his party will follow him in committing hara-kiri stands to be seen.