[ANALYSIS] Simon’s way out… Unity at any price?

Monday’s vote on civil unions presented Opposition leader Simon Busuttil with a bona fide catch-22 situation, with every possible option posing great difficulties for the Nationalist Party.

Busuttil had two realistic options on Monday: either grant a free vote to his MPs with himself casting the decisive symbolic vote in favour or against the bill, or impose a collective abstention in a bid to avoid taking sides.

Collectively voting for the new civil unions bill – including the adoption clause – was never on the cards, considering the known conservative positions of several members of his front bench, like former finance Minister Tonio Fenech, who had already signalled his opposition to the bill.

Neither was it conceivable for the party to collectively vote against the bill in its entirety, as this would have thrown the party back to its pre-divorce referendum quandary, which resulted in liberals deserting the party in droves.

Busuttil had another viable alternative which might have given social liberals some hope that they are still represented in the PN: that of granting a free vote to all PN MPs.

Yet, Busuttil had another viable alternative which might have given social liberals some hope that they are still represented in the PN: that of granting a free vote to all PN MPs.

The advantage of this would have been that while conservative MPs would have voted according to their conscience, a number of PN MPs would have endorsed the spirit of the celebrations at St George’s Square.

But this option would have put greater weight on Busuttil’s personal vote. For it would have forced him to give a sense of direction to his party through a highly symbolic vote. The decision to abstain suggests that Busuttil was not ready to make a choice, which would have changed or confirmed the perception of the PN as a confessional party.

Busuttil was probably scared of the prospect of voting against the bill, fearing the same reaction that voters had against Gonzi after the former leader voted against the introduction divorce. 

But ultimately, Busuttil was not prepared to defy the conservative grass roots by sending a clear message that he is personally in sync with social liberals. 

For if Busuttil himself voted in favour he would have been in the same position as Muscat was in the divorce referendum when the PL was officially neutral while its leader actively campaigned for the introduction of this civil right. 

The price of unity

A free vote would have exposed divisions in the party between those who wanted to vote for the bill, those who wanted to vote against the bill and those who were going to abstain.

After years of internal division, Busuttil may be keen on presenting a compact and united Opposition, by trashing differences out internally and seeking the lowest common denominator.

Yet in doing so, the PN is coming across as a bland Opposition which refrains from taking clear stands on highly emotive issues, ranging from hunting to gay rights.

A split within the PN’s ranks on this particular issue would have represented an honest reflection of the PN as a coalition of social conservatives and social liberals united by secular political values

Moreover, a split within the PN’s ranks on this particular issue would have represented an honest reflection of the PN as a coalition of social conservatives and social liberals united by secular political values on issues like the environment, social justice and good governance. For ironically, the party’s Christian democratic roots may come handy in opposing an increasingly right wing government in other spheres like the economy and the environment.

Labour would probably have picked on these divisions anyway, but Busuttil would have easily replied to such criticism by emphasising his respect for the conscience of his MPs – something the people would have probably understood.

On the other hand, a ‘free vote’ would have sent a strong message to the crowd assembled in St George’s Square that the Nationalist Party has changed, and includes a visible component which is receptive not just to the aspirations of the gay community but also to the sensibilities of a wider liberal electorate.

A significant part of this electorate may well not be impressed by Muscat’s performance in government but which recoils from the PN because of its entrenched conservatism. 

In so doing, Busuttil may well have ended up playing Muscat’s game-handing him a substantial part of the liberal vote on a silver plate on the eve of MEP elections.

Judging by his final decision to impose a collective abstention, Busuttil was aware of the devastating consequence of voting against the bill. He probably resisted pressure from some of his MPs for a more hard-line stance against the bill. But ultimately, by choosing to abstain and impose this choice on those colleagues who wished to vote for or against the bill, he came across as an indecisive leader of a party, which is still suffering an identity crisis.

The 80% fluke

Busuttil justified his party’s abstention arguing that society was not prepared for adoptions by same sex parents and that a survey showed that 80% are against same sex couples adopting children.

Yet Busuttil himself admitted that as things stand, single gay people can already adopt children. The only difference the new law makes is that children who are already adopted by a gay person who lives with another partner will see both their parents coming out in the open and that same sex couples will have the possibility to adopt together, rather than as single persons. 

Ultimately, surveys on gay adoptions must be seen in the light of lack of knowledge on how the adoption process works. As things stand today, prospective parents are evaluated by social workers, with nobody having an automatic right to adopt.

Busuttil’s use of the 80% figure gave Muscat the opportunity to appear as a principled leader who is ready to stand up for minorities, even if this goes against the prejudice of the majority.

In view of the present system – which already allows gay people to adopt – abstaining on the law using gay adoptions as a pretext gives the impression that Busuttil is pandering to popular misconceptions.

Ironically, Busuttil’s use of the 80% figure gave Muscat the opportunity to appear as a principled leader who is ready to stand up for minorities, even if this goes against the prejudice of the majority. 

Obviously nothing could be further from reality than this. Just last summer, Muscat was actively considering the possibility of pushing back migrants to Libya. Moreover, he has consistently pandered to the most volatile sectors of the electorate – including hunters, squatters, and building contractors and on this occasion liberal and gay voters. 

In fact, this move is part and parcel of Muscat’s strategy: to defy the views of silent, and static, majorities who aren’t likely to change their voting patterns – despite their views on a particular issue – in order to, in turn, appease minorities who are more likely change their vote over the same issue.

Muscat himself has gone a long way from opposing gay marriage and gay adoptions in his first statements on the subject in 2008, to supporting a law which effectively brings about full equality. By the next election, Muscat may well galvanise the liberal vote by going one step further: that of institutionalising gay marriage, thus leaving the PN in another quandary.

In fact, even from purely electoral considerations, Busuttil’s stance may well backfire.  While it remains true that surveys show a majority against gay adoptions. 

But the intensity of feeling amongst the minority supporting the new law may well be greater than the lukewarm reservations expressed by a more complacent majority.

Moreover, with the church largely silent on this issue, militant opposition to the bill is best represented by nutters like Gordon Manche, whose antics helped to galvanise support for the bill in the past. While the PN has not actively voted against the bill, the doubts it expresses on adoption may well be perceived as a legitimisation of prejudice against children brought up by gay parents.

Moreover, it is easier for people with no particularly strong feelings on this issue to identify with the joy in St George Square, than with spoilsports who could not bring themselves to vote for a bill whose only consequence is making segment of the population happier.

Misunderstanding polls

A MaltaToday survey in November showed that only 25% supported the civil unions law in its entirety while 45% supported the new law, except for the clause giving same sex couples the possibility adopt. Only 26% opposed the law in its entirety.

On a superficial level, the survey suggests that more than 70% are opposed to adoption by gay couples but a careful analysis of this survey suggests that the PN’s abstention may backfire among strategic sectors of the electorate.

Polls suggest that more than 70% are opposed to adoption by gay couples but a careful analysis of this survey suggests that the PN’s abstention may backfire among strategic sectors of the electorate

Significantly, among 18- to 34-year-olds, only 10% are opposed to the new law on civil partnerships. Although a majority of young voters (53%) have reservations on granting gay couples adoption rights, a sizeable 35% support full equality including adoption rights. This suggests that any Opposition to the new bill would alienate a large chunk of younger voters.

The survey also suggests a split in the educated middle class which traditionally has supported the Nationalist Party but in which Labour has made some inroads over the past few years.

University-educated respondents tend to be the most polarised category, being the most likely to favour adoption rights but also more likely to oppose civil unions than respondents with a post secondary or secondary education.

In fact, among this category, unconditional support for the new law rises to 37% compared to just 20% among respondents with a secondary education.

But opposition to civil unions is also higher, with 39% of university-educated respondents opposed to the new status.

The university educated are less likely to go half way, with only 22% supporting the new law while expressing a reservation on adoption. On the other hand, 45% of respondents with a post-secondary education and 51% of those with a secondary education take this middle-of-the-road approach.

Support for the new law with adoption rights included is obviously higher among Labour voters (29%) than among Nationalist voters (12%).

But the survey also shows a stronger support for gay adoptions among switchers who voted PN in 2008 and Labour in 2013. Among this category, 38% support the new law in its entirety.

This suggests that Monday’s abstention left a tenth of present PN voters unrepresented by their party, and could pose a stumbling block for switchers who might be tempted to vote PN again.

The survey also showed changing demographics, which suggest that society is becoming more liberal.

Although only 25% agree with granting same sex couples adoption rights, this still represents a remarkable increase from 2007 when a Eurobarometer survey showed that only 7% agreed with adoptions by same-sex couples.

In fact the survey showed that Labour Party voters, younger people and the university educated are more likely to support adoption rights for same sex people while Nationalist voters, older respondents and people with a lower level of education are more likely to be opposed. 

This is problematic for a party which in other historical moments – such as 1987 and 2003 – managed to project itself as being in sync with younger and more educated voters.

Changed social imaginary

On a deeper level, the PN’s abstention also represents a failure to comprehend the worldview of a strategic sector of the educated and liberal electorate. 

Most damaging to the PN is the fact that this segment of the electorate includes highly influential people in the arts, media and cultural sectors. Alienating these people may have damaging consequences for a political party struggling to rebuild a political hegemony. 

Moreover, the PN can easily build inroads amongst this category due to the PL’s ‘Tea Party’ outlook on immigration, hunting, fireworks and land use.

Ultimately, Monday’s vote shows that as leader, Busuttil has managed to re-unite his party and to re-invigorate a devastated Opposition. However, he still fails to inspire and reach out beyond the confines of the party’s restricted vote base.

No wonder the latest MaltaToday survey shows the PN edging closer to Labour thanks to disillusionment among a sector of Labour voters, while at the same time making no significant inroads among Labour voters and switchers. Monday’s vote may well have reignited enthusiasm among a segment of younger Labour voters and dented the party’s attempts to lure switchers. 

Busuttil also helped project Joseph Muscat as a principled leader, a title which he deserves on this particular issue but which contrasts with his so far abysmal record on meritocracy, planning policies and good governance.