Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando drops his bombshell on Gonzi and Muscat

Pullicino Orlando’s motion brings a sense of urgency to an issue which both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat wanted discussed after the 2013 election.

For by pushing forward a law to regulate cohabitation instead of divorce, Gonzi is giving the impression that he is trying to appease liberals without breaking ranks with the Catholic church. He might be procrastinating, fully knowing that this issue could potentially split the party’s liberal wing from the dominant confessional establishment of which he forms part.

So according to Gonzi’s timeframe the next four years should have been spent on discussing cohabitation, thus postponing any discussion on divorce until after the next general election. If the PN is voted out of office, it will be up to the next party leader to grapple with this issue. My reading is that Gonzi does not want to go down in history as the Prime Minister who introduced divorce. Gonzi’s attempt to regulate cohabitation simply addresses some of the consequences of the lack of divorce.

But it fails in addressing the Maltese anomaly in which separated people are forced to cohabit simply because they do not have the right to re-marry. The PN’s establishment may well respond by putting procedural spokes in the wheels but ultimately they cannot postpone the issue forever, especially now that it is being championed by one of their own.

On the other hand Muscat has repeatedly declared his intention of presenting his own private member's bill on divorce but only if he wins the next election and becomes prime minister. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has not only swept the carpet from under Muscat’s feet by preceding him but has also presented a big dilemma for Muscat. For Muscat’s pro divorce credentials will be dented if he fails to support Pullicino Orlando’s motion.

On the other hand if he does second JPO's divorce motion, he might find himself facing Labour’s own anti-divorce brigade in a parliamentary debate which exposes the fault-lines in both parties before the next elections. Muscat might prefer to face internal dissidents after winning the electorate mandate. Still lacking a specific electoral mandate for divorce, Muscat's task might well be as difficult as JPO's in the current scenario.

But while this could backfire on the strategies of the two big parties, a vote on divorce in the present legislature would be very instructive for us citizens. Irrespective of the result of the motion (if it is ever voted upon), voters have a right to know which MPs support divorce or not and how far the parties are willing to go to support or oppose this civil right. If it goes through we may all say hurrah, if not we would at least have a chance to know who is in favour and who is against and vote accordingly in the next election. The worse prospect would be if the motion is killed through procedural rules as happened to a previous motion presented by Labour MP Joe Brincat in the mid1990s.