Gonzi's Hara-kiri

The Prime Minister had no qualms in defying the will of the majority of voters in order to remain at peace with his own conscience. This shows that his conscience is triggered more by matters of religion than by matters of state. What should prick any politician’s conscience is voting against the popular will, not voting for a law with which one disagrees.

For once one cannot accuse him of being a political Machiavelli as was the case when he secretly signed a pre-electoral deal with the Armier squatters while he was proclaiming his party’s green credentials on the eve of the 2008 elections.

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. It 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 economic matters where his party has a fighting chance, he has kept the focus on his juggling with conscience. In this way instead of exploiting the various contradictions in the Opposition’s populist policies, Gonzi remains in the spotlight. Inevitably this raises questions on whether he is the suitable candidate to lead the PN in the 2013 general election.

For his no vote weakens his stature as a leader of an inclusive party. 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. But by voting no, Gonzi has simply confirmed the perception that he is too confessional to be a democrat.

What is most pathetic is Gonzi’s depiction of his vote as being one of conscience.

First of all this was not a decision which had any bearing on anyone’s fundamental human rights. In that case the vote in parliament would have been illegal. It would have been a completely different matter had Gonzi voted against a referendum approving the introduction of the death penalty.

Secondly, an equally conscientious Prime Minister could well have chosen to respect the will of the majority by voting yes despite his personal objections to divorce. In this case the Prime Minister would have justified his decision by arguing that he is more conscientious about democracy 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.

Thirdly, an even more conscientious Prime Minister who could never bring himself to vote for divorce but who still valued majority rule would have resigned from his post and let democracy have its course.  He would have thrown the baby with the bath water but at least he would have given equal weight to his conscience and democratic duties.

Fourth: a PM who opposes divorce to the extent of not bringing himself to vote for it after a referendum should not have been the first person  to propose a referendum on this issue. By hinting at a referendum immediately after Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando dropped his bombshell last year, Gonzi was duty-bound to respect the result.

The fact that the PM had already declared that he would ensure 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. For if divorce was such a principle he would have either resigned or did everything in his power to stop it. Instead he voted no while being sure that the bill would pass.

His insistence on voting according to conscience also embarrassed fellow Nationalist MPs who had equally strong reservations on divorce but ultimately gave primacy to the democratic will of the people. Gonzi could have avoided all this on the day the country decided by saying that although he remains adamantly against divorce, he would respect the result of the referendum through his own vote. Ultimately it was only thanks to the vote of some of his colleagues that he was able to keep his conscience clean.