MaltaToday editorial, Why a ‘Yes’ vote is crucial to democracy

There is also a fundamental political principle at stake, touching upon a number of crucial characteristics in any self-respecting European democracy: from social justice and the rights and freedoms of individuals, to the obligation of the State to legislate on behalf of all its citizens equally, without discrimination.

Judging by the latest surveys, it seems that people are slowly coming round to understanding this vital point. But it is by no means certain that this gradual increase in apparent support for the Yes campaign will translate into victory at next Saturday’s poll.

If not, the outcome would constitute a grave injustice towards all those whose family circumstances have made divorce legislation a pressing necessity in today’s Malta. It will also be a serious setback for Malta’s progression towards a just society for all.

It will surely come as no surprise to our readers that MaltaToday is firmly in favour of a Yes vote next Saturday: in fact, this newspaper has adhered to a policy in favour of divorce legislation from its inception in 1999.

There are several reasons for this: not least, compassion for and solidarity with those whose need for such legislation is very real and very urgent. Furthermore, it bears reminding that the arguments against divorce legislation to date have been at best unconvincing. Certainly, none has assured us that Malta would in any way benefit from maintaining the status quo.

With or without divorce it remains a fact that marriages fail; and contrary to the often deliberately deceptive approach of the No campaign, divorce laws in other countries do not impinge on the actual marital breakdown rate, or on any of the psychological effects of marital breakdown on family members (effects which are equally applicable to both separation and annulment, both legally available in Malta).

But from the outset we also recognised another dimension to this debate: i.e., that resistance to this legal reform is in part dictated by the desire to retain antiquated legislative models, which should really have no place in a modern democracy.

Sadly, it seems there are many among us who would like to impose their own views on the population as a whole: invariably citing dubious justifications, such as arguments appealing to the “common good” at the expense of individual rights.

Often, the purveyors of such arguments have framed their handiwork into the very fabric of this country’s legislation: making it so much harder for subsequent generations to rectify their injustices. One example out of many is directly relevant to the ongoing divorce debate: the ill-advised 1995 Church-State agreement, engineered by former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami (now an outspoken campaigner for the No lobby), which empowers the Ecclesiastical Tribunal to take legal precedence over its civil equivalent.

This is an anomaly unto itself, and represents a permanent injustice towards all who do not share in the country’s majority belief system (as well as several who do share in it, but nonetheless recognise the need to keep God and Caesar firmly apart). 

More poignant still, it openly contradicts Malta’s claims to being a European member state based on the principles of ‘equality for all’ and ‘unity in diversity’ – in other words, the same identity so many people had insisted upon and fought for ahead of that other nationwide referendum on March 8, 2003.

For this reason it is certainly no coincidence that MaltaToday also supported our country’s contentious European Union membership bid in 2003. Eight years ago we argued that EU accession would serve as a guarantee of the basic tenets of democracy – so often under threat in this country’s recent political history, as (ironically) few know better than the current Nationalist administration.

From this perspective it is incongruous how the same people who fought for these European ideals, are now campaigning against divorce legislation in a bid to keep Malta from benefiting from the same freedoms enjoyed by our European neighbours.

This makes our country an evident anomaly within the European family: the one EU member state that has stolidly refused to distinguish between secular and ecclesiastical values, to the grave detriment of its own citizens.

It is therefore a matter of political necessity that some semblance of normality is returned to what has become an exceedingly abnormal state of affairs: an abnormality repeatedly confirmed by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who has often claimed that he “doesn’t care” if Malta remains the only democracy in the world to fail to observe this basic democratic principle.

Dr Gonzi may not realize it, but the truth is that such statements only betray how deeply out of touch he is with reality… reinforcing the growing sensation that the corridors of power have been hijacked by irrationality.  Sadly it must be said that this same attitude has also scarred the political landscape of our country, in that it has mired the basic European model of Church-State separation in an increasingly antagonistic disdain for the principle of secularism.

And yet, this selfsame principle forms the very core of the issue at stake in this referendum. And the need for such a distinction has now been painstakingly illustrated by none other than the No campaign itself: with its billboards urging voters to choose between “Christ” (please note: Christ, not Christianity) and “Divorce”… for all the world as if this were not an independent country at all, but an externalisation of the private religious beliefs of the most vociferous of its several religious denominations.

And yet, Malta is not the private property of the Catholic Church. It is home to 400,000 people, many of whom are not Catholics at all. Naturally, all these inhabitants enjoy the right to express their opinions, and this includes the Church (which also has a wealth of means at its disposal to get such messages across).

But this fact alone does not mean that the State should give undue credence to any one of those disparate opinions at the expense of all others. And when it comes to passing legislation – bearing in mind that State laws, unlike religious decrees, are binding upon all citizens equally – the same State has both a moral duty and a legal obligation towards those who do not profess the Catholic faith; or who are Catholics, but feel they should not have the right to impose their own religious beliefs on others.

This very simple concept is a standard feature of all modern democracies, in Europe and elsewhere, and it is indeed regrettable to note how Malta insists on making itself an exception to this rule. A Yes vote in Saturday’s referendum will go a long towards restoring a much-needed balance between the rights and responsibilities of all citizens, as well as towards ending an untenable injustice towards those most vulnerable.

This editorial appeared on Sunday, 22 May on MaltaToday's print edition.