Lawrence Gonzi’s political voyage: from Grand Europe to ‘Little Malta’

Undoubtedly, secular European values were not on the mind of those Nationalists who prior to the 2003 election and referendum had projeted the European vision as a Lm100 million cow ready to be milked for funds. Neither was secularisation in the mind of Eddie Fenech Adami, who fully embraced Pope John Paul II’s call for Malta to participate in the "re-evangelisation of a secularised Europe."

But greater cultural openness and European liberties were surely in the mind of thousands of voters who flocked to the polls to say ‘yes’ to Europe by putting the Nationalist Party in power in 2003 and again in 2008, mainly thanks to their distrust of Alfred Sant who, in their mind, embodied the ‘no to Europe’ campaign. So where are we at today?

Post-Europe blues

Six years after Malta joined the European Union, liberals are becoming increasingly frustrated, not just by the slow pace of change but by a resurgence of conservatism which manifested itself in the censorship of literary works and theatre productions over the past year.

In some ways the absence of civil rights like divorce came to underline Malta’s refusal to assimilate into mainstream European culture. It’s as if we have accepted an invitation to attend a party full of liberal guests and in order to distinguish ourselves, we wear a distinctive badge, a sort of conservative fetish in a liberal orgy.

The election of a  new Labour leader who does not evoke the same fears of autarky as Sant, and who has cautiously endorsed some liberal values, has complicated matters for PN conservatives who could no longer take the liberals for granted.

Just as the PN had to respond to the greening of civil society before the 2008 election, despite being traditionally close to the pro-development lobby, the writing was on the wall for a more modern conception of Church-State relations. It was in these circumstances that Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando presented a private member’s bill, which to the Prime Minister came like a bolt from the blue sky.

The bill came at a crucial time, when cracks in the Nationalist Party between the liberal and conservative wing were coming out into the open. For some Nationalists, Pullicino Orlando’s bill was a natural course for a party which has always striven to remain a step ahead of its adversaries. Fundamentally, the party which prides itself on always being on the right side of history – by introducing reforms which were eventually accepted by the Labour Party after each one of its consecutive defeats – could not afford to be perceived as the party opposing an inevitable change.

For a very brief moment, some even suspected a devious collusion between the backbench rebel and the Prime Minister, in a bid to ‘modernise’ the party without Gonzi appearing to front this modernisation. But for others in the party, Pullicino Orlando’s action may well have been the greatest act of vandalism against the party’s confessional identity in its centenarian history.

A bolt from the blue

The Prime Minister’s first reaction to the draft bill presented by Pullicino Orlando in July seemed to acknowledge that the party was no longer monolithic on this issue.

Conditioned by his one-seat majority, Gonzi seemed intent on negotiating a way between his strong views against divorce, and the need of keeping his coalition of liberals and conservatives united. Despite his frustration at not being informed of the presentation of the bill, Gonzi accepted the need for further discussion in his party before the matter is finally decided upon by the people in a referendum.

What Gonzi failed to do was to present a clear road-map on how the discussion would proceed, thus giving the impression that he was simply procrastinating on a divisive issue while keeping the debate contained within the Byzantine structures of the Nationalist Party.

Pullicino Orlando tried to accelerate the process by making public private commitments made by the Prime Minister on a referendum next year. Instead, all he got from Castille was a rebuttal and no clear time frame. 

The final straw

But by teaming up with Evarist Bartolo – one of the shrewdest opposition stalwarts in parliament – Pullicino Orlando has made it clear to the Prime Minister that the divorce bill won’t wait for the internal debate taking place within the Nationalist Party, thereby excluding any more procrastination on this issue.

And not surprisingly, this time around the reaction of the Prime Minister was far more categorical. Lawrence Gonzi’s declaration that he does not care that the whole world has divorce signals a closing of conservative ranks in the face of a Bill now co-sponsored by representatives of both parties in parliament.

This may well be a reaction to Pullicino Orlando’s decision to set up an IVA movement alongside representatives of the other two political parties. By doing so, Pullicino Orlando may have effectively subverted the Prime Minister’s plan to contain the discussion within the Nationalist party and government benches, where he could more easily call the shots.

The hardening in the Prime Minister’s stance could also be explained by the fact that for the second consecutive time, Pullicino Orlando failed to consult him before presenting a private member’s bill on the subject.  This could have further eroded the trust between the two politicians. The only thing which seems to keep the two together is the government’s one-seat majority.

In here lies Gonzi’s weakness and Pullicino Orlando’s fundamental strength. This dialectic has transformed the government into an uneasy coalition, with a parliamentarian who at least on one issue works hand in hand with Labour and Green Party exponents.

Neither was there any hint of a referendum on divorce in the Prime Minister’s brief speech during the official launch of the Centre for Family Studies. Gonzi simply chose to lambast the joint bill insisting that “on a serious matter such as the family, legislative proposals warrant serious thought and research before one goes to parliament to debate them.”

Once again, Gonzi seems to suggest that more time is needed to study the implications of divorce, reviving the prospect of eternal procrastination rather than a clear calendar with a referendum date.

What is certain is that Gonzi’s celebration of Malta’s idiosyncratic family laws – which, incidentally, followed a similar declaration by Fenech Adami, who claimed that Malta should be proud to be one of the only two countries in the world without divorce – represents a closing of conservative ranks within the party. And the incursion of the political patriarch in the divorce debate may well have swayed the internal debate in a conservative direction.

Fenech Adami’s towering presence in the ‘yes to Europe’ campaign could also counteract the use of the ‘IVA’ brand by the pro divorce movement. But it also begs the question: how is it that the party which once prided itself for taking Malta to Europe now insists on keeping the island as insular as possible?