It is disheartening to note that the issue of divorce in Malta has recently taken a turn for the decidedly anti-democratic.
Ironically, Alternattiva Demokratika – the only one of Malta’s four political parties to place divorce on its electoral manifesto – took the lead in this latest twist. In a recent interview with sister paper Illum, Dr Harry Vassallo acknowledged that divorce is a stumbling block in the future creation of a coalition government; he therefore proposed to make the introduction of divorce subject to a referendum.
In a sense it is understandable that AD would seek to compromise on the issue – traditionally perceived as a vote loser in a country dominated by the Catholic Church – in the interest of securing a place within a coalition government. But forming part of government should not be the sole purpose of a party which claims to champion minority rights. Dr Vassallo must surely be aware that this latest suggestion represents a departure from AD’s previous commitment in favour of divorce as a civil right. For since when are civil rights subject to the whims and fancies of the electorate? Since when can a majority, no matter how large, deprive the minority of its basic rights?
But the die seems to have been cast. Exactly one week later, the same newspaper published an interview with Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who appeared to echo Vassallo’s argument by claiming that “The people should decide (on divorce) by means of a referendum.”
This “coincidence” has got many people in this country to think that AD and PN may be clearing obstacles ahead of a possible future coalition. This in itself is no bad thing, as this newspaper has long argued in favour of multi-party representation in parliament. But is it wise to sacrifice the right to remarry on the altar of political expedience? We think not.
The time may be ripe to explode a few local myths that have evolved around the subject. The first is that Malta’s opposition to divorce is some kind of last-ditch stand in favour of Christian morality in an increasingly secularised world. The facts suggest otherwise. In reality, Malta is a place where one in two marriages end up in separation or annulment. That is the same break-up rate associated with countries such as the United States, where divorce is the order of the day. Consequently, the social ills so often associated with divorce – namely, the trauma of children growing up in broken homes – are as much of a reality here as in the 99.9 per cent of the world which permits divorce: in other words, all countries except Malta and the Philippines.
Another point to be borne in mind is the extent of popular opposition to divorce in Malta. On the same day as Illum published its interview with the Prime Minister, The Sunday Times carried a front-page survey which suggested that the overwhelming majority – 85.3 per cent – “believe that marriage is a permanent union that cannot be dissolved.”
Admittedly we have reservations about the validity of this survey, in particular with the question asked. (Theoretically, a person in favour of divorce may still reply “yes” to the hypothetical question, “should marriage be for life?” A more accurate question would be: “should divorce be made available to couples whose marriage has irretrievably broken down?”)
But the gist of the Sunday Times’ survey remains inescapable. Held today, a referendum on divorce would almost certainly fail, giving the government of the day (coalition or otherwise) the perfect political excuse to place the issue permanently on the backburner. This will only preserve the status quo, thus condemning the minority to a situation which John Stuart Mill would have had no difficulty identifying as “the tyranny of the majority”.
All this strongly suggests that Malta is still a politically immature country. Democracy is all too often reduced to its lowest common denominator: for many people, the simple fact that a majority is against divorce automatically constitutes a democratically acceptable argument to deny thousands of couples the right to remarry. But anyone conversant with democracy as it has evolved in the 220 years since the American War of Independence will instinctively know that the very opposite is true. In a functional, representative democracy, no majority can be used as a pretext to deprive a minority of its civil rights. When this happens, the system ceases to be truly democratic. It will have lost sight of the original purpose of democracy to begin with, which is to guarantee basic rights to all members of society for the greater good of all. Please note: the greater good of all, not just of the majority.
It is a pity, therefore, that the same forces which claim to champion democracy should also unwittingly work to undermine it from within.