28 May 2011: An appointment with history

Thanks to parliament’s approval of a Labour motion proposing a referendum on divorce for anyone separated from his or her spouse for more than four years, on 28 May the country will face its appointment with history.

To his credit, through his parliamentary gymnastics Joseph Muscat has at least thwarted an ignoble attempt by the Prime Minister to relegate the referendum to a ‘double insurance policy’ to be used only in case divorce passes through parliament, followed by a lame attempt to propose a generic question asking people whether they are in favour or against divorce 'in abstract'.

Fortunately we have a question anchored in a legislative proposal, which limits divorce to couples who have lived apart for four years or more. It is practically the same question put to Irish voters in 1995.

But all those taking the country to a referendum because of political expediency must now assume their responsibilities. For frankly speaking, by submitting a minority right to a referendum we are taking an enormous risk. It is a risk I would not have taken.

And while a defeat for a divorce bill in parliament would have been a temporary setback easily reversible in a few years’ time, a defeat in a referendum will take the country back to the dark ages. It will mean that divorce won’t be introduced in the next decade. And MPs might even have to go for another referendum so that politically they cancel the result of this referendum.

My appeal to Muscat is to leave no stone unturned to mobilise Labour voters to vote yes. If he is still unwilling to commit his party for divorce, he should at least take a prominent personal role in the  campaign. Sitting on the fence is no option for anyone who really yearns for progressive change. There is too much at stake to even contemplate defeat. And it will not be an easy task for the yes campaign to prevail.

Surveys indicate that divorce is more of a “do or die” issue for those who oppose it on religious and moral grounds. With the church (with all its branches and networks) and the Nationalist Party actively campaigning against it, and AD the only party to campaign for a yes vote, the odds are already pitted against the pro divorce camp.

But I am sure that there is a substantial number of liberal Nationalists who have enough good sense to realise that a yes victory will save their own party from the loony conservatism which would translate into sure defeat for the party in the 2013 general elections.

At the end of the day, those opposed to divorce might have more motivation to vote than those who agree with divorce without feeling too strongly about it. Persuading this silent majority to go out to vote will be no mean feat. But it is not an impossible task.