Why the YES will prevail

Turn the clock back to 2003. Those opposing Malta’s entry in to the European Union were making every effort possible to stir fears of all sorts ranging from a  billboard on the Naxxar Labour party club scaring good Catholics of gay marriages and abortion to vox pops with unemployed layabouts in Sicily expressing their desire to seek jobs in Malta.

While the official Labour Party tried to present “rational” economic or political arguments against membership, it was constantly outdone by the extremism of the loony no groups which mushroomed around it.

One major reason why the yes won was that no-arguments sounded quirky, extreme and out of synch with the modern world. Even the threat of Scandinavian girls taking Maltese men was once floated during a no gathering.

The no camp even had a reputation for twisting and distorting reports to produce half-baked truths. All they lacked were establishment figures like the commissioner for children to give legitimacy to the claims.  Maltese socialists took pride in their isolationism from mainstream social democratic parties, all of which favoured European integration. And like the Nationalists of today, they poured scorn on the independent media and civil society for being biased against them.

While some voted against the EU simply because their party was against others mainly younger people did choose to put common sense before partisan affiliation. And some elderly people did put aside their prejudices, hobbies and loyalties  to open up new horizons for  their grand children.

The EU membership referendum was not the only case where the Maltese voter defied scare mongering.  In their electoral choices (at least when they were free to express themselves without fear), the Maltese tended to reward common sense; choosing Mintoff’s vitality and zest in 1971 but rejecting old Labour’s authoritarian streak in 1981, 1987 and 1992 - only to reward Sant’s cleansing of the  Labour party in 1996. The same electorate was quick to put Malta back on track to Europe in 1998, ratify the referendum result in 2003 and thank AD for its commitment in the yes campaign a year later in Malta's first MEP elections .

Now let's return to 2011.

Those opposing the introduction of divorce are making every possible effort to stir fear with billboards warning of impending “darkness” if divorce is approved; and the Bishop of Gozo basically inviting pro-divorce Catholics to leave the church - a notion which is so out of synch with post-Vatican II Catholicism.

Neither does the eloquence-  typical of the traditional upper middle class- of some of the no speakers prevent them from expressing quirky views, like Anna Vella’s contention that with divorce marriage will last until women reach a size 10.

The latest quirky view is the notion that just like development permits are submitted to an environmental impact assessment, individual civil rights like divorce should be submitted to some sort of social assessment. I won’t be surprised if one fine day someone will wake up to propose social assessments on, say disseminating obscene literature. I wonder which case officer and which authority will determine the outcome of these assessments. And do we really need a study to show that the whole world is wrong while Malta and the Philippines are right? Why not conduct an impact study on whether the world goes around the sun?

What makes me cringe is the equation between the complexity of human relationships and choices, to the definite physical impact of static buildings, roads or power stations. As if any study can justify denying a battered wife from seeking a new life with someone who truly loves her.

Moreover the official no movement is constantly outdone by even quirkier views expressed by the groups which have mushroomed around it, which give the whole campaign a bizarre twist. Anyone passing through Tower Road is instantly reminded that Malta is not a normal country and that the religiosity of some is akin to fundamentalism.

The same applies to the Gozo bishop's declaration that those not following the Church’s teachings on divorce should not receive the sacraments. While the church has every right not to accept divorce and to campaign against its introduction, voting yes is different from actually divorcing one’s spouse. Most yes voters intend to honour their lifelong marital commitments while giving other people, many of whom are already “living in sin”, a second chance to marry.

Considering that the alternative to divorce proposed by the present government is institutionalised and forced cohabitation, the whole argument that voting for divorce is a sin should also apply to the Nationalist government’s intention to legislate on cohabitation. This goes a long way in showing that what irks the Church most is the word sheer word “divorce” and the prospect of Malta becoming like the rest of the world.  All they are defending is a symbolic exceptionalism which makes Malta abnormally special.

The Church’s latest offensive may well reflect a realisation on its part that a silent majority favours the introduction of divorce and that only fear will dent the inevitable outcome. Surveys by three independent media organisations (The Times, MaltaToday and Xarabank) showed a 56%-58% majority favouring responsible divorce before the referendum campaign started. Now right in the middle of the campaign two surveys conducted by two different media organisations (It-Torca and MaltaToday) show the yes and the no head to head.  This was not due to any significant gains by the no camp, but due to the increase in the number of undecided.

This could well indicate that fear still pays off and the seeds of doubt have been sowed, especially among middle-aged and older voters who find solace in the Church’s (mostly sound and humane) teachings. Some will definitely not vote for divorce not because they believe that it will bring the breakdown of society but because they do not want to put their souls in danger of eternal damnation.

The moral terror imposed on good Christians who agree with the introduction of divorce for other people, may well be the cruelest act in this referendum.

But even among elderly Christian voters there are many who feel compassion for younger people whom they deem to deserve a second chance of happiness. Some have relatives who are forced to cohabit for years despite their desire to marry.  On referendum day they will probably think more about the problems of real human beings rather than about ideological abstractions or threats reminiscent of a very dark period in Maltese history. In many cases compassion will win over fear.

The fact that people are campaigning for divorce simply shows that marriage is still a cherished institution, which many cohabiting couples want to join. Forcing these people to cohabit instead of marrying defies the ‘common sense’ of a society, which values marriage and family.

Moreover, as proclaimed by a 1974 referendum poster in Italy - “chi crede nel  matrimonio non ha paura del divorzio” (those who believe in marriage have no reason to fear divorce) - the vast majority will continue living their marital vows with the intention of living together forever, irrespective of whether they get fatter or slimmer. No law will change this. For these people May 29 will be just another normal day, albeit in a more normal country.