Changing of the guard

As years go, 2011 has proved to be full of surprises. Who, among those who lived through the epochal clashes of the 1960s - or even the more recent Church Schools crisis of the 1980s - would have ever guessed that the introduction of divorce, a few years or decades later, would emerge from our survey as 'the most positive' development of the year?

For that matter: who would even have predicted its introduction at all, given the overwhelming impression of a nation founded on Christian principles, and the fact that the Church herself campaigned so vociferously for a No vote last May?

And yet, our survey places the introduction of divorce ahead of all other developments - including the downfall of Gaddafi (if only just) - as the main highlight of the year. To be fair, the same divorce referendum scores highly also in the list of negative developments - such was the inevitably divisive nature of the topic - but it will not pass unnoticed that the percentage of those who welcome this development exceeds that of the naysayers by a wider margin than actually decided the issue in the referendum itself.

This in itself is a curious reality, and viewed out of the national context it seems to almost defy reason. How can more people value the outcome of that referendum, than actually Yes? And in any case: since when is the introduction of legislation to formally end contracted marriages possibly, considered something to be proud of... when the word itself is elsewhere practically synonymous with all the misery and resentment of a failed marriage?

But to ask such questions would be to entirely overlook the much deeper significance of the May 2011 referendum: a significance which has less to do with divorce, than with our entire self-perception as a nation. Truth of the matter is that, for better or for worse, the campaign culminating in that event has changed the country in more ways than concern the dissolubility of marriage alone ever could. It banished former certainties to the realm of the uncertain - and in so doing, it has changed the entire language in which politics is spoken in our country.

Among the immediate casualties of the referendum was the centrality of Church doctrine to Maltese law: a centrality that was not only taken for granted up until fairly recently; but which was considered a practically unassailable absolute in decades gone by.

Indeed, it would not be exaggeration to say that former attempts to disrupt this status quo had brought the country to the brink of social and political implosion. This transpires even from a cursory glance at the political rhetoric of yesteryear: from the religious hysteria of the 1930s clash between Strickland and the ecclesiastical authorities over clerical representation in the Senate; to the more recent 'fire and brimstone' rhetoric of the 1960s 'Interdett' period, when Church involvement in politics almost plunged the country into civil violence.

To date, these and other political clashes had variously given birth to such refrains as 'Malta Cattolicissima' and the PN's unofficial slogan, 'Religio et Patria' - and to this day, Maltese politics continues to reverberate with occasional nods towards these cultural underpinnings: for instance, the steady mantra of 'family values' on both sides of the House.

After May 2011, all such epithets and former truisms may well have to be revisited. Traditionally, Maltese politicians have always been slow to respond to major upheavals in popular perception - but even the most conservative (and hence resistant to change) factions have by now taken on board the underlying implications.

For the first time in recent history, the wider public did not sing along to the traditional tune. And while we could get lost in the labyrinthine possibilities of 'why' and 'wherefore' they voted the way they did - among them, the simple realization that the 'traditional tune' in question was out of synch with the reality on the ground, and everyone could see it - the fact remains that the Yes victory of May 2011 eclipsed former convictions that the country's social and political establishment could never be successfully challenged.

Nor was it merely a symbolic victory: hanging in the balance was a direct article of law, a Church-State agreement which had elevated the Ecclesiastical marriage tribunal to a position of precedence over State legislation. This was a perverse state of affairs which had effectively reduced marriage annulment to an alternative form of divorce. 

But perhaps the single most telling example of the lasting change brought about by the May 28 referendum was the ruling Nationalist Party's reinvention of its former 'statute' - which has now been subtly replaced with a new statement of principles, recognising (for the first time ever, at least as far as the PN is concerned) the fundamental separation of Church and State.

From this perspective alone, it is perhaps fitting that Malta would remember the divorce referendum above all others when glancing down the corridors of the last 12 months. It was, in fact, defining moment which marked a clear transition in the ongoing evolution of our as-yet young nation: a movement away from an exclusively confessional approach signals, and towards the 'new way of doing politics' we were once promised.

Above all it signifies the coming of age of an electorate that clearly no longer allows its vote to be taken for granted, as it has so often done in the past. This fact alone bodes well, ahead of a New Year that is likely to be fraught with difficulties.

Meanwhile, may we take this opportunity to wish all our readers a Merry Christmas.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR

"To those who had an active role on both sides, we would like to show you our sorrow if anyone felt hurt by any word or action from members of the Church, as much as we ascertain our unconditional forgiveness for all those we feel have hurt us."

Archbishop Paul Cremona and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech, in note issued on May 28 (divorce referendum day), embargoed for 10pm after voting closed.