We’re all liberals now…

On Monday the Nationalist Party issued a statement to the effect that it supports (albeit with reservations) a bill proposed by government which would regulate civil unions - effectively giving same-sex couples rights which are analogous to those of their married counterparts, including the right to adopt children.

To date it is unclear what reservations the PN may have in mind. Its spokesperson Claudette Buttigieg declined to elaborate on the PBS programme Reporter when asked repeatedly what 'amendments' the Opposition would be proposing in Parliament. The only indication so far is contained in the PN's press statement last Monday: in which the Opposition party stressed the need to preserve the distinction between the two institutions of civil unions and marriage, and hinted that it would strive to defend this distinction during the parliamentary debate.

Such resistance could take many forms: the opposition could object to the section of the law concerning adoption; it might insist that the marriage law remains untouched, and that civil unions are regulated by an entirely separate article of legislation. Either way, the fact remains that the Opposition will up to a point support government on a bill that appears to directly contradict much of the former PN's identity as a political party perceived to be very close to the Catholic Church.

The upshot is that all three political parties are now in favour of the principle whereby same-sex couples are to be recognised and regulated at law: and this alone marks a sea change, in a political scenario which has nearly always upheld the opposite view... none more so than the PN, whose former slogan was 'Religio et Patria'.

But it is not just the PN to have softened its tone on such 'moral' matters. Even the Church itself has been subdued in its reaction - expressing only mild opposition in a very cautiously-worded statement issued by the Bishops last week.

This half-hearted attempt to 'remind Christian MPs of their moral obligations' - together with one or commentators in the press - is all that seems to be left of a bulwark of Catholic influence that used to virtually dictate the entire thrust and direction of Maltese politics until the very recent past.

From the uniquely biased view of a newspaper which has always supported civil rights, all this represents a positive development. But while this newspaper welcomes the apparent consensus that should pave the way for full marriage equality at law, a few questions remain.

One such question involves a large and apparently homeless conservative voter-segment that until recently enjoyed the backing of nearly all the country's combined political forces... and which, at least until the seminal divorce referendum of 2011, had traditionally always sought refuge in the PN.

This is strange, because even if Malta's political establishment was rocked to its foundations by the divorce referendum and its aftermath, there is evidence that this latest foray into political liberalism may not enjoy the same level of electoral support.

This newspaper recently ran a poll on gay marriage (though not on the form of civil union now being considered) and the results were unsurprisingly against its introduction... even though a sizeable minority responded favourably.

Nonetheless the majority sentiment appears to be against this development. And while it is commendable for the Nationalist party to resist political opportunism, one must also concede that the typical Nationalist voter now has good cause to be confused.  

With Joseph Muscat's Labour Party refashioning itself as a 'movement of moderates and progressives' over the last five years, and AD having always championed a more liberal outlook, it has traditionally fallen to the Nationalist Party to pick up the cudgels on behalf of the conservative majority. Its failure to do so on this occasion automatically raises a very weighty question: if the PN is no longer willing, as it was under Gonzi, to represent archconservatives in parliament... where else can these voters turn?

The question assumes even greater relevance when applied to the PN itself: a party whose internal divisions were made painfully apparent throughout the last term of office. Unanimous support for this bill will surely raise a few eyebrows, considering the decidedly conservative stand taken by many of the same opposition MPs during the divorce debate.

Incoming leader Simon Busuttil may well argue that the party has since changed; but if so, it may also be forced to confront the fact that a segment of its own supporters may not have changed to the same degree, and may therefore find it difficult to support a party they feel no longer represents them on 'moral' issues.

Above all, the same situation creates a political niche which is unlikely to remain unoccupied for long. A country that was arguably among the most conservative bulwarks of Europe until just a few years ago cannot be expected to perform a somersault and suddenly turn into a world hub for liberal policies... at least, not without facing certain consequences.

In this scenario, such consequences may extend to voter disillusionment, and a widespread sense of homelessness among a political special-interest group that previously held sway over virtually all aspects of Maltese public life.

Clearly, we live in interesting times.