Divorce: when principles and convenience collide

MORE: FAQ on divorce bill and referendum

Scenario 1: PN does not take a stand

Advantages

By taking Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s advice not to adopt a formal position for or against divorce, the PN would not alienate pro divorce voters – especially those passing from separation procedures for whom the lack of divorce is potentially an electoral issue.

This would limit the electoral damage which the party would suffer from if it actively campaigns against divorce.

In the event of a yes victory, the party would not emerge as loser and would even be in a position to claim that it had a hand in bringing about the historical change.

In the event of a no victory, the party would not be blamed for obstructing the introduction of divorce and thus risk losing once and for all those PN voters who consider divorce a priority in their life.

The PN would be taking cognisance of  the remarkable mutation in its DNA during the past three decades, during which it attracted liberal and cosmopolitan voters first by opposing Mintoff’s authoritarian rule, and then by campaigning for EU membership.

This will also underline the fact that the party is no longer glued by moral and religious principles but by an outlook on economic and social issues, thus becoming similar to other parties in the European People’s Party.

Disadvantages

The party would appear unprincipled and unable to take a stance on an issue which, according to the Prime Minister, is too important to be decided by parliament.

It would be accused of mimicking Joseph Muscat’s Labour refusal to take a stance.

It would confirm the perception that by holding the referendum the Nationalist Party has done a Pontius Pilate.

It could also alienate and disorient the party’s conservative “religio et patria” core and raise questions on the party’s identity long associated with socially conservative values.

In addition the Prime Minister’s already declared anti divorce stance would be undermined. In the event of a yes victory he would become increasingly vulnerable as he would not be able to share the blame for defeat with his party. 

In the event of a no victory the party would be unable to reap any political capital.

Scenario 2: PN says no and actively campaigns against divorce

Advantages

The party would appear principled, and thus distinguish itself from Labour which has so far refrained from taking any stand. This would enhance the party’s credibility as it attacks the opportunism of the opposition.

It would also be following the rules of democracy by endorsing the view of the majority following a debate in which different views were expressed.

By actively campaigning against divorce, the PN will also consolidate its links with the Catholic Church which is still an influential actor in Maltese politics. 

In the absence of a strong campaign by the Labour party, a strong campaign by the PN could shift the balance for the no vote.

Disadvantages

The party would be inviting all those who support divorce to seek new pastures, either by voting AD - which is clearly in favour of divorce - or Labour, whose leader favours divorce.   A commitment by Labour to introduce divorce following a no victory could well result in electoral defeat.

Pro-divorce Nationalist MPs like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Karl Gouder would be put in a difficult position for if they campaign for divorce they will be defying the stance taken by the party. Even if they are not censored by the party, they would increasingly look like outcasts.

The overall image of the party among younger voters (the majority of which favour divorce according to all surveys held so far) will be dented.  The party’s conservatism could be a turn off for first time voters.

Scenario 3: PN says no to divorce but gives freedom to voters

Advantages

The party could opt for a statement stating that it does not feel that divorce should be introduced now, while giving voters the freedom to vote according to their conscience pledging to respect the referendum result. 

In this way the party would have taken a stand without being obliged to actively campaign against divorce in a way which would break up the liberal-conservative coalition.

But by calling the shots on the referendum process by taking fundamental decisions on matters like the date of the referendum Gonzi would still be in a position to influence the result without confronting directly the anti divorce camp in his party.

This apparently mid way solution would give Lawrence Gonzi a way out from actively campaigning against the introduction of divorce without being accused of betraying the party’s principles. The active participation of former leader Eddie Fenech Adami would still give a blue tinge to the anti divorce campaign while absolving Gonzi of the task of leading his troops on this issue. 

In the eventuality of yes victory the Prime Minister would not have to  resign which would be natural if he actively campaigns against divorce. 

Gonzi would try to look moderate in his party distinguishing himself from anti divorce hawks like Austin Gatt.

On the other hand while declaring itself against introducing divorce now, the party would not exclude its introduction making it easier for pro divorce MPs like Karl Gouder and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando to remain in the party despite the party’s declared stance on divorce.

Disadvantages

The mild anti divorce stance taken by the party may well be obscured by very active campaigning by the most conservative elements in the party. 

These elements may well go overboard in the religious dose in their arguments against divorce with the risk of the party suffering the consequences of their statements without being in a position to control them.

The party would still be in a similar position to that of Labour before the 2003 EU referendum when it ended up being associated with loony ideas expressed by the CNI.

In this way pro divorce elements in the party would still be alienated from the party.

Scenario 4: PL refrains from taking a stance on divorce

Advantages

Labour leader Joseph Muscat would be able to appeal to pro divorce voters  through his personal stance without alienating a minority of Labour voters who oppose divorce for religious reasons. Labour would be able to distance itself from a referendum process in which Lawrence Gonzi calls the shots. Labour would portray its neutrality in this issue as  way of respecting the conscience of voters and an attempt to prevent this issue from degenerating in to  a partisan one.

But Labour’s intentions could be more devious than that. In the absence of a strong campaign by Labour to mobilise its supporters to go out and vote on referendum, the Labour party could be sealing the fate of the referendum. The party may well be yearning for a no victory in a way that the only way left for pro divorce voters would be to vote Labour in office as it would be extremely unlikely for the PN to hold another referendum on divorce in the foreseeable future.  Labour might be tempted to finally commit itself in favour of divorce on the eve of the election to win these voters.  But probably as hinted by Muscat, it would propose another referendum in which a Labour government would be calling the shots, thus making its approval easier.

Disadvantages

With the PN and AD taking a principled stance for and against divorce, Labour would look increasingly opportunistic putting its partisan interests before principle.  In the case  of a no victory, Labour could well be  blamed for the defeat or for using divorce as political football in its long term goal of winning power. 

Labour would also lose the power to influence the referendum by fielding its well oiled electoral machine to ensure a fair process.

The promise of another referendum if Labour is elected to power might not be enough to win over pro divorce Nationalists in the event of a no victory.  And Labour would still face competition from AD which would gain greater visibility by taking a clear stand during the referendum campaign.  It could also be difficult to propose a second referendum on divorce a couple of years after a majority turned it down.

Scenario 5: PL takes a stance in favour of divorce

Advantages

If Labour heeds Evarist Bartolo’s advice and commits itself in favour of divorce, it would have gone a long way in affirming its progressive credentials and exorcising its present ambiguity.  Muscat would cement his leadership by energetically campaigning for divorce and thus curry more favour in the wider yes camp.  Labour would also be increasing the chances of a yes victory and this be able to take credit for its role in a historical decision. 

Disadvantages

In the unlikely event of Labour taking a stand it could face an internal rebellion with Labour MPs opposed to divorce coming out in the open. Labour would once again be pitted against the Catholic Church. While officially the church will not confront it directly, individual elements in the church would deploy their energies to punish labour in the next general election.

If divorce becomes law under a Nationalist government Labour would have lost its big chance of driving a wedge between liberals and conservatives in the PN.