A parliamentary circus | Michael Falzon

As I sit down to chat with the affable Michael Falzon, a former Nationalist Minister for infrastructure (1987), environment (1992), and education (1994), it becomes increasingly clear that the divorce referendum highlighted rifts not only between society and Church, but also within the Nationalist Party itself.

Since the referendum result last Sunday, both Government and Opposition MPs have been tiptoeing around the issue of how they would vote in the upcoming divorce parliamentary debate – with “I will respect the will of the people” fast immortalised as the universal go-to phrase.

Anti-divorce stalwarts such as Austin Gatt, Tonio Fenech, Beppe Fenech Adami, Edwin Vassallo, and Louis Deguara have laid their cards on the table. On the other side of the House, only Adrian Vassallo followed suit, and Marie-Louise Colerio Preca pledged to abstain.

Amid the rising hype, speculation as to how Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi plans to vote remains rife.

Falzon is unimpressed, however. “This is a media circus. There are enough pro-divorce parliamentarians on both sides to carry the divorce bill,” he says, adding that prior to the referendum, a good number of Nationalist MPs were in favour of divorce, but never came out.

“I criticised them for not having the guts to speak out, but now, with the referendum result being what it is, they have the legitimate excuse that they are respecting the people’s vote.”

Falzon says that these MPs “steered very clear of committing themselves against divorce itself”, pointing to cautiously worded parliament speeches that dealt with the referendum question.

He argues that, “in their heart of hearts, they knew what position to take, but did not want to position themselves against the party or the Prime Minister. Now they have every reason to do their own thing because it matches with the views of the people,” he remarks.

“On the other hand there is a small minority – I don’t really need to name them – who are vociferously vehement against divorce, and yet would be more respected if they abstained,” Falzon says.

Those MPs whose districts showed a ‘no’ majority are in an uncomfortable position however. Would they be justified in voting against? I ask.

“Obviously everyone will look after their electoral interests,” Falzon says. He concedes that they stand a real chance of disenchanting their voters. “This is the sort of cynical calculation that politicians make all the time.”

 “Government is effectively saying that it doesn’t need to declare itself in favour of divorce because it is assured that divorce legislation will pass regardless,” he says, describing the stance as “a very cynical position.”

“I know there is a lot of hypocrisy,” he laughs, “but that is the way it is. It reflects the way the Prime Minister does things. Everything is a cynical calculation.”

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi has so far been vague on whether he will vote in favour, abstain, or against. What will his ‘no’ in parliamentary vote on divorce mean?

“It would be another political mistake if he voted against. The least he can do is to abstain,” Falzon says. “It means that he acknowledges that the majority does not agree with him, but also that he is not prepared to force-feed the majority with his personal opinion.”

Falzon however points out that it’s a Catch-22 situation. “There will be people who criticise him whatever he does.” He concedes also that it is not an enviable position: “Gonzi has put himself that position. He made terrible miscalculations and put himself in a lose-lose situation.”

Falzon argues that the start of the Nationalist Party’s problems came when its executive committee took a firm stance against divorce.

“One has to remember that one third of Nationalist voters are social liberals and liberals have always found it convenient to vote for the Nationalist Party against what they perceived to be the imposition of the socialist state during the Mintoff years. That is how the PN became a coalition of conservative and social liberal voters.” 

However Falzon maintains it is becoming more exclusive than inclusive, a move that could spell the end of the PN’s electoral strength.

“It is very strange,” he says, asked to what this ‘shift’ is owed. “Under the present leadership, many are feeling excluded from Nationalist thinking. We have had deputy leader Tonio Borg who, admittedly not during the divorce campaign, asserted that the PN is not a liberal party.”

He argues that this dangerous stance means that the PN considers liberal voters simply as a useful to win elections, but then their wishes can be discarded once power is achieved.

“That is political suicide,” Falzon says. “We cannot say we don’t care about what our voters believe in, and insist that we care only for what we believe in. This is, of course, what is putting the Nationalist Party out of synch with its electorate.”

Reiterating a point he had made in the past, Falzon says that “Liberals believe that they should have a choice not only in what toothpaste and chocolate they can buy, but also in their lifestyle.”

Falzon argues that that today’s Nationalist Party lost touch of how originally, this coalition started as ‘reaction’ to the perceived oppression and imposition by Dom Mintoff’s socialist government.

“Now, the same train of thought that attracted liberals to the Nationalist party as an answer to the Mintoff regime is the same train of thought that militated in favour of divorce,” Falzon said. “This is where the Gonzi administration completely misread the political situation. It is moving in a direction that the liberals cannot stomach. Without the liberal vote, the Nationalist Party has no possibility of winning elections. If it wants to become an exclusive sectarian party, it will have a limited percentage of votes, and it will stop there. It is only by becoming an inclusive party that includes people with different opinions, that it can hold on to power.”

He argues that normally, the Nationalist Party is a coalition of Liberals, Conservatives and Christian Democrats “in one pot,” while in other countries, these are often formally divided into separated political parties, such as Germany and the UK, which then form coalition governments.

In this case, the PN ditched the common ground it has come to depend upon, and became a ‘minority party’, Falzon says.

Given this ‘minority’ stance, how do you interpret the Prime Minister’s speech broadcast after the referendum result announcement?

“I was not impressed,” Falzon said. “I think he was not pleased with the result, although ironically, if the result were the other way around, the PN would have been in a bigger political mess.”

He explains that thanks to a ‘yes’ result, the PN has an opportunity to “get rid” of the divorce issue by seeing the bill through with the least fuss possible. “Afterwards, the PN will be in a position to start closing ranks in time for the next election.”

“If the ‘no’ had carried the day, the PN would not have had the possibility of closing ranks. Those Nationalist who voted ‘yes’ would have retained a lot of frustration and resentment against the party, and the feeling would have persisted even into the election.”

Falzon also points out that throughout the campaign Gonzi did not push the ‘no’ vote to the extent that Joseph Muscat pushed the ‘yes’ vote. “This was very prudent. He realised that he would be wrong to irk the Nationalist voters in favour of divorce.”

“The PN media was in sharp contrast with this, especially the newspapers,” Falzon notes. “There are now Nationalists who still call themselves as such but who will not touch the Nationalist newspapers, as a direct result of how these handled the divorce issue.”

Will the referendum result influence the upcoming election a year and a half off?

“It will be much less of a factor than if the ‘no’ vote had carried the day,” Falzon says, “One can only speculate what would have happened if the ‘no’ won, but undoubtedly, if the ‘no’ vote carried the day, divorce would have been an electoral issue, and Muscat could have capitalised on that.”

However, he speculates that even Muscat wanted to get divorce out of the way, as a sizeable chunk of Labour supporters are anti-divorce. “He would have been put in a position of gaining votes from one side and losing votes from another - a tightrope walk,” Falzon chuckles.

But can the PN close ranks in time for the election?

“If Gonzi and his leadership realise what cul-de-sac they have put themselves in, and perform the necessary U-turn, it could happen”, Falzon says. “It’s a long shot, however.”

Falzon adds that both the Nationalist Party and the Church were ill-equipped to appraise the situation and handle the degree to which liberalism is making itself felt in Maltese society due to cultural influences.

“Both the PN and the Church were out of touch with this reality. The anti-divorce arguments showed that they don’t know what is happening out there on the ground. Can we afford to have a Prime Minister who is so out of touch with the people?”

Referring to the Church’s approach to the campaign, Falzon is categorical. “Catholic catechism states that the Church has to be separate from the State – but Maltese Catholics seem to have a different God from the Catholics in the rest of the world.”

Falzon insists that this has to stop. “Malta is part of the world. The Church has to come of age. It cannot keep treating the faithful as 10-year-old children, and I am sure that in the end, the Church would be even more respected by updating itself.”

He adds also that the Church cannot afford to keep excluding its own members by assuming a judgemental role.

As talk turns to the referendum’s aftermath, Falzon says that it could well be a milestone for Maltese politics.

“The referendum was a watershed moment that will lead to the bi-party tribal mentality fizzling out, especially with the new generations, and augurs for a better democratic environment in Malta. It is obvious that people voted across party lines and that they were not blindly following the party line,” Falzon says.

“There could be other similar cross-party initiatives, but it is hard to imagine something as emotional and as interesting as the divorce issue. Nevertheless, democracy is much better served if people start thinking and coming to their own conclusions, rather than blindly following what their leaders say.”

The number of Nationalists who voted for the introduction of divorce legislation was perceptible, he argues. He also concedes however that people of a certain age, such as his own generation, probably find it a bit harder to get out of that rut.

He says that while some, himself included, were able to look at the bigger picture, many moreresisted. “You’ll wonder at how many agreed with the introduction of divorce, but wouldn’t vote yes in case their vote became interpreted as having contributed to a Labour party ‘victory’.”

“In that respect Labour Leader Joseph Muscat was clever not to claim a partisan victory,” Falzon said. “Had he declared a Labour party victory, Muscat would have irked those Nationalists who voted yes, and justified the pro-divorce Nationalists who voted no.”

“I am not a fan of Joseph Muscat, as you know,” he jokes, “but in this respect, I think he did the right thing. At the same time, he also had to be careful not to irk his own electorate.”

Referring to the erosion of the bi-party tribal divide, Falzon concedes that politicians must play their part. “Up till now, they have always recognised that it pays them to stick to the party mentality. Now this development might have opened some eyes” adding that, “sometimes the interest of the country as a whole is different from that of the Nationalist or Labour party.”

Nevertheless, the partisan mentality still managed to force its way to the fore, Falzon says. “More than once, people would approach me, saying they could not understand how I was siding with Pullicino Orlando. I did not side with Pullicino Orlando. If Pullicino Orlando was an instrument of change, so be it,” he says.

“I never looked at the issue as siding with Pullicino Orlando or against Lawrence Gonzi. That is a very petty, narrow-minded way of looking at the issue,” he adds.

He adds that the referendum result shouldn’t be idly dismissed. “If anyone thinks that the majority yes vote represents a personal endorsement to Pullicino Orlando, they haven’t understood what the game was about.”

Falzon also remarks that one of his biggest disappointments of the campaign was the cynical way in which his involvement was perceived.

“People tried to explain why I was involved and claimed that it was because I expected something from the Gonzi administration and did not get it, or because I resent the PM, which is not true. I did it because I believed in it,” Falzon maintains.

Petty politics aside, Falzon describes the experience at the front lines of the pro-divorce movement as enlightening. “I never imagined I would be phoning, SMSing, and emailing Evarist Bartolo almost every day for four weeks.”

“The best thing about it is that I now understand him much better than I did, and he probably understands me better,” he laughs. “To look at people as human beings, despite being your political adversaries, is enlightening, and nothing is better to that end than close interaction for a period of time.”

With the experience behind him, Falzon says that his ‘politically active’ days are behind him. “I’ll just keep on being myself - a political observer with Nationalist Party credentials, and hopefully a wiser person after the referendum experience,” he chuckles.

Falzon adds that he will keep writing in newspapers but says he will take a back seat in so far as that political activism is concerned. “The referendum campaign was my last hurrah.”

“I will not be militant. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t causes which I believe in, but divorce was a make-or-break issue - as far as civil rights and the separation between Church and State are concerned.”