The family guy | Edwin Vassallo

I’m met by a rather amazing and enormous Christmas crib inside Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo’s home in Mosta, rigged with lights and running water. Christmas is indeed upon us, and the proud Vassallo informs me he patiently constructs a new crib each year, starting work as early as August, with all figurine being hand-made he adds, pointing out some unfortunate imperfections.

This is a private glimpse in the former junior minister’s life, who is quick to tell me that his effort finds no form of satisfaction in public competitions or exhibitions. He even refuses the suggestion of having the crib photographed, insisting that it is “part of [his] private life.” 

Vassallo, a junior minister serving under both Eddie Fenech Adami and Lawrence Gonzi between 1998 and 2008, found himself back on the backbench after the last election in which he scraped into parliament through the constitutional amendment which guarantees a proportionality between seats and votes. He did not expect reappointment following this result.

But he feels very comfortable in his role as chairman of parliament’s social affairs committee, whose MPs get to debate some meaty proposals for the rest of the lawmakers, and even get to set the agenda on the country’s ‘social’ direction.

“The greatest satisfaction I get from politics is that I am in a position to defend society and the family. For me politics is about having a vision, sharing that vision and making it true,” Vassallo, a conservative on the Nationalist camp, says.

One of the theses promoted by Vassallo is that the introduction of divorce, championed by the newly discovered liberal flank of his party, will result in more couples deciding to cohabit instead of marrying, refuting the pro-divorce lobby argument that divorce will strengthen the institution of marriage by including within it separated persons who are presently forced to cohabit.

“It is a fact, it is not my opinion. It is what happened in other European countries,” he insists.

I immediately point out that cohabitation could be increasing for a wide variety of sociological reasons, and that it cannot simply be attributed to the introduction of divorce which, in countries like the United Kingdom, dates back to 1857.

While accepting that the increase in cohabitation can be the result of changes in lifestyle, he insists that divorce will make cohabitation more likely because it devalues the marriage contract presently based on permanence, thus blurring the distinction between cohabitation and marriage.

“Divorce erodes the idea of commitment, harmony and permanence. How can we build a society in the absence of these values? How can we institutionalise this abuse of liberty?” [libertinagg is Vassallo’s exact word].

But how can he apply this negative term ‘libertinagg’ (libertinism) to people who simply want to marry instead of cohabiting?

“If I say yes to these people, I end up undermining the contract of marriage.”

And, awkwardly, he even hints that in the long run, divorce would be a disservice even for these people. “They will remarry on the understanding that marriage is just a ceremony and not a lifelong commitment. They might end up living the same trauma twice.”

It is here that Vassallo brings a new ingredient to the discussion: the “common good”.

“I firmly believe that when deciding on particular issues, politicians cannot be guided by sentimentalism, by the notion that we should cry with those who are crying… We have to ask what is the common good for the whole of society.”

According to Vassallo, it is this quest for the common good which distinguishes a politician from a theologian or a philosopher.

I point out to Vassallo that at present, cohabitation is not a matter of choice for separated people who would like to get married again but are unable to do so because of the absence of a divorce law. So isn’t the absence of divorce contributing to more cohabitation in Malta?

Vassallo disagrees, insisting that the experience of other countries shows otherwise, but he sees a need of a law on cohabitation.

“We need it as much as we need bread.”

But he makes it clear that such a law should not “institutionalise cohabitation” by recognising out-of-wedlock relationships. He would only go as far as recognising the rights and obligations of the individuals forming these relationships irrespective of whether they are same sex couples, heterosexual couples or even relatives or friends.

“In these cases we need laws which protect the most vulnerable member of the relationship from being abandoned and left to his or her own devices when the relationship ends.”

I remind Vassallo that while cohabitation is a choice only for straight couples who have not been previously married, it is not a choice for gay couples who want to spend the rest of their life together but are not allowed to marry.

But Vassallo once again invokes the common good to exclude gay marriages, insisting that even secular countries like France have not introduced it.   

Vassallo thinks that the final decision on divorce should be taken by the people through a choice between different policies on the family found in the electoral manifestos of the two major parties.

“My preferred path would be for both parties to come up with their vision on the family after an internal discussion which should not be limited to divorce.  In fact it should focus on how the family should be strengthened.”

True to his own origins as a shop retailer, Vassallo compares the two parties to two shops offering different products. “When I visit one particular shop I expect to find a particular range of products. But when I visit the another shop I expect to find different products.”

He is also very clear on what family model he would like his party to promote. “Since I do not accept individualism, I do not accept a family model which weakens the sense of certainty in the country by allowing people to change their spouse in the same way that they change their car. That is why the contract of marriage should remain binding.”

He also rejects the idea that moral issues should be put aside in elections which should be limited to a choice between different economic and social policies. 

“We should also be given a clear choice between different social models since this is not just a decision on divorce, because if this is introduced, it will surely be followed by calls for the introduction of abortion…”

I am surprised by the casual way in which Vassallo introduces abortion into the discussion. What has it got to do with divorce?

“They have nothing to do with each other, but they are related,” he insists.

But surveys show us that while a majority of the Maltese favour divorce, a large majority still opposes abortion. So where’s the logic of connecting the two different issues?

“In all countries where divorce was introduced, the lifestyle changed in a libertarian direction. It is only natural that one abuse of liberty is followed by another.”

And when reminded that in Malta no party supports abortion, he refers to the vote of two Labour MEPs which voted for the millennium development goals document – a report dealing with global poverty which contained a fleeting reference to abortion in one of its 67 clauses. He also condemns the media for picking on Labour MP Adrian Vassallo for objecting to pornography in hotels, but failed to scrutinise the two Labour MEPs for voting for this motion.

I point out that Ireland had introduced divorce ten years ago but abortion remains against its Constitution. “There is no abortion today but it will be introduced in the future because society will begin to view it as a need…”

He compares the abortion situation today with that on divorce 20 years ago. “Back then, it would have been blasphemy for a Nationalist to agree with divorce… today, it is natural to say that one favours divorce or that one is gay or that one is separated but 20 years ago, people might have lived such a lifestyle but they did not do so in public…”

But is it not something positive that people openly declare that they are gay instead of living a lie?

Vassallo immediately clarifies that he is not expressing judgements or condemning anyone. “My point is that society is being speeded up to accept one thing after another… without pausing for reflection.”

But a decision has to be taken at some time. Why not a referendum, as hinted by the Prime Minister?

“I have full trust in the Prime Minister as I am sure of his ability to assess the common good better than I am… so if he decides to go for a referendum, so be it.”

But for Vassallo, going for a referendum should not be a short-cut for his party to evade discussing this issue. “Before a referendum we should agree on what we stand for…  Political parties are not shops without a philosophy… the Nationalist Party knows what its philosophy is, but it must make a clear statement that it still upholds the values which shaped it.”

Shouldn’t MPs and party supporters be free to vote according to their conscience on moral issues?

“Definitely not. This is a way of evading responsibility. If am elected by the people as a representative of a party I am expected to abide according to the beliefs and values of that party… if I try to put my party in an ‘offside’ position and the party allows me… let it be… but by the same logic, may well go to Parliament and propose a motion for the introduction of abortion, which nobody wants.”

Vassallo does not mince his words on Pullicino Orlando’s decision to present a motion calling on Parliament to introduce divorce.

“I disagree, and political parties should find ways to make their MPs act more responsibly. For, while MPs have a legitimate right to present private members bill, they should exercise this right without losing sight that they form part of a team. One cannot compromise a whole team to exercise a private right.”

Vassallo also protests at the fact that I did not ask him any question on the impact of divorce on children. But don’t children suffer the same pain when their parents separate and go on to live with a new partner, something which is already happening in divorce-less Malta?

Vassallo points out that he sees nothing wrong in children being brought up by unmarried parents as long as the relationship is stable. What concerns him most is that divorce devalues the contract of marriage, eroding that kind of certainty which makes relationships last.

Vassallo’s consolation price after not being appointed junior minister was his appointment as chairman of parliaments’ social affairs committee, arguably the island’s busiest talking shop.  But does this committee make realistic proposals?  I remind Vassallo of his committee’s proposal to close the ‘father unknown’ option for single mothers.

Vassallo replies that this issue has to be further discussed in more depth, insisting that his committee is many times a forerunner of new ideas.

“Many times we are the first to speak about certain circumstances and society still needs time to catch up… Some have ridiculed our suggestions, but like or not we have to face these issues.”

But what’s the use of making impractical suggestions?

“The issue really exists and the more we discuss the more likely it becomes for us to find practical solutions.”

Another controversial idea proposed by the committee was to give legal protection to the unborn foetus if the mother endangers its health. This raised the question, how on earth can the state police mothers to protect the unborn?

Vassallo insists that he was only addressing the concerns raised by social workers who face problems like mothers who take drugs during pregnancy.

“We are discussing this issue with people like social workers, who have hands-on experience, and we have to see what other countries have done. What is important is to have the mechanism in place before we have a case where the life of an unborn child which is in danger can be protected.”

In June during a session of the same committee, Vassallo declared that “what happens in the bedroom often ends up before the state to do something about it” citing “single parents and teenage pregnancies” as “examples” of the sort of problems arising from “what happens in the bedroom.”

Vassallo insists that he is not saying that the State should interfere in people’s private life, but that the state has a role to inform people of the consequences of their private decisions.

“Everyone has a right for a private life but sometimes what happens in one’s private life has an impact on the rest of society, especially when people start to ask for tax payers’ money...”

One such group are single mothers.

 “The government is already facing criticism that taxpayers’ money is going to single mothers… and God forbid if the government does not help these people… but this shows how private choices affect public and national decisions.”