The importance of being lucid | Joanna Drake

With the referendum date just under a month away and the campaign growing more intense with each passing week, I sit down with Dr Joanna Drake to debate the issue and try to cut away the moral and political rhetoric.

“Malta is in a state of evolution,” she says. “Everything evolves with time – even marriage.” She points out that, up till the 16th and 17th century, marriage represented an institutionalised mechanism by which the state would regulate a couple’s assets, or even how women used to be controlled.

Here, Drake refers to the coverture, a French 18th century legal doctrine whereby a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband upon marriage. “Under this doctrine, the woman stopped existing as a legal entity once she married.”

“Marriage is no longer something that is ‘fulfilling an institutional function,” she says. “It has evolved into something that is perceived as a means towards personal happiness – it is something much more individualistic.”

Given this inexorable shift, which some vehemently denounce as the onset of a wave of liberalism that will wash away our social values, Drake questions how can Maltese society expect to remain insulated against global development.

However, she is determined that foreign ‘influence’ shouldn’t determine whether Malta introduces divorce or not. She maintains foreign countries’ or institution’s perceptions of Malta’s lack of divorce is unimportant, slamming the reasoning that Malta should introduce divorce so as to ‘catch up’ as “weak” and “uninspiring.”

“Am I proud with Malta not having divorce? No, not particularly. But I am definitely proud of how it is up to us to decide what is in our best interest – and nobody can impose their thinking on us,” she says.

Her take on divorce is unequivocal: “We are talking about a civil right. I am not saying that marriage does not have its religious side, but it also has its civil side,” she says. However, she maintains that the introduction of divorce is a purely unilateral civil issue to that will only affect civil marriage.

“This debate is over a civil mechanism that is necessary for a modern society that allows those in an unhappy marital situation – possibly also rife with abuse, infidelity, or violence – to terminate the marriage in the hope of obtaining happiness through another subsequent relationship,” she says.

“This isn’t about a moral choice,” she argues. “I might think that divorce is not a good solution from a moral point of view. But who am I to decide for others who might feel that divorce represents their best option for happiness? Should they not have access to such a mechanism?”

She questions the idea that anyone should “impose purely moral blanket judgements across society.”

Drake points out that by supporting divorce, she is not however “encouraging everyone to file for divorce, or even that divorce is the best option to address marital breakdown.”  Despite how the family is “undeniably” the strongest foundation for a healthy and well-adjusted society, Drake maintains that “facts have to be faced.”

“Marriages can sadly break apart despite the best intentions. As we stand now, couples are already deciding to live apart, to separate, or are even ready to obtain an annulment.”

“I am not saying that more broken marriages would be healthy for society,” Drake says. “Neither am I saying that divorce will bring about a stronger society.”  However, she says, the country cannot keep its head in the sand and insist that there is no need for a solution for those stuck in unhappy marriages and might wish to remarry.

She is sceptical whether the introduction of divorce would introduce a divorcist mentality that will cheapen and devalue couple’s idea of marriage. “People marry because, at that point in time, they believe that their partner will make them happy for the rest of their lives.”

She however concedes that there is dire need to better prepare prospective spouses for marriage. “Many marriages today are often hyped-up and suffer out of a lack of preparation not only in terms of what one can expect from a marriage, but also what exactly marriage is.”

However she points that she is not simply referring to formal education (such as the Cana Marriage Courses), but also to the way we are brought up to think about relationships as a whole. “Maybe we expect too much from marriage. Are we entering into marriage at a mature enough age?” Are we expecting fairytale happiness?”

“You need a bit of life wisdom before you are truly ready to enter a commitment like marriage,” she smiles, adding that it would be a mistake not to look towards adequate marital preparation that is a significant factor in marital stability.

She speculates that it would be healthy for a future marriage if spouses allow time to pass before leaping into a marital commitment. Speaking of her marital experiences, Drake recounts that “certain mistakes I made when I was over 20 are mistakes I wouldn’t repeat now that I have over 40. Life taught me better.”

“Of course, I am not saying that everyone should wait until they are 40 to marry,” she laughs. “But nevertheless, it helps to allow life to show us more of what it has to offer before we make that sort of choice about our life partners.”

The daily truth of marriage is sacrifice, love, a lot of forgetting one’s self for the other person, a lot of patience, Drake says, “which is not necessarily well-paired with today’s fast-paced throw-away mentality that and crisis-avoidance mentality.”

“No couple marries with the idea of parting ways the moment the marriage hiccups,” she says, pointing out that “despite efforts, circumstances get in the way of a happy, prosperous marriage built on the trust of a couple.”

For these, she maintains “there should be at least the choice for a means through which they might be able to, some day, enjoy a stable marriage with a new partner.”

But she questions whether, even with the proper marital preparation in place, couples would stop separating or trying to obtain annulments. “We have a relatively high incidence rate for divorce, for a Catholic country with supposedly solid marital preparation and a high emphasis on family values.”

She also points out that, based on her own direct experiences since moving to the Europe’s administrative hub, “countries boasting the freedom to file and obtain divorce don’t automatically possess a less that strong national sense of family, or an undervalued importance of marriage.”

Drake also denounces the “inherent hypocrisy” in how the state finds no problem in accepting divorces granted by courts abroad while local courts are not empowered to grant divorces of our own.

She adds that the situation is not only hypocritical, but also highly discriminatory. Taking herself – a Brussels resident – as an example, Drake explains: “I am separated. If I wanted to obtain a divorce, I could have. Like me, many others living abroad can similarly obtain a divorce,” Drake adds.

“Even those not currently residing in foreign countries can, if they have the financial means, move abroad, obtain a residency, and after a certain amount of time, file for divorce,” she says.

There are many who do not have this option however, and neither do they possess the means (financial or otherwise) to do so. “This discriminatory element should not be acceptable within a modern democracy,” Drake says.

She is also adamant that divorce should have never been decided by referendum to begin with, maintaining that democratic 21st century government has “a responsibility and a duty to ensure that Malta has such a mechanism available.”

“Every country’s government has the mandate to lead society in the most orderly and just manner. Any government should have felt the civil responsibility to legislate the introduction of divorce a long time ago. We cannot deny that this is a civil responsibility,” Drake argues, “when in 1975 marriage was introduced as a civil mechanism through the Marriage Act, whereby no marriage counts in the eyes of the law if it is not a civil marriage and registered accordingly.

“How can a government that is supposedly duty-bound to respond to changing socioeconomic circumstances abdicate from its responsibility to regulate this?”

She says that, if little else, the referendum represents a step towards taking a “long-overdue” decision.

How is the referendum campaign playing out? So far, Drake is unimpressed. “I look forward to hearing arguments that inspire me, but so far, I have not been really inspired by what I’ve seen propounded by both the anti-divorce and the pro-divorce camp,” she says. “It needs to address the issue intelligently, something that I do not think is happening.”

Particularly, she describes most of the anti-divorce camp’s arguments as “quite pathetic.” Drake refers to anti-divorce camp leader Andre Camilleri’s now-infamous statement that violent and abuse spouses should not be allowed to divorce, as they would be ‘free’ to go on to marry and abuse new spouses.

Describing it as the “most ridiculous argument presented throughout the campaign so far,” she questions what this says about how some consider marriage.

“So should marriage be perceived as a life sentence for whichever poor woman who had the misfortune of marrying a violent man who now – tough luck! – has to stay married to him for the rest of her life?”

She warns that if both camps want to engage the Maltese public with arguments that make sense (both pro and against), “there needs to be more substance than this.”

She says that while Church activism has been strong, “we haven’t gotten to the stage where it is a crusade.” Referring to ‘lobbying’ being fielded by the Church through its various channels, Drake urges for caution in terms of what arguments are tabled.

“There shouldn’t be attempts, as there were in the past, to mix civil and moral issues,” she says, reiterating that morality is something personal and individual and should be left as such.

Is the Church’s militancy within the debate beneficial or warranted? “The church has every interest to participate in the debate and make its voice heard, and nobody really expected it to be in favour of divorce,” she says carefully. “Surely, it has a right to make its case, and nobody can expect it not to.”

However, Drake says that the public needs to determine what the choice before hinges on. “We are not making a moral or a religious choice. We are voting on a civil right, and questions of morality remain personal.”

What is her forecast for the referendum result? “I’m not current on the latest surveys, but from what I read a week ago, pro-divorce support seems to be dropping. It is hard to make a forecast.”

She referred to her own participation within the pro-EU accession movement in the run-up to the accession referendum in 2003. “For us, the goal was to mobilise citizens. We were trying to create a space for the citizen that straddles party lines on a national level.”

She said that the camps should keep this in mind as opposed to separatist talk that plays on the fears and consciences of the public – “particularly the anti-divorce camps.” It would be “dishonest” of stakeholders in the debate resort to “base scaremongering,” she warns – Church included.

“I would have liked to see more involvement by youth in the debate,” she remarks. “This is currently lacking, disappointingly.” She encourages youth to step forth and supply their own perspective.

“At the end of the day, youth are the ones who will soon be making their own decisions on marriage and divorce. It is important to hear what they think of the idea of marital permanence, and how they view divorce,” she says.

Asked about how the issues of abortion and euthanasia are being linked to the introduction of divorce, Drake is highly sceptical. “We are talking about entirely different things. It is dishonest and hypocritical how these are being linked together.”

She warns that “the sooner we get rid of this scaremongering and conscience games, the better our chances to grow and mature together as a people.” Drake calls for more level headedness throughout divorce debate.

“This is why I believe youth should be more involved. They tend to have fresh perspectives, and the candour to speak their mind without much of an agenda,” she says, adding that this is healthy for adults “who shouldn’t assume they now it all due to their age.”

The Labour and Nationalist parties have both adopted their own respective positions on the introduction of divorce. Will these influence the outcome of the referendum? “Ideally, they shouldn’t, but invariably, they will – and it shouldn’t be the case,” she says emphatically.

 “The less partisan politics intrude, the likelier a healthy decision can be made,” she says. “I absolutely disagree with the idea that the issue should be politicised. That said – can we can really expect Malta’s political parties to remain silent on anything?”

Drake maintains that both parties would be doing the public a favour by allowing members and sympathisers to have a free conscience on the issue. “They would be doing a service by providing a platform for objective debate not only within society as a whole, but also within their own party structures – without occupying that platform themselves.”

Speculating that while political parties tend to be more overwhelming locally than in other countries, Drake says that “it has not reached bursting point yet – but the referendum day is still a full month away. I hope it doesn’t become a political ball – in the same way that it shouldn’t be a moral ball.”

She concedes that the parties’ enjoy every right to take a stance as representative entities. “But if they do take a position, they need to do so responsibly.  As we know, the trend in Malta is that the moment a party or party leader speaks, it will ‘colour’ the debate and split the population along party lines.”

Drake points to issues such as the 2,800 ‘lost’ votes, the misplaced voting documents, and the contentious referendum question, as “polarising politicisation that could regrettably overshadow the real issues.”

“This is all alienation that takes over and effectively wastes the ‘space’ within citizens’ lives where they would otherwise be considering the real issues pertinent to the debate,” she says.

She argues that if the parties want to fight it out between themselves, “they are free to do so, but not to the extent that it overshadows the whole debate – and regrettably it smells too much like an election is coming.”

Should the referendum rule out the introduction of divorce, Drake maintains that government still has the responsibility and mandate of tackling the issue again in the near future. “It is not an issue that will go to sleep.”

The silver lining of such an outcome, she says, is that divorce is now in piazza for general debate, and has become a household issue “instead of only being occasionally referred to by a few people in the papers.”

 Asked when she thinks the question of divorce would resurface, Drake smiles “I am not that far-seeing,” she remarks, “but the next election is only two years away.” She posits that the issue might resurface either as an election issue, or by a winning party that might feel that it possesses the mandate to legislate in this regard.

“I don’t know what strategic decisions the parties might make, but as you know, it depends highly on what they think is beneficial for them,” Drake says.

The views expressed in this interview are Joanna Drake's and are not those of the European Commission or any other European institution.