Gonzi’s Pandora’s box

Rather than facing questions put to him live by journalists, a defeated Lawrence Gonzi chose the easy way out: a pre-recorded message in which he appeared alone against a Lenten purple-lit backdrop.

But even in this controlled environment he failed to impart the message every level-headed Nationalist was expecting to hear: a clear statement that Nationalist MPs will respect the result of the referendum.

Gonzi did say that the will of the people will be respected and that “parliament now has a duty to execute the will of the people by enacting a divorce law”. But he opened a Pandora box by adding that this should be done in a way which “respects the conscience of those MPs for whom it is not possible to approve the law and who have to abstain or voting against.”

Nor did Gonzi give any sense of leadership by declaring how he would be voting in the forthcoming vote in parliament. 

Even when directly asked by journalists yesterday, Gonzi refused to say how he will vote but said that he would vote in such a way as to allow the will of the majority, as expressed in the referendum, to prevail.

This sounds both unnecessary and messy.

Rather than send a clear message to MPs to respect the result by voting the bill or at least abstain, Gonzi is once again sending a message of indecision to his own MPs.

Gonzi could be keeping his options open on the forthcoming vote, forgetting that as Prime Minister he cannot vote in a way which defies popular sovereignty, as expressed in a referendum which he himself had been first to propose. 

For it was Gonzi who first suggested a referendum when faced with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s private member’s bill.  At that stage neither Joseph Muscat nor Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando were clamouring for a referendum. 

It was only as late as February that the PN tried to avoid a referendum by declaring that this should only be held if divorce was approved in parliament. But by that time the momentum for the referendum had become unstoppable.

A no vote or even an abstention on Gonzi’s chasm would signal a chasm between the Prime Minister and the country, which has already expressed itself on the matter.

He would put himself in the same position of George Borg Olivier in 1974, when along a minority of Nationalist MPs, he voted against Malta becoming a Republic.

Surely Gonzi has given an assurance that irrespective of the abstention or nays of some of his own, the final result will respect the outcome of the referendum.

But this raises the question; why has the Prime Minister not limited the option of MPs to a yes or an abstention?

And hasn’t this obscure mathematical calculus, assuring a yes victory in parliament, reduced the concept of a ‘vote of conscience’ to a useless fetish? Would it not have been more proper for these MPs to resign from parliament, rather than cling to their seats while defying the popular mandate?

But Gonzi’s mistakes were not limited to indecision alone. In his initial reaction, the Prime Ministerwarned that the process of approving the bill would not be easy. 

Yesterday he further explained that the parliamentary process leading to divorce will be very complicated and “there were a number of votes which have to be taken, including votes on amendments that had to be made”.

Whether these amendments will alter the nature of the no fault divorce approved by the people in a popular referendum remains to be seen. 

But if this is the case, Gonzi could be playing a dangerous game with democracy.

Rather than bringing closure to an issue which has effectively split the Nationalist Party, Gonzi seems hell-bent on keeping the issue alive for as long as possible. In so doing, he keeps opening one Pandora box after another. 

This in turn suggests that religion is clouding his political judgement raising the suspicion that his prime motivation is not to respect the will of the electorate, but rather to avoid entering Maltese history as the Prime Minister who introduced divorce.

In so doing, he risks ending his career as Prime Minister on a decidedly ignominious note.