Conscience vs democracy: Gonzi’s balancing act

Unbelievably despite a resounding 53% Yes victory, the divorce issue has continued to dominate the headlines as MPs on both sides raised the issue of conscience as an excuse for not ratifying the result with their vote.

It was Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and to a lesser extent Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat who kept the divorce issue alive despite a conclusive referendum, by leaving a door open for MPs to “vote according to their conscience” in their first reaction to the result.

In a pre-recorded clip, 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 yet another Pandora’s 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 vote against.”

On his part, addressing a press conference Muscat excluded the “nay” vote from anyone on his side, allowing only the abstention of MPs who could not bring themselves to ratify the result. 

Only Marie Louise Coleiro Preca has so far taken this path, while Adrian Vassallo has openly defied his leader, reiterating his No vote.

What makes Gonzi’s position even weaker is his inability to give any sense of leadership by declaring how he would vote in the forthcoming vote in parliament.

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

Rather than send a clear message to MPs to respect the result by voting the bill by voting for the bill, Gonzi is sending a message of indecision to his own MPs.

Gonzi’s quandary is that while as Prime Minister he cannot conceivably vote in a way which defies popular sovereignty, he still seems to be hedging his bets on a parliamentary arithmetic, which does not require him and prominent cabinet members to vote Yes.

A No vote on Gonzi’s part would signal a chasm between the Prime Minister and the country, which has already expressed itself on the matter.

One historical parallel which could be invoked is the Labour Party’s decision to abstain in the ratification of EU membership after the 2008 election. But this was the case of a party in disarray, which had just been condemned to second consecutive term in the opposition benches.

An abstention on his part could also be interpreted as a sign of indecision, something which would strengthen the perception that Gonzi is an indecisive and characterless Prime Minister.

If he votes No along a minority of Nationalist MPs 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.

Conscientious objectors?

What complicates matters for Gonzi is that senior cabinet members like Austin Gatt have already declared that they would vote No, adding that  “it’s a matter of conscience and conscience is not an elastic band that changes according to vote levels.”

Gatt’s declaration contrasts with Gonzi’s argument that MPs should vote in a way that ensures the passing of the bill.

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. 

This formula will accommodate a number of MPs who insist on voting according to their conscience, safe in the knowledge that some of their collueges will vote for the bill.

Both Education Minister Dolores Cristina and Finance Minister Tonio Fenech have not explained how they intend to vote, but both insisted that they will be voting according to their “conscience.” 

Beppe Fenech Adami insists that he will remain consistent in his stand against the introduction of divorce in Malta. 

“For the proposed legislation to become law it is a parliamentary majority which is required. I see no problem for such a majority to be acquired.”

A clearer position was expressed by former health minister Louis Degaura, who will voting No, adding that he will explain his reasons at the appropriate time.

Abstaining for the common good?

And in the absence of a clear directive from Gonzi, MPs have been left to their own devices in the balancing act between conscience and democracy. 

Nationalist MP Frans Agius was at pains to explain that although he will be abstaining, he will leave no stone unturned to ensure that the referendum result is respected.

Other Nationalist MPs who will be abstaining are Charlo Bonnici, Philip Mifsud and Stephen Spiteri. 

Former Nationalist MP Ninu Zammit also made it clear to this newspaper that he will pose no obstacles to the passing of the law but refrained from commenting on whether he will be voting Yes or No. But when pressed, he said that he will remain consistent to the principle of majority rule for which the party always stood for since 1981.

Moreover, several Nationalist MPs were non-committal, insisting that they will only announce their decision at the right moment. These include Edwin Vassallo, the staunchly anti-divorce chairman of parliament’s Social Affairs Committee, Sliema backbencher Robert Arrigo and former Minister Francis Zammit Dimech.

The Yes front

Surprisingly, one of the clearest declarations for a Yes vote came from Lawrence Gonzi’s own brother Michael, who categorically told MaltaToday “I will vote Yes.” Nationalist whip David Agius also made his position very clear in an article penned on Nationalist daily In-Nazzjon.

“My conscience dictates to me, that as a representative of the electorate that said Yes I must be the people’s voice in parliament,” wrote Agius.

Also significant is the commitment to vote for the proposed bill by Parliamentary Secretary responsible for tourism, and MEPA Mario de Marco, who is touted as a rising star in the Nationalist Party.   Significantly, he also excluded any fiddling with the bill, which goes against the spirit of the referendum question.

While expressing his personal reservations on the concept of a ‘no fault’ divorce, he makes it clear that that parliamentarians should now concentrate on putting through a bill that reflects “the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum.”

“It was indeed us parliamentarians who opted to put the matter before the people to voice their opinion to us. In the circumstances, therefore, the result of the referendum cannot be ignored and must be respected.”

According to de Marco, parliament must now seek to put into effect the decision of the people as expressed in the referendum.

“I will be playing my part to ensure that this is done by voting in favour of a bill that reflects the principles underlying the question of the referendum. I will moreover exercise my role as a parliamentarian to ensure that the bill contains all necessary safeguards to protect the interests of the children and the duty to pay maintenance.”

Apart from divorce bill proponent Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Jesmond Mugliett, who voted for the Opposition’s referendum motion and Karl Gouder, who declared his pro-divorce stand before the referendum, are also expected to vote Yes.

Nationalist MP Franco Debono has also confirmed that he will vote Yes.

“I was pronounced myself against divorce before the referendum. But I believe that the popular will must be reflected. In full respect of people’s will as expressed in the referendum I will be voting Yes, should a division be called.”

On the basis of these declarations, it is evident that there are enough Nationalist MPs to secure a pro-divorce majority in parliament. But it would be hard to explain to voters why a substantial number of MPs went against the popular will, especially if these include senior cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister.

A way out of the current impasse is proposed by outspoken backbencher Jean Pierre Farrugia, who would like the party’s executive to pronounce itself in favour of the ratification of the referendum result.

In this way, Nationalist MPs voting for the divorce bill will be voting according to the party line. If this happens, only MPs with very serious problems of conscience will not be voting for the bill.

Troubles in Labour’s house

While Muscat emerged from the referendum victorious, he still had to come in terms with his own anti-divorce brigade.

And he pre-empted disgruntlement by immediately signalling that he would accept abstentions on his side while making it clear that a No vote would be unacceptable.

This was not enough to tame an indomitable Adrian Vassallo, who revealed that in March, Muscat had failed from securing a commitment from him to respect the result of the referendum when he signed the motion calling for one.

When contacted by The Times, Vassallo revealed that though he signed Labour’s motion to hold a referendum, he made sure the motion did not specify that MPs would have to respect the result of the referendum.

“I refused to sign the first draft of the motion because it said we will have to ‘respect’ the outcome of the referendum. I made sure we change the wording to say we will ‘note’ the result.”

In open defiance against his leader, Vassallo reiterated that he will be voting No.

“If the party wants to kick me out they can kick me out. I really don’t care,” he said defiantly.

But apart from Vassallo – considered by many party insiders to be on the way out of the political scene despite his 2,182 first-count votes in the last general elections – the party also suffered a more devastating blow when the popular Marie Louise Coliero Preca announced that she would not be contesting the next election after declaring that she would abstain in the forthcoming vote.

Significantly, her decision not to contest the next election was not communicated in a first statement issued by the party, in which she announced her abstention while referring to threats she received because of her anti divorce position.

She only referred to her decision not to contest in a second statement in which she claimed that she was making this declaration to “avoid any misinterpretation of her intentions.”

Coleiro Preca also claimed that her position within the Party has been made clear months ago, and Muscat himself gave her his word that she “will be free to vote according to her conscience.”

A district heavyweight, Coleiro Preca was the first candidate to be elected on first count in the general elections on the 6th district with 5,490 votes – one of the highest among MLP candidates. 

Moreover, she has held a seat in parliament since 1998 and held the post of MLP secretary general in the 80s. But her leadership bid following the 2008 election resulted in her getting a paltry 26 votes.

But Coleiro Preca made a comeback in the party and, after a short spell as tourism spokesperson, she was promoted to become the party’s main spokesperson for health – an influential position which kept her in contact with the grass roots while speaking on behalf of the party on a strategic issue.

It remains to be seen whether the party will simply let go in recognition of the chasm between the more secular leadership and the socially conservative MP or whether it will seek to win her back by the time of the next election.

One initial encouraging sign for Muscat was Carmelo Abela’s declaration that he would vote in favour, in line with the referendum results.

Justyne Caruana also declared that she will “respect the referendum result” even if she fell short of committing herself to vote Yes. 

When contacted by this newspaper and asked whether she would vote Yes or No, she  insisted that she would respect the result.

Equally interesting is that MPs who had expressed reservations or where reluctant to commit themselves on divorce before the referendum have decided to vote Yes. These include Stefan Bountempo and Silvio Parnis.

Despite his share of troubles, Muscat was able to turn the tables on PN leader Lawrence Gonzi, reminding him that as Prime Minister, he had a greater responsibility to honour the result of the referendum than individual MPs who could cite problems of conscience.