[ANALYSIS] Can abortion really erode Labour’s super-majority?

It is no secret that a timid reform of abortion laws aimed at protecting women in cases where their life or health is in grave jeopardy has caused ripples inside Labour, with unease spreading from the President of the Republic, to the party’s grassroots, particularly among a dormant, socially conservative constituency, for which abortion remains a taboo.

There are historical reasons for this unease by some Labour voters. After its epochal confrontation with the church hierarchy in the 1960s, Labour under Mintoff had to prove its Christian-socialist credentials in a Malta that was a deeply patriarchal and conservative backwater. It therefore settled in an easy co-existence with these values by steering clear of no-go areas like divorce and abortion, limiting itself to introducing civil marriage, legalising contraception and decriminalising sodomy – three steps which were still opposed by an obscurantist Nationalist opposition.

And though even then some progressive elements inspired by the legalisation of abortion in Italy and France, did push for change even internally, these elements were sidelined as the party’s line remained firmly against abortion.

In short, the message to the grassroots was clear: on abortion the party still represents the national popular sentiment and any attempt to depict the party as being pro-abortion is a lie peddled by the Nationalists and their allies to tarnish the party’s image. For many rank-and-file Labourites, abortion also became a mark of Maltese exceptionalism, a sentiment which blended well with autarky, machismo and nationalism which characterised the Mintoffian era. Malta, largely untouched by continental feminism and the sexual revolution in Europe, did not witness the emergency of social movements pushing for reproductive rights.

And neither was the Labour Party in direct contact with pro-choice European social democratic parties, as it has been since Malta joined the EU. In such an environment, even party stalwarts grew up with the idea that their party is against any tinkering of abortion laws.

So, one should not be surprised that people like George Vella, now President, remain adamantly against changing the status quo.

From divorce to abortion

Evarist Bartolo, himself a liberal and one of the architects of the watershed divorce referendum campaign, asks whether the anti-abortion movement will erode Labour’s coalition of voters in the same way as the PN’s reaction to the pro-divorce movement had helped Labour win over a chunk of liberal PN voters.

Ironically, in a reminder of the fluidity of politics, by pushing for divorce Evarist Bartolo himself had unsettled Labour’s conservative wing – then represented by Marie Louise Coleiro Preca – who campaigned against its introduction. The party even ended up sidelining Adrian Vassallo, a vociferous ultra-conservative Labour MP who found himself isolated in a party which was busy building bridges with liberal elements in society.

But while the divorce referendum was a watershed moment which opened the floodgates for more liberal reforms by weakening the hold of the Maltese Catholic church on society, one should not forget that one of the lies peddled by the anti-divorce camp was that the introduction of divorce would inevitably lead to abortion.

To rebut this lie, pro divorce activists were often forced to overplay their opposition to abortion, in a way which further postponed debate on an issue which unlike divorce, impacts mostly on women as the first casualties of political convenience.

Despite facing some internal dissent, in the final electoral balance sheet, divorce carried a favourable balance for Labour with gains among more socially liberal former PN voters offsetting any losses. Will it be the same with abortion? Probably it will be the case in the span of the next decade; but not in the immediate future. For while the debate on divorce evolved over decades with Labour slowly responding to the changes in values in society, on abortion the party may be anticipating a change which is still brewing.

Although the past decade has seen a shift in attitudes on abortion among the young and tertiary-educated, for many older rank-and-file Labour activists, the debate on abortion comes like an unexpected bolt from the blue. Yet this also presents an opportunity for Labour. For on this issue when compared to the PN, the party is more in tune with the mores of a new generation of voters whose values are changing radically in matters like female bodily autonomy.

But this comes at a risk of alienating a segment of older voters genuinely troubled by pangs of conscience, which go beyond sheer subservience to church hierarchies. Indeed onre mistake of the pro-choice lobby would be to attribute opposition to abortion to clerical influence, ignoring the fact that such opposition is also rooted in a culture which presents motherhood as the inevitable destiny of women.

In short by proposing a timid and cautiously-worded reform, Labour under Abela could be ahead of its time, pushing the boundaries on an issue which remains taboo for older voters who are entrenched in their positions. Yet this also raises a crucial question: wasn’t Labour since its infancy, the ‘enlightened party’ which pushed boundaries to change society in terms of civil liberties and women’s rights? One may well argue that the party’s super-majority should give the party comfort that any losses on this issue would be enough to threaten its hold on power.

The risk of backtracking

Evarist Bartolo has asked whether the absence of an agreement with the Opposition on the wording of the amendment, would inadvertently boost the prospects of the PN by galvanising a wider movement against abortion. This raises the question whether Labour should even seek an agreement with the Opposition to avoid such a prospect.

But the cost of a retreat at this juncture may well be more damaging for Labour, signifying weakness in the face of a frontal assault by conservative forces in a way which could well demoralise progressives in and outside the party who have supported the reform. It would also raise another important question: why compromise on women’s rights when the party has so willfully compromised its soul on more significant matters like the power of big business, so evident in planning decisions made at the detriment of local communities and working-class families?

Despite increased pressure, so far Abela has stood his ground, making it clear that while he is open to changes to ensure that the law is not ‘abused’, he would not accept changes which will dilute the essence of the proposed law, that of protecting the health and life of mothers, a point he made sure of stressing while addressing activists on Sunday.

Still, much depends on how far the proposed changes will dilute the proposed law by adding new layers of red tape and problematic definitions like the ‘viability’ or not of the fetus. What is sure is that after having irked conservative elements, Abela cannot afford to disappoint those who stood to be counted in defence of the amendment, even despite their strong reservations on other aspects of Labour’s governance.

Withdrawal on this issue would be remembered as a cold shower which would dispel any pretence that Labour is a progressive party. Abela has invested too much political capital on this issue to sound a humiliating retreat.

Yet this could be one issue where Abela can seal his political legacy and where history is bound to absolve him. Withdrawal would simply relegate him to the status of an ineffective politician who is only interested in self-preservation.

To convince a large segment of his own voters, Abela has to stress that his reform does not in any way introduce abortion on demand as wrongly alleged by the opposition. But while Abela is right in accusing the opposition of scaremongering, he cannot lose sight of the changes in values among  younger cohort of voters for whom abortion on demand is no longer taboo. This puts Labour in an uncomfortable position; that of being squeezed between openly pro-choice elements and more conservative voters who fear that this timid reform is simply a taste of things to come.

While Abela is right in saying that as worded the law excludes abortion on demand, its approval is bound to raise further questions on whether other exceptions should apply, for example in cases of incest and rape, which are not covered by the current amendment. As things stand Abela’s best strategy is to turn the tables on the PN’s intransigence and indifference to women’s health, but he cannot afford to indefinitely shut down the wider debate on abortion within a party where being pro-choice is not an anathema as it is in the PN.

The election of openly pro-choice Labour MPs is only a matter of time, and the party has to be ready for a more wide-ranging debate on abortion rights in the coming years.

From Peppi to ultra conservatives: The PN’s motley crew

But will the abortion issue revive the PN from its decline?

One key factor is whether this issue can trigger an exodus from Labour’s traditional heartlands to the PN, something which has not happened whenever Labour pushed the boundaries on other matters like same-sex adoptions. Yet the PN’s intransigence may well backfire if Labour humanises this issue by giving voice to the personal stories of women who find themselves in difficult situations and whose health may be put in jeopardy by draconian abortion laws.

And by turning abortion in to its major battle-cry the PN is taking an enormous risk. This semblance of parliamentary unity does not reflect the deeper divisions in the party’s own electoral bloc, which always included a small minority of liberal voters previously kept in line by the party’s European aspirations. And by opposing this timid and cautious reform, the PN has sent shivers down the spine of continentally-minded voters who are often vociferous on rule of law and environmental issues, but cannot stomach the PN’s ultra-conservatism.

The PN may well end up assembling a motley crowd. For example, in his speech on Sunday, Peppi Azzopardi seemed more concerned on distinguishing himself from fellow anti-abortionists known for their illiberal positions on LGBTIQ and immigrant rights, than on convincing middle-of-the-road voters why the reform currently on the table is wrong.

In fact there has been little discussion on what the PN is actually proposing: that of limiting the amendment to protecting the life and not the health of mothers, which would simply mean that doctors will be forced to wait until a women faces a threat to her life before they can intervene.

To press his point home, Peppi Azzopardi ended up raising issues – consistently raised and defended by pro-choice activists – in an event organised by a party which is at best ambivalent on minority rights. In such a scenario the PN may well end up being outflanked by more coherent conservative elements excluded from Sunday’s debate. But who can better represent the concerns of conservative voters than Peppi Azzopardi, whose convoluted logic and shenanigans will hardly impress liberals fed up with Labour but who resent the PN’s ultra- conservatism even more?

In this sense Peppi’s pro-minority stance on other unrelated, albeit important issues, risks coming across as lipstick on a pig’s face.

And while the nascent pro-choice lobby is still dwarfed by the anti-abortion lobby, it may wield more influence on strategic categories of younger and more mobile voters, who are more likely to vote on the basis of single issues related to civil liberties and women’s rights.

It is unlikely for a single issue to move a significant amount of voters permanently in the absence of other factors, as was the case of divorce which coincided with an identity crisis in a party which had been in power for 25 long years.

While polls in the next weeks may well register a dip in Labour’s support and even a small revival for an opposition which has found a semblance of unity, any such gains may well be Pyrrhic, as the party becomes more toxic for younger educated and female voters.