A message to those MPs who plan to vote No to the divorce bill, and to the party leaders who plan to allow them to do so instead of cracking the party whip
As representatives of the people, and usually in the absence of detailed instructions from the electorate, members of parliament have to try to interpret the will of the people.
They have presented themselves to the people at election time, and people have elected them. In the absence of commitments on a particular issue given in an electoral manifesto, and so long as they stay true to the persona that they presented at election time, those MPs have the responsibility to support or oppose legislation as they see fit, in the name of the people they represent.
In the case of the divorce debate, MPs on both sides of the House have abdicated their responsibilities and referred the matter back to the people. Instead of legislating in the name of the people, they have asked the people to vote in a referendum and to tell them what they want parliament to do.
They now have a clear instruction from the people. And they cannot ignore it or vote against it.
The arguments put forward by certain MPs – that this is a matter of conscience and MPs should vote according to their conscience regardless of the referendum result – are anti-democratic hogwash worthy of the worst excesses of Alfred Sant in his determination to fight the EU referendum result all the way to his political grave.
When they agreed to hold a referendum on the matter, our MPs surrendered their freedom to decide whether to support or oppose divorce legislation. Now they do not have to try and interpret what the people want and need, because the people have told them directly.
While they can discuss to some extent aspects of the content of the law, and indeed they should do so, all MPs must now support divorce legislation if they are to do their job correctly and in accordance with democracy.
If any MPs feel that their conscience does not allow them to support divorce legislation, then they have two options if they are to act honourably.
They must either support it anyway because their duty as MPs is to serve the people who have given them a direct instruction in this matter. Or if, as a matter of principle or conscience, they feel they cannot do that, then the only honourable option is for them to resign their seat – not just the party whip, but their seat.
Voting against divorce legislation, or abstaining, is now not an option for any member of parliament. And this includes the prime minister, who cannot, more than anyone else, vote against the will of the people.
Once more, Joseph Muscat has been caught out by his insufficient grasp of democracy and his appalling lack of strategic thinking. He thought it was democratic to give his MPs a free vote on divorce, but where does that leave him now?
If he wishes to be truly democratic, he has got to crack the party whip: Yes to the divorce bill. To allow his MPs a free vote is to say that it is all right with him if his people vote against the clear will of the electorate.
The prime minister, who miscalculated badly when he made his personal beliefs party policy in violation of long held PN principles on the liberty, dignity and free will of the individual, was right in saying that a political party must have a position on something like this. He will now have to change that position and respect the will of the people.
If he does not do that, then he will be no better than Alfred Sant in 2003 – and Sant wasn’t even prime minister.
36 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
In a previous blog-post I commented
“The PM should allow his MPs to vote either Yes, or abstain, like Joseph Muscat said.
The PM has already indicated in his ‘concession’ comments that he will allow them to vote No.
That is tantamount to saying “Screw the 4 million Euro and what the majority said. Vote as you please”.
Over my dead body, and my vote.”
Coming to think of it, you are right.
They should all be forced to vote Yes or resign.
THAT is the will of the majority.
Does this reasoning hold for MPs elected from the 13th district, their constituents are against?
[Daphne – Referendum results speak for the country and not for constitutuencies, because we are not electing MPs. We are voting on policy.]
No, Daphne, with your line of argument, if people vote for the programme of a party then it follows that the opposition should vote always in favour in parliament, which is not the case.
[Daphne – John, please, you’re better than this. You fail to make the distinction between a parliamentary vote by MPs delegated for a five-year term by their constituents, and a national single-issue referendum. The Opposition is OBLIGED to vote AGAINST the government programme because its MPs are the delegates of people who voted against that programme, or rather, who did not vote for it in the general election. MPs do not represent themselves, but the people who voted for them. But with a referendum, it’s different. A referendum effectively removes this decision-making power from MPs, because it takes the decision of the people directly from them, rather than going through their REPRESENTATIVES in the House of REPRESENTATIVES. The people decide directly and then MPs just ‘ratify’ that decision. If that were not the case, having a referendum would be utterly pointless.]
Let’s take the extreme case of the Gozitan candidates of both parties. How should they vote when they know that three quarters of them are all out against divorce?
[Daphne – They should vote for divorce because Gozo is not a republic and because this was a national referendum and not a district referendum. So the tally is taken on a national basis. The districts are there only for administrative purposes. If they don’t wish to vote for divorce they should resign or at a push abstain.]
In my opinion it’s up to them to decide, a free vote it was before and a free vote it will remain after.
[Daphne – John, I don’t think you understand how these things work. Free votes are what you get without a referendum. Once you have decided to hold a referendum, you have lost your right to vote as you think best. A referendum is not an opinion poll. It is a very serious democratic exercise and it commits parliament. We are in Europe. Parliament cannot vote against the will of the people.]
The candidates are answerable to their constituents.
[Daphne – No, John, in this case they are not. They told us quite clearly that they did not wish to decide and asked us to decide the matter ourselves by direct democracy instead of representative democracy.]
People who voted for Carmelo Abela knew beforehand that he was against divorce. Why should he change his mind? So was Lawrence Gonzi. The PL has no stand on divorce and the PN is against divorce, so it’s up to the candidates who were elected by the 92% of the electorate who should decide about the wish of 52% of the 74% of those who were eligible to vote.
[Daphne – They are not being asked to change their mind. They are merely obliged to do their democratic duty, and vote in accordance with the will of the people. If they do not wish to do that, they can resign their seat and a casual election will be held to fill it. They cannot have their cake and eat it. If democracy makes them uncomfortable, they are in the wrong job.]
The voter was consulted, they will decide. They will suffer or gain according to their individual vote. They have to interpret their constituents’ vote.
The whip is used to follow party lines.
[Daphne – Exactly.]
In other words, after the referendum, the will of the people replaces the MP’s conscience.
In Malta we don’t have an election we have thirteen separate elections in which we choose five candidates to represent us.
The referendum was a consultative referendum, we were asked whether we agree or not on JPO’s private member’s bill, 90,000(30%) or so did not vote, and more than 52% of those who went to vote agreed with the question put to them on the ballot paper.
Ideally my MP would ask each and every one in my area on our opinion on the matter, but it is not practical, that’s why we had a consultative referendum. Now through the analysis the parties make, the MP’s would try to find a safe way out of this minefield.
Mathematically the Gozitan MP’s only way out is a NO vote.
The dilemma is on both sides of the house , I already smelt Joseph’s worries in yesterday’s statement to the press at the polling station of Burmarrad.
It’s hard to please everyone.
Mistakenly I voted for new blood in my district , as a voter I am keeping an eye on his voting pattern in parliament, after all he’s my representative. If he thinks he will be better off without my vote ,all he has to do is vote in favour of the divorce bill in parliament. On the other hand if he votes against the bill I will vote again for him.
[Daphne – The Nationalist Party isn’t voted to power by people who, like you, share the beliefs and attitudes of Lawrence Gonzi and Co, John. The votes of people like you are taken for granted. It’s the core vote, which is the percentage of the vote that the PN gets in EP elections (yes, that low). The people who vote the PN in and (nearly) out are the kind who voted Yes in this referendum and who will give the party the hammering from hell if it votes against the referendum result. The few in this category who voted No will also punish the PN for going against the referendum result, because they put a higher price on democracy than they do on divorce legislation. My friends who voted No would be scandalised if government MPs now go against the will of the people.]
Oh then, my vote does not count, maybe even yours. Might as well vote Alternattiva.
If you or the PN think that I’m a rubber stamp elector, you’re mistaken. I’m already fed up on how public entities are being run by small despots with my money. If you want I will tell you how they mistreat people like me.
Do you think I support the hefty raise they gave themselves stealthily?
Or how a certain contractor is left to build a whole town without permits under our noses?
Or on how the PM throws money at the problems his MP cause?
Or how jobs are filled even before the applications are printed? Shall I continue? Maybe you noticed that I’m not writing as much as I used to.
I voted PN not because it was the best party but because with the other option we would have been worse off. I hate power clingers and power hungry people.
I expect a free vote from both parties on this issue. If they do some dirty trick like a secret vote, or state that the party line has changed, then people like me will think about the other options available. I already changed my allegiance in the eighties.
[Daphne – And here’s the thing: if they say ‘free vote’ then it’s other people who will be cross, me included.]
This is supposedly a free country, where our representatives should be free to vote and present bills according to their conscience.
[Daphne – If it were a free country, John, then people who object to divorce legislation, like you, would never have been given the opportunity to veto it for others. That’s where true freedom comes in, and not with giving MPs the chance to override the will of the people.]
Up to now, by and large that’s what they did, our parliament has become more free from the party lines, that’s how this bill got there.
Your interpretation of democracy is getting narrower.
[Daphne – My interpretation of democracy has always been the same. That’s why I have never voted Labour – not so much for policy reasons but because its intrinsic inability to think democratically really frightens me.]
Our MPs should vote according to their constituents’ wishes. If they fail them they will suffer the consequences, if they uphold what they stood for they will be re-elected.
If the referendum was not a consultative one, the law would have passed over parliament’s head and ended on the president’s desk after the official result. Parliament is not a rubber stamp.
[Daphne – You cannot take it literally like that, John. Consultative or not consultative, electors have expressed their wishes in a way that is non-contestable. Parliament cannot ignore that without some very serious consequences, and not just nationally. The prime minister understands this and has committed himself to getting the legislation through despite the objections of his MPs.]
Such a cogent rebuttal to this guy’s remarks, Daphne.
It would have been the honorable and right thing for the PM to legislate first and then allow for abrogation. Now he is in a mess.
I was never in any doubt about how I would be voting. However I was appalled by Bishop Grech’s now famous words, and rather than change my mind, his words only strengthened my resolve to vote Yes (ably aided by that pompous fool advising us that Jesus would be watching us while we vote).
When people in public life screw up, they are normally expected to resign. Does this apply to a bishop too? To his “credit”, 70% of his flock followed his instructions, but then again so many Gozitans are still stuck in Henry VIII’s days, as their voting clearly shows.
Credit to Lawrence Gonzi – he immediately spoke to set things straight.
Yes, theoretically parliament could vote against implementing divorce legislation but Malta isn’t Albania in the ‘50s and there’s no way that the PM could face his counterparts in the EU or elsewhere in the democratic world if this had to happen.
What will happen if the vote taken in parliament is against the people’s will?
For starters, Labour would get 60% or more first count votes in the next general elections.
Joseph could quite cynically leave the PN to try and pass a divorce law on its own with a simple stance like the PL shall respect the will of the people and implement divorce in the PL manifesto next election. His party will consider it a stroke of genius.
Gonzi will be then forced to coerce all his members of parliament to vote in favour of divorce or call an election. We could be in for a long mad summer.
That word consultative might have been too a bit clever because the PL are not bound by it.
Bravo once again, Daphne. You have expressed it all in a nutshell.
People now expect our prime minister to redeem himself and his government and make up for their miscalculations by making absolutely sure the legislation goes through – no matter what.
Anything less will make it extremely difficult for people like me to bring themselves to vote PN next time round as I have already stated in another post. I think that this YES vote has actually saved PN’s chances for 2013. No more botched-up conscience-induced petty-fogging though.
Thousands of Maltese voted clearly against divorce. Thousands of others abstained from voting implying they were not convinced that there should be a divorce law. All these citizens have the right to be heard in Parliament by their MPs.
[Daphne – You sound just like Alfred Sant and Joseph Muscat back in 2003 with the EU referendum result. Were you around then, or have you just forgotten? That’s not how it works with a referendum. That’s how it works when MPs vote WITHOUT kicking the ball back to the electorate. Read this post again.]
Yes I remember the EU referendum. In this divorce referendum, no one is saying the NO won.
[Daphne – Exactly. Because the No person this time is Lawrence Gonzi of the Nationalist Party, and not Alfred Sant of the Labour Party, or his minion Joseph. That’s the difference between the PN and Labour.]
However, similarly to the EU referendum, another vote is needed for divorce to be part of the law. MPs have the right to vote according to their beliefs, otherwise we can put robots in Parliament.
[Daphne – David, why is it called the House of Representatives? Who are those representatives and who do they represent? I hope you are not one of those people who think that they’re called representatives because they represent their party. MPs have no right to vote according to their beliefs. They are there to vote according to what the people who put them there want. Except in a referendum, when they have to vote in accordance with the people’s will.]
Besides I think voting according to the party whip on any issue is old fashioned and ridiculous and in many countries, including the UK, MPs do not always vote according to the party line.
[Daphne – Old fashioned? Old fashioned? Voting with the whip is new fashioned, David. In the past, before your time and mine, parliaments were a free-for-all of hotly voiced independent opinions. But that was when parliamentary democracy wasn’t really that democratic because, for instance, women didn’t have the vote and landed gentry voted wherever they had a house. The party whip is one way of ensuring that democracy is respected: if people vote for an electoral programme, then that is what they should get.]
Most incredibly, the “No” voters’ lack of capacity for logical and simple reasoning as you Daphne very perfectly set out, is coming to the fore, even now.
I don’t get this. 1+1 = 2, there are no two ways about it, this is not subject to any convoluted interpretation of the meanings and values of 1 and 2 respectively.
Politics for Dummies:
MPs did not decide on divorce, but asked the people to decide instead.
The people decided.
End of story.
Sure. U l-Partnership rebah.
These are the same people who voted themselves a five hundred a week pay rise without letting us poor taxpayers know about it.
Why should divorce make a difference to their shoddy treatment of the rest of us?
If any MP, from any side does not bow his head to the will of the people and vote for the divorce bill, then he does not merit a place in parliament.
We elect our MPs to represent us and not to represent their personal conscience or religious beliefs.
Their ultimate job is to obey the will of the people. We should all take note of those who go against our will and vote them out in the next elections.
Bottled Maltese wisdom!
To be honest I can see this dead horse has some considerable flogging in it yet.
I hope for the PN that they read your article in detail because this has the ability to continue to run and run otherwise.
As you stated, the people decided because the MPs would not, and now it is time to suck it up and move on.
Daphne, as you quoted before, the PM said: “This won’t be an easy process, it is not an easy change… there will be MPs who will abstain or vote against.”
As one famous Maltese singer would put it, “Il-Kbir ghadu gej.”
Mela. Hekk imisshom jaghmlu issa ukoll. L-ewwel skomodaw lil kulhadd u nefqu dawk il-flus kollha, biex farfru min fuq spallejhom u tefghu ir-responsabbilta` fuqna. Biex ma nsemmiex id-dibattiti, u Madonna tibki, u Gesu jhares lejna bl-ikrah, u l-isqof jwerwer bil-babaw, u sebah u dalam.
U issa jippretendu il-free vote ukoll, mhux hekk!
Issa tard wisq ghal-free vote u kuxjenzi. Jew jivvutaw favur jew idabbru rashom, ma hemmx trieq ohra.
Ghax dawk il-poplu poggiehom hemm u jridu joqghodu ghar-rieda tal-maggoranza issa. Id-demokrazija hekk titlob.
Unfortunately, the PN had painted itself into a very sticky corner with its declared position against divorce legislation. However I beieve that the Yes vote will cause less damage to its electoral chances than a No vote would have done. At least now the PN can get this over its proverbial shoulder well before the election, and may actually get merit from both sides of the spectrum, having been against in principle but at the same time introducing divorce during its watch.
Edgar, I perfectly agree with this view. The PN can now turn a challenge into an opportunity.
It can gain the trust and support of those who voted Yes, by legislating, as soon as possible, on a divorce law which the PN could brand as “family friendly divorce” or “fair divorce” or something like that, giving it a shape of its own, as long as this respects the referendum question.
At the same time, it still has the support of those who voted No, which was also the position supported by the party.
In my view, a key approach to the matter will be to try to maintain some distinction between the position of the party and the position of the parliamentary group, i.e. what we call the government. The PN as a party can retain a no position, which after all, now has no meaning. On the other hand, the “PN government” delivers divorce for those who need it, which matters.
Well said Daphne, although it could then be construed that the 3 districts who voted no will ‘allow’ their MPs to vote no.
[Daphne – MPs who vote after having referred an issue to the electorate for a direct vote cannot and do not vote on behalf of their constituency.]
Well said, Daphne, but I don’t think there should be an option for those MPs who are still burrowing their head in the sand and so arrogantly keep on seeing their personal agendas. They should vacate their seat! They are there because we elected them to voice our demands.
Our representatives in parliament now have a duty to respect the result of the democratic process and carry out the people’s will without delay and without further reference to their personal views and preferences.
I always had faith in the people that they will vote “yes” fordDivorce. I remember writing on your blog Daph that the people would amaze us as society here changed and is changing.
It is a pity about the PL as in the 60s Labour fought for 6 points ( freedom of concience, of worship, civil marriage, decriminalising sodomy and adultery etc.). Nobody would believe that Malta had not those liberties now and that the church put up (and won then ) such a fight.
My point is Labour had a glorious past but ruined their credit between the 70s and 80s. In this referendum although the church was much different then the 60s many people remembered that time (as with many, it is still an open wound).
Nobody lost in this referendum except the church. OK the church has a duty to say that it is against divorce but not say that whoever votes for it does a mortal sin. In the beginning it said that one must vote according to one’s conscience, then it started saying that conscience must be well formed meaning according to what they say.
I know that many people who abstained would have voted ‘yes’ but the church frightened and confused them. That is why I believe that the majority is much and much bigger then 53 %.It is amazing how many people in this country nowadays live and let live.
Today we came of age. Malta joined the free, liberal and democratic Europe, thanks to you too, Daphne, for your brilliant contribution.
Thanks to the first steps in the 60s.
I am divorced already, so I do not need it but I want a tolerant, humane and free society as the majority of my countrymen want.
I did not feel I was imposing anything by answering the question I was asked in the referendum. It was an essentially moral and ethical issue that had to be figured out on the lines of what is good and what is bad. I still think that divorce – with all its consequences and repercussions – is inherently bad. All this is water under the bridge, however.
The majority (and surprisingly overwhelming, at that) has shown that it thinks that divorce is a valid solution for marriage breakdowns. It is not fair to defy that choice.
I will have to carry the burden of this choice just like everyone else. Let’s hope that this dangerous outcome galvanises key people into doing something concrete to strengthen the family.
It looks like the MPs will be voting according to conscience after all – and the devil take the will of the majority:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110530/local/mps-reflect-on-referendum-some-say-they-will-vote-according-to-their-conscience.368060
maggoranza kbira qalu le
Damn your principles stick to your party(leader):
Carmelo Abela and Marie Louise Coleiro Preca are going to vote in favour of divorce.
Who’s next?
———- VERY GOOD ————- AGREE 100% ———–
A question to all Members of Parliament: If the majority of Maltese people vote in favour of abortion in a referendum, will you vote in favour of abortion legislation or against?
[Daphne – The choice there would be the same as the choice now: vote Yes or resign. This is a very simple principle.]