Another 'comment of the day'
Published:
May 31, 2011 at 1:30pm
Maltese democracy: voting for 54% of a divorce to keep the 46% who voted No happy.
Mario
As long as the divorce legislation is approved, it will be undemocratic if the No voters are left unrepresented in the official result of the vote that will be taken in parliament.
Kenneth Cassar
Tell you what, Mario. How about legislating for a 54% of a divorce? Let’s make an estimate of the life expectancy of separated persons, calculate 54% of the resulting years, and give a divorce valid only for the amount of years that result from the calculation.
Please forgive my silly answer, but the arguments of those who cannot take defeat are getting sillier by the minute. Might as well indulge myself.
35 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What about giving Gozo independence and getting all those who voted NO to emigrate there?
[Daphne – Ah, but then we also have to respect the 30% Gozitan minority who voted Yes. Will they have to emigrate to the main island, do you think?]
THIS is the comment of the day…
Among several “conscience” quotes, I found this one to be most suitable for the situation we have in Malta:
“By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. ” – Albert Camus
Using Mario’s logic, Gozo can get an exemption in the law on divorce.
It seems that some people need lessons in the democratic meaning of a “national” referendum.
Hopefully, parliament will not need such lessons too.
Give me patience. This is as bad as watching Alfred Sant claim victory in the EU referendum. But this time it’s led by the PN, in turn led by the PM with his ‘free vote and kuxxenzja’.
This is the worst thing that Lawrence Gonzi has ever done, and it is going to cost him dearly as it did Alfred Sant.
Another option would be to get just 46% of a marriage next time.
Then it would be a sin if you stick it in more than 46% of the way.
I understand that this is (probably) an unrepeatable occasion for the liberal faction within the PN to put their agenda forward and secure control from the long-standing conservative group – something that will happen anyhow – but I really cannot understand the laboured logic here of insisting that everyone should vote Yes.
I, who voted No for the proposed type of divorce, would only be unacceptably annoyed if the PN in anyway tried to prevent this legislation or water it down, other than that all is superfluous.
[Daphne – The logic is not laboured, Joe. You test logic by taking it to its (logical) extreme. So you say MPs have the right or duty to vote with their conscience and not in accordance to the result of the referendum. But you premise that on the assumption that only some MPs will do so. What if a majority of MPs decide that their conscience says No and they vote against? Do they draw lots to see which MPs get to use their conscience and which MPs do not? If one MP is allowed to vote No then all MPs are allowed to vote No. You can’t justify your faulty logic by saying ‘U ejja, mhux ovvja they won’t all vote No’.]
It will never happen, ruhi qalbi – they are conservative by nature. Kollhom qdusija u duqija. Ma smajtux lil Emeritus jitkellem, filli Ewropa Ewropa u issa qatta bla habel kontra id-divorzju- minn xarbu kielu l-bakkaljaw.
My reasoning is based on two inalienable (for me) premises. The first determined by the outcome of the referendum, that however it is achieved, parliament must legislate for divorce as requested by the majority.
The second is that as an elector I want to know what my chosen representative stands for. I believe that the latter “public accountability” would also benefit those who voted for divorce.
[Daphne – Joe, you should be concerned about where your representative stands on democracy and not where he stands on divorce. Divorce is now a given, but if your representative is capable of ignoring the result of a referendum, then he or she is capable of much worse. Vide Alfred Sant. Were you one of those who criticised him for ignoring the result of the EU referendum? If so, how can you now claim that your representative in parliament has the ‘right’ to do the same and that you want him to do so?]
How can this be achieved? I understand that it is difficult to reconcile and that it necessarily has to be “engineered”, maybe adopting practices from other areas such as that of a minority report!
Ehmmm I acknowledge that I may need to retract the “laboured” comment in my initial post or at least qualify mine as such too!
Daphne, my understanding exempts no one from a basic tenet of democracy, that is, the rule of the people. I take it as a given that divorce, as voted, must be legislated.
When I suggested that ““public accountability” would also benefit those who voted for divorce” I also had in mind what you worded as “…representative is capable of ignoring the result of a referendum, then he or she is capable of much worse”.
I believe that one has the right to know how representatives go about reconciling conflicts. When you cast your vote in the next general election you may want to refer to how a particular representative handled this issue and make your informed decision accordingly. I’d rather have it this way then someone “jilghab ghall-gallerija” biex la jfuh u lanqas jinten
I think Alfred Sant’s “reasoning” follows a completely different pattern. Suffice to say that his point of departure was reversing the outcome of the referendum result, which is even worse then not accepting it. In no instance have I suggested that “…(my) representative in parliament has the ‘right’ to do the same and that you (I) want him to do so.
That would be so if I was ready to accept that divorce is not legislated. As I see it the one thing that the referendum has determined, is the outcome of any debate or voting pattern.
Any silly comments about the EU referendum?
Here’s one from me: Malta should have had 54% EU membership, or perhaps have been divided like Cyprus, with 54% of the territory being part of the EU and the other 46% for supporters of the anti-EU Labour Party. That way the wishes of those who voted No would have been respected too.
[Daphne – Ah, but where would we put the ones who abstained? Perhaps we could have built a nice thick fence between the 54% and the 46% territories and put some little houses on it.]
The “No” people have lost – and there is no beating about the bush.
Now that the referendum is settled, and the majority have voted for divorce legislation, I think it is time to reflect on a good law with the least possible hurt to the nation.
Why keep arguing? We have the people’s verdict and that is what counts just like the EU referendum.
The people have spoken and that is final.
It would be very wrong if some parliamentarian votes against – at the most abstain.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some genius from the PN does an Alfred Sant and says only 35% of the electorate actually voted FOR divorce.
I noticed the percentage should be 53%. My mistake. Better still for the naysayers.
No water left to water Dumink’s pala-tal-bajtar .
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110531/local/no-freedom-from-bills.368225
Another approach may satisfy the intelligent likes of ‘Mario’: an annual quota. So every year only 54% of all divorce applicants are allowed a divorce…
Let’s consider this. a referendum is held in Malta with the following question:
“Do you agree that Parliament passes a law so that the State can have the choice of refusing to rescue illegal immigrants and to totally block their access to Maltese territory?”
And let’s say that after a bitter campaign (would the Catholic Church be said to be brainwashing people if it campaigned for the No side?), the result would be 54 per cent Yes.
And let’s say Parliament begins to discuss the law.
And let’s say that a number of MPs say “We feel that this Bill goes against our conscience and we will vote against.” Would these MPs be doing a disservice to democracy or not?
[Daphne – You can’t have a referendum on something that violates international law and human rights. So your premise is false.]
My point is that we would be setting a very, very dangerous precedent were we to accept that MPs are to ignore their conscience when voting. Today it’s divorce, another time it could be something else.
[Daphne – The dangerous precedent, Albert, is in ignoring the result of a referendum. It was your past (and present) party leaders who set that very precedent. We are now reaping the result. As with the parliamentary silence on Libya, in which government and Opposition colluded, so we are going to have silence on NO votes and abstentions on this referendum. This is because the Labour Party, and especially Muscat, are in no position to criticise the PM or his people for voting against or abstaining.]
There have been, in the past, countries which legislated against human rights and international law. Saying it protects the “national interest”. Sometimes backed by popular electoral majorities. What seems unthinkable now may be quite real tomorrow. That is why this whole thing was, and is, a total mess, and I for one refused to participate in it.
[Daphne – Yes, Albert, we had that same situation in Malta in the 1970s and 1980s, and you voted for it but I did not. I was too young to vote, but I certainly wouldn’t have voted for Mintoff and KMB even if I could.]
Then there is another thing, which no one is yet mentioning. The question approved by the electorate was not about approving or disapproving a law. It simply set parameters on which parliament, eventually, is to formulate a divorce law.
There is not even any mention of any time frame. (By contrast, the EU referendum specifically mentioned May 1st, 2004, so everyone knew what they were voting about). Now, one of the parameters approved by the electorate, for example, is that “…maintenance is guaranteed and the children are protected”. What if an MP feels that the law, when it takes its final form, does not offer enough protection to children?
The electorate voted for protecting children. An MP can, quite justly, say that he would be going against the referendum question as approved if he approves a law which does not give adequate protection guarantees. Dr Gonzi was right in insisting that, either the electorate votes AFTER a law is discussed and passed in Parliament, or else, if the question is put before passing a law, to vote simply Yes or No to divorce. To respect the will of the people means that all the parameters in the question have to be respected. Just how to do that, is open to debate.
[Daphne – Laws to protect children exist independently of any divorce legislation already. We are not waiting for divorce legislation to begin protecting children, so please let’s not be fatuous.]
Only a fascist politician would even suggest such a referendum.
Democracy fail.
How about making divorce available to only 54% of the population.
That sounds fair.
Daphne, what is this obsession that Divorce legislation must get a unanimous vote in the house?
The Yes vote won. The PN has assured one and all that legislation will be enacted . Move on.
[Daphne – It is not an obsession, David. It is a democratic fact. Referendums are different from general elections, which elect representatives to vote on behalf of their constituents. With a vote on a bill that has been ‘approved’ nationally by referendum, MPs CAN decide to vote against or abstain but MAY NOT do so. It would be a grievous insult and would be taken grievously. If you don’t care what people decide and plan to proceed regardless, then don’t hold a bloody referendum. You don’t hold a referendum to ignore it. As for the assertion that the legislation will get through so there’s no need for all MPs to vote in favour, that is specious reasoning of the worst order. It is what used to be called ‘typically Jesuitical’, which to my mind is insulting to the Jesuits I knew/know. Whichever way you parse the prime minister’s statement that he’ll make sure the legislation gets through while implying that he’s not going to vote for it himself, it doesn’t look good. ]
Partnership rebah
Oh, for the memories! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doky8I7mJSI (Alfred Sant u l-Partnerrrxipp)
have you seen this
Gozo to remain divorce free
http://bisserjeta.hsara.com/2011/05/gozo-to-remain-divorce-free/
Mario, great idea! Why don’t you suggest this for the US presidential elections. The winner gets 52%, loser 48%, therefore winner serves just over 2 years, loser gets just under. All voters happy. Jeez!
Dear Mario,
Please wake up to the fact that in a democracy the will of the majority rules. When at the last general elections, PN had a relative majority of 49.3%, no one argued that the remaining 48.8% (PL) and 1.3% (AD) should be represented in Government.
—–
In this case, our MPs called a referendum (on a minority issue that should never have been the subject of a referendum), simply because they could not shoulder the political responsibility to provide this supposedly European country with divorce legislation. The electorate gave them a clear mandate, and at this point their vote in parliament should not be based on their personal opinion on divorce but on their loyalty to the principles of democracy. As parlamentarians, their loyalty to the principles of democracy should rank higher than that to their respective political party. Therefore, the position taken by the PN pre-referendum should not come into it, let alone be used by some MPs as an excuse to enter into a totally useless and irrelevant debate over why they can still choose to vote according to their personal opinion. Such people have no place in the parliament of a democratic country. They should simply resign.
Strictly speaking, if they are so completely at odds with voting in favour of divorce legislation, they should have resigned the moment parliament decided to call a referendum about this, because when you call a referendum you’re telling the people “tell me whether you agree with this or not so that I can act accordingly”. If you are not ready to honour the result of a referendum, whatever it is, then you should not remain in the parliament that calls it.
The problem with the PN front-benchers is that they believed the result of the referendum would be a ‘NO’ and thought it was a good way to get divorce legislation off their agenda. This goes to prove that they are completely cut off from the people they should be representing.
It is clear that this country has a gross representation and leadership deficit at the moment. PN is not representing the people it is meant to represent and its leader is in crisis management mode. Meanwhile, the PL leader opportunistically says he wants to represent everyone, but many of the people who support him can only identify with his ambition to win the next election.
I don’t think PL can change much between now and the next general elections. As for PN, they have a choice as to what they can do if they want to continue governing this country: either become truly representative of the people who have been electing them for the past 25 years or undertake the necessary electoral reforms to make space for a credible third party (and this would not be AD). The divorce referendum campaign has shown us that there are some politically capable people out there who are not in any of the two big parties and who at this point in time would not be able to fit in any of them because their ideals are too liberal for our traditional parties.
I assure you the bulk of that 30% are Maltese with a registered address in Gozo on what is really their holiday home. Gozo Channel worked on a shuttle service and could not keep up with the amount of cars crossing over till late in the evening.
I know because I was there and could see it with my own eyes. Maybe Gozo Channel could supply us with the number of people who crossed over to Gozo on that day.
“Gozo to remain divorce-free?” Ha mmur f`rokna u naghmel gimgha nibki issa.
The will of the people as reflected in the referendum will be respected. It has been made amply clear that Parliament will pass a divorce law.
I genuinely fail to understand your insistence that all MPs should vote in favour of the law. The Yes camp itself is not making an issue over it.
[Daphne – If you genuinely fail to understand, then that is probably because we start off from a different understanding of democracy and of the underpinnings of our electoral system. I have just uploaded – as a post – a beautifully succinct explanation – Today’s Star Comment So Far – to which I need add nothing further. If you can’t understand it, then what can I say. I suspect that like the prime minister you take the typically ‘Maltese village’ pragmatic and functional view that the means justifies the end. As long as it passes, who cares how it passes. Over the last 24 hours, an article on the subject has been ticking over in my head: I realised that this pretty much sums up the difference between the two parts of the ‘coalition’ that makes up support for the PN, and one part simply cannot understand the other.]
You justify your stand on the basis of democratic principles. Like most concepts this is subjective. What is democratic to one may be less so to another.
[Daphne – It is not in the least bit subjective. There are standards which Europe has reached after centuries of bloodshed and angst. Malta does not exist in a wheel-reinventing bubble, and people here do not want it to exist in such a bubble. The Yes vote was an open declaration of that.]
Where does it say, in black and white, that an individual MP is bound to vote in favour, in accordance to the referendum result? Political parties and Parliament as a whole are bound by the result but why translate that on each individual MP? If individual MPs are bound in this manner, then why is it referred to it as ‘consultative’ referendum?
[Daphne – I give up. Truly, I give up. There are two Maltas, honestly. I’ve long realised this, but now it’s screamingly obvious. There’s Sicilian Malta and there’s British Malta and the two just don’t meet, except every five years when the time comes to keep Labour out of power. There are just two cultures and it’s pointless battling it. We just have to accept it.]
For the lack of anything better, I thought of referring to Wikipedia and I found this with reference to referenda in the UK: “There are two types of referenda that have been held in the UK, pre-legislative (held before proposed legislation is passed) and post-legislative (held after legislation is passed). Referenda are not legally binding, so legally the government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of ‘No’ for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.”
[Daphne – Oh yes, my dear. Just try ignoring a referendum result in Britain and saying that you’re not technically bound to stick with the result, and then see what happens. Honestly. My God.]
I am not saying that we should follow the UK model , but it does show that there are different manners how democratic principles can be interpreted.
[Daphne – We do have the UK model. Our entire system of democracy, parliament, the works, is the UK model. We got our parliamentary system when we were a British colony, remember? And thank God for that, because imagine if we were left to reinvent the wheel and design something for ourselves. The only thing that’s different is how our MPs get into our ‘British’ parliament: proportional representation instead of first past the post.]
I also looked up democracy and found this: “Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.”
[Daphne – If you have to look up democracy on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) then this discussion is a non-starter. It really makes me desperate to see how bad things are, and that our MPs are really the people’s representatives.]
With a majority vote in Parliament for the divorce law, equal participation of all citizens will have taken place, irrespective of the size of that majority.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Why reduce such an important subject to a ridiculous discussion on this popular blog. The verdict is final; the people have decided – there is only ONE honourable way and that is the unanimous approval in Parliament of a well-defined divorce law; and that’s it.
If the PN thinks otherwise, then they should start writing their goodbye cards for the next general election.