'They fail to understand the enormity of the referendum result'
I'm told the Nationalist Party needs another elephant in the room. Where do I apply?
I think I should highlight this comment which came in yesterday.
——
TIM RIPARD
I rather suspect that those MPs who think they can be cavalier with the electorate’s wishes do so because they think ‘It was a close thing’ and ‘”only” one third of the population is in favour of divorce legislation’, so they are mistakenly putting themselves in some kind of comfort zone where they fail to understand the enormity of the result of the referendum.
I haven’t worked out the full ramifications but it is quite clear that this is a hugely significant result.
The PN came out against divorce legislation, knowing full well that the Church would be obliged to do so too. The PN was hoodwinked by Church figures which seem to indicate that a large majority of the inhabitants of Malta are Catholic.
The PN and the Church combined – and a weak, wishy-washy, non-committal stand from the PL. How could they lose? Ultimately this was the PN’s conclusion.
Neither of us expected the ‘Yes’ lot to win. Did anybody? It was a ‘miracle’. Maybe there is a God but it’s not the Catholic one, it would seem.
The ‘Yes’ win, to me, clearly shows that the PN has really lost touch with its supporters. It doesn’t know who they are or what they want any more.
I think it also shows that a higher proportion of people than we expected can actually reason things out and this is a very good thing. There is hope yet.
Joe Muscat clearly failed to inspire his supporters to vote ‘Yes’ in any significant quantities. We have to assume that people prepared to vote for the PL in 2013 number at least 50% of the electorate, so – at a rough but conservative estimate – about half of them failed to follow Joe’s example and vote ‘Yes’. This is also significant. It shows that there are signs of PL supporters being able to think independently and not simply obey blindly as they have always done in the past.
As things stand, I don’t expect the PN to win the next general election, not by a long chalk.
But there are lessons to be learned from this referendum and, if they ARE learned, the learners will definitely improve their chances of being elected very significantly.
And the first, and glaringly obvious, thing to learn is that it will be suicidal to an MP’s chances of re-election if s/he is to vote ‘No’ to the divorce bill.
On the down-side, it is apparent from the comments on this blog and elsewhere that only a minority of people really understand how a modern democracy functions.
Still, the result of this referendum has proved to be something of a tonic to those of us who genuinely would like to see an electorate thinking logically.
41 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“And the first, and glaringly obvious, thing to learn is that it will be suicidal to an MP’s chances of re-election if s/he is to vote ‘No’ to the divorce bill.”
Please be reminded that nearly all the Labour MP’s who voted NO in parliament on Malta’s entry into the EU, even after the majority of the people voted YES in the referendum, were once again returned to their parliament seat in the following election.
[Daphne – They are Labour MPs. Labour supporters think differently. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have voted Labour in 1976, 1981, 1987, 1992 etc etc. Nationalist voters have much higher standards and a much lower tolerance threshold.]
“Nationalist voters have much higher standards and a much lower tolerance threshold” If they have a higher standard they would never ever vote Labour whatever happens in parliament about the divorce referendum.
[Daphne – Yes, Giovanni, they would do what they did in the last election and refuse to go out and vote no matter how many Sliema doors the prime minister knocked on even on polling day. It was ‘my kind of people’ who nearly lost the general election for the Nationalist Party the last time round – though I famously got terribly angry at them for doing so and had them baying at me. The odd thing is that their sons and daughters rushed out to vote PN. Now consider the position of somebody who held his nose and voted PN in 2008, has been getting progressively irritated over the last three years, voted Yes to divorce, and now has to contend with the sight of the PN behaving like this. How do you think that person is going to react in 2013? I’ll tell you this: I am Mrs Archetypal Socio-Economic Group AB 9th District Voter (even though I haven’t lived there since I was 26) which is how I know exactly how this huge sub-group of PN voters thinks. But I am definitely not typical in my determination to vote come what may, and in my view that if I am going to have a prime minister then I want to choose him. Nor am I typical among this group in my understanding that a vote for a Labour MEP candidate is a vote for Labour, and caring enough about it not to do it. ]
Now I know why the United States electorate made such a big deal when John F Kennedy announced his candidacy…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Campaign_issues
Maybe the results show that the electorate did not see the referendum as a political issue but a national one, irrespective of the side of the house they usually support.
Personally, I think it is incorrect to view the results of the referendum in parallel of one of a past or future election.
Not that this should give any comfort to the PN, as their stance has clearly distanced themselves from their supporters. My husband and I come both from PN backgrounds, but I don’t think either side of the families would vote from them next time round.
Please allow me to reply to the elephant:
Mr Elephant, send your application to:
Dr Lawrence Gonzi,
The Curia,
Floriana, Malta.
It would not be a bad idea to copy it to the Archbishop, Auberge de Castille, Valletta.
Some comments for discussion purpose
“The PN came out against divorce legislation, knowing full well that the Church would be obliged to do so too” – I do not think this is the case, first of all because Gonzi has always been against divorce and would have found it strange that on such a fundamental issue he would change his mind and second because the church has no option other than that of being against divorce so it is not a question of “obliged” . Also, with hindsight, I am increasingly of the opinion that if Gonzi was adamant of not having to legislate for divorce he stood a better chance doing without the referendum (given the labour referendum vote)
“Joe Muscat clearly failed to inspire his supporters to vote ‘Yes’ in any significant quantities” and “As things stand, I don’t expect the PN to win the next general election, not by a long chalk” – One definite outcome of this referendum is that the progressive movement that Muscat has been pushing since he was elected head of his party has not materialised, or at best, has no momentum. As far as the PN losing the next general election I believe we are looking at a scenario similar to what happened in Italy this week. People are annoyed with the government but have no alternative for it – Maybe it’s AD’s best chance if they play their cards well or considerable abstentions.
“has no momentum” , in my opinion there was no momentum and if there ever was, it’s being lost.
People are miffed at how Joseph Muscat is behaving.
It’s useless to say they cannot abstain. They can and they will. Ultimately, they are responsible for their actions. The good thing is that the bill will pass as long as the morally perturbed MPs abstain.
What they need to understand is that they have no political mandate to vote Yes, and most, including Gonzi, seem to appreciate this fact.
[Daphne – Spoken like a true Laburist who is still campaigning for NO2EU.]
(Error: I mean “no political mandate to vote against..”)
The fact that the Yes vote has won by 53% in a referendum which our MPs chose to foist on the people (basically obliging the people to do their job and decide), supersedes the fact that there was no mandate I should think. It is now the result of the referendum which is all-binding.
In an interview in The Sunday Times (London) Dolly Parton said of her hellfire Pentecostal grandfather, “Some of my people were so strict it was stupid…. they tried to play God instead of letting God play God”.
Exact words for the Catholic Church in Malta, cabinet and some of the MPs from both sides of the house.
Daphne, I personally have no doubt that the PN MPs should now legislate for divorce. This is what the people decided on Saturday, and this is what democracy “dictates.” And as I commented after the PM’s speech on Sunday, I found he should have stressed that he would legislate with priority and that he will take steps so that his MPs will not stand in the way of the law.
I consider my political philosophy to lie somewhere in the conservative-liberal camp, so Labour does not appear to be an option for me. Consequently, I have always been inspired by the PN.
However, beyond this temporary focus on whether PN MPs should vote yes or no (perhaps they should do like Justyne Caruana, maybe we see Joseph Muscat weeping again), I am more interested in the longer term implications that this will have on the local political landscape, and specifically on the PN. Mario DeMarco has actually written on this subject in his piece in the Times today.
As he says, and as I see it, the PN is essentially a coalition of conservatives and liberals. Two forces that could, in theory at least, have a lot of friction between them. And yet, for many years, the PN managed to inspire both camps with its policies based on the EU, individual rights and freedoms, and economic prosperity, among others.
I have to say that this time round, the tension between the two, which reached a climax on Saturday, left the liberals as temporary winners. Yet, I have to caution that the liberals must appreciate that for many years, it was their coalition with the conservatives that has brought about signficant advances in personal freedoms, and vice versa, and not the victory of one camp over the other.
Joseph Muscat, whether intentionally or not, has played a very important political card. He has been saying that he wants to build a movement of progressives and liberals. Now I read this as a process whereby he is trying to shift the liberal block from the PN to Labour. So he capitalised on destabilising those forces that exist within the PN and that are to some extent contradictory. I personally think that, although not impossible, this is a huge task, especially for Malta, when you consider the illiberal and socialist mentality of Labour’s core, traditional voters.
For the time being, it seems that the contention between the liberals and the conservatives revolves around whether Edwin Vassallo, Tonio Fenech, Austin Gatt and some others will vote yes or no on the divorce bill. But if the matter becomes a drawn-out argument, then Joseph Muscat’s movement of progressives and moderates might start taking shape. And so does his earthquake, although its epicentre may be at the Dar Centrali.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110601/opinion/Reconciling-post-divorce.368343
This post provides me with an opportunity to reconcile
– other contributions where, before last Saturday, I argued that a YES vote would hurt the PL
– Daphne’s comment somewhere, that once divorce is legislated Muscat would lose his Unique Selling Proposition in his bid to win the next general elections
– The eternal liberal – conservative “struggle” within the PN, and the unstoppable change from the later to the former happening right now
This referendum and its outcome has been the labour (pun not intended but appropriate in the sense that Joe’s USP will serve the PN better) stage, that gave birth to the irrevocable process of change of power within the PN from the conservatives to the liberals. If the PN does not screw things up in the parliamentary process to legislate for divorce, it will really have a superb hand of cards to play with during the next general election.
My only dilemma is where does Simon Busuttil fit in?
“And yet, for many years, the PN managed to inspire both camps with its policies based on the EU, individual rights and freedoms, and economic prosperity, among others.”
The lack of a civil right such as divorce, seemed trivial in those days, when compared to the gradual annihilation of our basic human rights and freedom of speech.
Liberals’ temporary home was the conservative PN. Now that progress in so many fields has changed the financial and sociological landscape in Malta, the PN no longer feels like home to me. The tension you speak about, and which I strongly feel, is simply pent up frustration boiling to the surface.
On one hand, I am grateful to the PN – they saved Malta from Mintoff’s autocratic ideology and propelled us out of the communist/socialist dungheap to a supposedly modern democracy. On the other hand, religious fundamentalists garner as much respect from me, as Mintoff and his cronies – the value being somewhere in the region of a lobotomised fly’s IQ.
I can never agree with “New Labour” – too many “old” labour thugs are still active within its ranks not to mention a “lider” who was vociferously anti-EU. However, if the divorce bill does not go through parliament, I will do the unthinkable and plant a nice number 1 in a red square. I cannot condone a religious oligarchy where big brother knows best.
It seems to me that all the MP(s) from both sides are preparing and hedging their vote even before the bill is published. A ploy to allow their conscientious (sic) members to take the middle road. If this scenario plays out, at least one PN liberal candidate will get my vote in 2013.
The abstainers and “vote no” fools can kiss my proverbial rear end.
Ciccio, apart from religious matters, I do not see that the PN has any strong conservative element. If you look at all other aspects (e.g. economic, social, ideological, etc), you’ll find that the party is essentially liberal in its outlook.
But as you say, Antoine, that conservative religious element is strong. You have the Catholic Church and all those strongly influenced by it.
I do not deny that the PN has a liberal leaning policy on many other matters.
It would actually be interesting to quantify the PN’s support into conservatives and liberals – but this is probably impossible.
Having said this, the only liberal party I know of that is viable in the sense of independently electable is the Democratic Party in the US. All other viable liberal parties I know of are either a combination of conservative and liberal ideologies or else they are not viable on their own.
How shameful for the MPs, especially those militating within the PN camp, not to give an unequivocal and resounding message of acceptance on the referendum result.
Are these MPs serious?
Have they thought all along that being an MP is just about giving yourself a raise, parliamentary privileges, clientalism and pompous acts? They seem a bunch of lunatics, feeding the media piecemeal, desperately seeking acceptance and clearance to be allowed to vote according to their conscience.
Excuse me? Vote according to your conscience after throwing the decision to the electorate?
I am shocked at how out of tune these PN members are and how they fail to realise the anger that is gradually accumulating.
How the very section of the electorate that provides the PN with the tipping-scale majority are deserting them in droves.
Has it occurred to the PN that what undermines leadership is sending conflicting and inconsistent messages?
What about our finance minister, who seems at peace with himself in making our island the internet gaming capital of the world but has a crisis of conscience on a civil right?
Does this mean his ‘Our Lady’ condones gambling? Doesn’t it occur how utterly tragic it is for Beppe Fenech Adami to seemingly also have a crises of conscience to accept the will of the people when his father, rightly so I hasten to add, led a decisive crusade against ‘il-Partnership rebah’? Need I go on?
These MPs have been so inconsistent in their arguments against divorce and now in not acknowledging outright the referendum result, that in my eyes they have lost the last ounce of credibility I had in them.
Tim makes a good point which is not being mentioned that much – the ‘no to divorce’ vote cast by Labour leaning voters.
This means that an estimate of the Nationalist-leaning voters who voted Yes needs to take into account the number of Labour-leaning voters who voted No. The Nationalists who voted Yes are a huge chunk of that Yes result. Will the Nationalist Party draw lessons from this huge percentage of voters, who they need to re-elect them?
So far there is no such indication that this will happen.
The Prime Minister was quoted in today’s The Times making a case that we should all understand the “rights of the church to speak” – this is anathema to a liberal minded person. What is he on about? Did anyone in the campaign infringe that right? Of course the Catholic Church has the right to speak, but it is an institution within society and as such is subject to criticism.
It entered the fray and was criticised, as should happen in a democracy where freedom of speech is a fundamental right.
Why is the Prime Minister angry that such criticism took place when those who vote for his own party uphold the right to ‘criticise the church’ or any other institution, for that matter? What is the difference in the mentality of our Prime Minister’s statement and those heads of Muslim fundamentalist states who condemned the Danish cartoons satirizing Mohammed?
If the church feels offended at comments, it has all the means possible to rebut them, including a newspaper and a radio station, access to most media, and hundreds of pulpits. It is not the role of our Prime Minister to come to the Church’s defence.
The PN’s attitude after this referendum is worse than Labour’s following the EU referendum. At that time Labour had almost all its voters behind it in ignoring the vote (luckily they were a minority of the overall voters) and was in Opposition.
But nowthe Nationalist party is in government and thousands of those who vote for it voted for divorce. It is so nonsensical that the Nationalist Party is persisting in fighting a battle which is lost. Malta has clearly voted in favour of secular reasoning.
Unless the Prime Minister takes stock of the views of those who made him prime minister, he is unelectable, with the result that liberal Nationalist voters will be lumped with Joseph Muscat and worse with Labour winning a landslide victory.
The part of that comment that gets to me is this: “The ‘Yes’ win, to me, clearly shows that the PN has really lost touch with its supporters. It doesn’t know who they are or what they want any more.”
I think it’s a little worse than that. Maltese MPs just don’t get what their role is. They think they were voted in to do what they think is best for the people, not to do what the people want.
The fact is, they believe their supporters have lost touch with them, and not the other way around. And they believe that to put it right, those supporters need guidance from above – which is where they think they are: above the people.
It seems to me that many MPs have not realised that they have already voted according to their conscience – in the referendum last Saturday. Their vote as individuals does not carry more weight than any other voter’s and it has already been counted.
What they are being asked to do now is to rubber-stamp the decision taken by the electorate.
And if I hear again somebody saying that they will abstain as long as they have the assurance that the bill will pass I will probably throw up. Apart from not making sense at all, I do not see how they can know if the bill will pass unless their turn to vote is at the very end of the process.
I can’t understand this moral high ground. I didn’t know politicians had morals.
I voted No but now MPs must vote Yes to reflect the democratic result. Anyone who abstains means he’s there representing himself not the electorate. We must not forget Alfred Sant’s ambiguous position in 2003.
Just one question, Daphne. Do you remember MLP scaring people that divorce would be introduced as a consequence of EU membership? Did Joseph Muscat produce a Made In Brussel programme on the subject for Super One?
At the end of the day, this is all so, so very sadly pathetic.
It’s divorce, not re-legalising public executions.
How did the Nationalists vote on the decriminalisation of sodomy? No to anal sex? Shame they didn’t have billboards in those days. I can just see the slogan: TAL-IVA NIBGHATUHOM JIEHDUH F’S**MHOM.
I don’t know what age group Mr. Ripard belongs to, but in my case (late 20s) I never doubted that the outcome of the referendum would be a positive ‘Yes’.
From my own circle(s) of friends, I perceived that the vast majority of younger voters (18-34), were pro-divorce. I also know of three previously undecided friends in this age group who switched to a ‘Yes’ stance in the last two weeks before the referendum.
I don’t know anyone in the same age group who went for the opposite direction.
[Daphne – Yes, it’s what I keep banging on about. If you want to know which way a vote is going – any vote – just poll the 18-34s (I would say 18-30s) and the 9th, 10th, and 11th districts and you’ve got your answer. I wasn’t sure about the referendum because the polls were so close, showing No and Yes almost neck and neck, but at the same time they contradicted what I was picking up by other means: that the sentiment in your age group was exactly as you describe, and the same with people I knew, among whom a good eight out of 10 voted Yes. In the last general election, people in your age group voted almost en masse for the PN and tipped the balance in its favour when the people in those districts I mentioned were reluctant to go out and vote.]
Also, as opposed to older voters, traditional political inclinations and party lines seemed to be totally irrelevant with the younger age-groups.
If I remember well, young people were one of the subgroups who saved the day for the PN in the last election; won by a few hundreds. It now appears that the PN has lost this edge, and is out of touch with the younger generation. Perhaps, this is due to an ‘ageing cabinet’ (weren’t the pro-divorce PN MPs also amongst the youngest?). The writing is on the wall, and not only for the PN.
The divorce farce has been a national exercise in pathos.
The government has no political mandate to introduce divorce legislation. It was coerced into this charade because it is weak and unstable and constantly threatened by a small group of disgruntled backbenchers.
It all boils down to a desperate attempt at completing a five year term at all costs, come what may. Conscience will be dealt with at a later stage.
The aftermath to the referendum has been even more absurd with every Tom, Dick and Harry pontificating to our elected representatives what they should do. I was under the impression that where legislation is concerned parliament is supreme. This must have changed now. The country will from now on be run by consultative referenda.
While we are at it, I look forward to two further referenda in the very near future. I mean before the PL landslide in two years’ time. The first should deal with the abolition of income tax and the second with free water, gas, electricity, petrol, diesel, kerosene and light fuel oil for all.
I hope the Church will keep its snout out of these issues next time round and that the same rules and criteria will be applied, as in this latest referendum, by all concerned.
[anthony – The government has no political mandate to introduce divorce legislation].
Please tell me you’re joking.
[anthony – I was under the impression that where legislation is concerned parliament is supreme].
You have a wrong impression. The people are supreme. Parliamentarians are representatives of the people. They usually take decisions for the people. But sometimes, they ask the people to decide through a referendum. They don’t do that just to waste millions of euro.
[anthony – This must have changed now. The country will from now on be run by consultative referenda].
Its up to MPs. Its their choice.
[anthony – While we are at it, I look forward to two further referenda in the very near future….The first should deal with the abolition of income tax and the second with free water, gas, electricity, petrol, diesel, kerosene and light fuel oil for all].
If they’re crazy, MPs will do just that. And if they do, they would have to act according to the result of the referendum. No one forces MPs to make a referendum.
Voting against divorce legislation in parliament is the same as Mintoff forming a government after the infamous 1981 elections; both actions are technically right but morally and democratically outrageous.
In my opinion it’s a ‘mortal sin’ when politicians base their political decisions on their conscience, and it would be a ‘suicide’ to vote against the people’s will. Maybe democracy is not practised the same everywhere.
I’m shocked to hear that some of the Maltese MPs limit their role to represent only their constituents; “heqq ghax inkella ma jergghux itellghuni fl-elezzjoni li jmiss”. I’m sorry but I had a different role description in mind.
“only a minority of people really understand how a modern democracy functions.”
And that applies to parliament as much as to the general population.
I quite understand that even if just 10 people voted in the referendum and 6 voted Yes and 4 voted No – then the result would be 60% in favour.
But I’ve heard countless people on radios, on-line and in the street with very different comments. They stress that only 38% of the population voted in favour and that it would be extremely scandalous if MPs who are against divorce are forced to vote in favour.
[Daphne – Incredible. The same reasoning Sant used to claim that Partnership won the EU referendum. I sincerely hope that it is not Nationalist MPs who wish to vote No or abstain who are feeding this sort of rubbish into the system. Il-vera arukaza.]
They are angry that Gonzi said that come what may the legislation must pass. In fact some are still hoping that a good number will carry on opposing the divorce law. They still think that the Yes campaign was full of lies and that it is all a catastrophe for Malta.
And, believe me, it’s impossible to convince them otherwise.
People who do not vote (out of choice) don’t count. They have no opinion. Politically they are nobodies, and they choose to be that way.
Daphne, I’m really looking forward to knowing your thoughts on the PN’s immediate future. More specifically, will the liberal wing be completely moved aside or will the party give it more prominence?
I think most of the damage has already been done when it comes to the way past PN ‘liberal’ voters will, or better whether they will, vote in the coming general elections. Not only because of how the divorce issue was handled, but also on the authoritarian way many issues have recently been decided: like the increase in wages to MPs back in 2008 at the very height of the international crises and in the beginning of the term; and this week how the government, rightly, decided to recognise Libyan rebels, without ever muttering a word.
Marie Louise Coleiro Preca discovers her conscience:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/coleiro-to-abstain-from-vote-on-divorce-bill
It must be pretty rusty and dusty after all these years.
Tonio Fenech washes his hands:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/finance-minister-%E2%80%98reserves-the-right%E2%80%99-to-abstain-or-vote-%E2%80%98no%E2%80%99-in-parliament
Not in the Madonna’s tears, I trust.
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=126342
“If there was not an unanimous vote in favour of divorce among the electorate, then how can we expect to have an unanimous vote in favour of divorce in Parliament? MPs should be allowed to express themselves freely on the issue; else where is the liberty of expression?” Dr Gonzi asked.”
“MPs should be allowed to express themselves freely on this issue.” Right. So why did we have a referendum? For fun? Because it’s more accurate than a Misco poll?
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=126284