Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/296073
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 16 APRIL 2014 8 MONDAY'S vote on civil unions presented Opposition leader Simon Busuttil with a bona fide catch-22 situation, with every possible option posing great difficulties for the Na- tionalist Party. Busuttil had two realistic options on Monday: either grant a free vote to his MPs with himself casting the decisive symbolic vote in favour or against the bill, or impose a collec- tive abstention in a bid to avoid tak- ing sides. Collectively voting for the new civil unions bill – including the adop- tion clause – was never on the cards, considering the known conservative positions of several members of his front bench, like former finance Min- ister Tonio Fenech, who had already signalled his opposition to the bill. Neither was it conceivable for the party to collectively vote against the bill in its entirety, as this would have thrown the party back to its pre-di- vorce referendum quandary, which resulted in liberals deserting the party in droves. Yet, Busuttil had another viable alternative which might have given social liberals some hope that they are still represented in the PN: that of granting a free vote to all PN MPs. The advantage of this would have been that while conservative MPs would have voted according to their conscience, a number of PN MPs would have endorsed the spirit of the celebrations at St George's Square. But this option would have put greater weight on Busuttil's personal vote. For it would have forced him to give a sense of direction to his party through a highly symbolic vote. The decision to abstain suggests that Bu- suttil was not ready to make a choice, which would have changed or con- firmed the perception of the PN as a confessional party. Busuttil was probably scared of the prospect of voting against the bill, fearing the same reaction that voters had against Gonzi after the former leader voted against the introduction divorce. But ultimately, Busuttil was not prepared to defy the conservative grass roots by sending a clear mes- sage that he is personally in sync with social liberals. For if Busuttil himself voted in fa- vour he would have been in the same position as Muscat was in the divorce referendum when the PL was offi- cially neutral while its leader actively campaigned for the introduction of this civil right. The price of unity A free vote would have exposed divisions in the party between those who wanted to vote for the bill, those who wanted to vote against the bill and those who were going to abstain. After years of internal division, Bu- suttil may be keen on presenting a compact and united Opposition, by trashing differences out internally and seeking the lowest common de- nominator. Yet in doing so, the PN is coming across as a bland Opposition which refrains from taking clear stands on highly emotive issues, ranging from hunting to gay rights. Moreover, a split within the PN's ranks on this particular issue would have represented an honest reflec- tion of the PN as a coalition of so- cial conservatives and social liberals united by secular political values on issues like the environment, so- cial justice and good governance. For ironically, the party's Christian democratic roots may come handy in opposing an increasingly right wing government in other spheres like the economy and the environment. Labour would probably have picked on these divisions anyway, but Bu- suttil would have easily replied to such criticism by emphasising his respect for the conscience of his MPs – something the people would have probably understood. On the other hand, a 'free vote' would have sent a strong message to the crowd assembled in St George's Square that the Nationalist Party has changed, and includes a visible com- ponent which is receptive not just to the aspirations of the gay community but also to the sensibilities of a wider liberal electorate. A significant part of this electorate may well not be impressed by Mus- cat's performance in government but which recoils from the PN because of its entrenched conservatism. In so doing, Busuttil may well have ended up playing Muscat's game- handing him a substantial part of the liberal vote on a silver plate on the eve of MEP elections. Judging by his final decision to im- pose a collective abstention, Busuttil was aware of the devastating con- sequence of voting against the bill. He probably resisted pressure from some of his MPs for a more hard-line stance against the bill. But ultimately, by choosing to abstain and impose this choice on those colleagues who wished to vote for or against the bill, he came across as an indecisive lead- er of a party, which is still suffering an identity crisis. The 80% fluke Busuttil justified his party's absten- tion arguing that society was not prepared for adoptions by same sex parents and that a survey showed that 80% are against same sex cou- ples adopting children. Yet Busuttil himself admitted that as things stand, single gay people can already adopt children. The only difference the new law makes is that children who are already adopted by a gay person who lives with another partner will see both their parents coming out in the open and that same sex couples will have the pos- sibility to adopt together, rather than as single persons. Ultimately, surveys on gay adop- tions must be seen in the light of lack of knowledge on how the adoption process works. As things stand today, prospective parents are evaluated by social workers, with nobody having an automatic right to adopt. In view of the present system – which already allows gay people to adopt – abstaining on the law using gay adoptions as a pretext gives the News James Debono James Debono It was a bad night for Simon Busuttil and Nationalist MPs as they made an inglorious exit from parliament, booed by a liberal crowd after abstaining on a historical vote that granted same- sex couples equivalent rights as married couples Simon's way out… Unity at any price? Ultimately, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil (centre) was not prepared to defy the conservative grass roots by sending a clear message that he is personally in sync with social liberals This move is part and parcel of Joseph Muscat's (right) strategy: to defy the views of silent majorities who aren't ready to change their voting patterns