D4D writes how ‘Daphne is posting comments about how the PN is a broad church (accepting everyone from altar boys to atheists) …’
Sounds democratic right? But I hardly think it is a good idea. A party is after all based on certain principles, and a person voting for such a party should identify with those principles.
Traditionally, the PL is more secular and more liberal than the PN; you will gather more support for the introduction of divorce and gay unions from the PL voters rather from those of the PN.
Said this, the PL is far from being the Maltese version of Obama’s Democratic Party.
Indeed, this Maltatoday editorial, clearly show how the minority conservative element in the PL risks blowing the ‘progressive’ label in Joseph’s face.
So you see, a broad church, even though it sounds nice, it is not practical.
If the ‘broad church’ is working for the PN, it is because the ‘altar-boy’ and the ‘atheists’ were always kept miles apart from each other.
However, bring divorce in – a dividing issue in itself, and you’ll see a fierce opposition from the party’s core, a clear majority, who still believes it is the church’s political wing in parliament.
I do not even think that it is totally unavoidable – a party is always made up of coalitions.
Just look at the Republican Party where you have a ‘marriage’ of convenience between the Religious right and the pro-business wing. John McCain, for instance, was never much in love with the Religious right. He is quite a clear headed person; however he had to take in Palin on board to galvanize its base.
The result was a crack within the party’s core and self-reflection of what the party stands for; because contrary to popular perception the Republican Party is not the devil’s party (nor it is of god’s…) but it is based on sound principles too.
Cue back to Malta; divorce will surely create such a crack within the PN. It will disillusioned its liberal minority who are under some impression that they support a libertarian party; and the party which has only suffered one defeat since 1987 risks being unelectable.
Because, seriously, who is going to vote for a person, a party that opposes divorce? Not today, not in the 21st century.
