No sex, we're democrats

One of the most-commented-upon articles of this newspaper's online version has been the report about the recent suggestion made in Parliament by Owen Bonnici (MLP). Dr Bonnici suggested, among other things, that perhaps the time had come for couples to be encouraged to cohabit before marriage.

Dr Bonnici's suggestion has attracted both critics and supporters. He was praised for making a sensible suggestion but criticised for stepping out of a politician's remit. But that gets things the wrong way round.

As a generalisation, the suggestion is based on flimsy evidence. No doubt, cohabitation, like camping, can teach one many useful and wonderful things. But as a guide to marriage? It is, statistically, a hit-and-miss affair in all European societies. In Sweden you have virtually universal cohabitation before marriage but roughly one in two marriages ends in divorce.

Perhaps other Europeans are emotionally very, very obtuse and we Maltese can teach them how to conduct a proper controlled experiment in love, eventually setting up a regional centre of excellence in the subject. Or maybe, just maybe, people get married for one set of reasons but stay married for others, which can only be discovered in the course of exploring how to make a life-long commitment work. In which case, regrettably, there is no substitute for the real thing.

Whether people should cohabit or not is, of course, up to them. I am neither impressed nor depressed by it.

What should depress anyone who values a rational approach to politics and policy-making, however, is the sight of a politician being praised for a proposal that has little systematic evidence to support it and rather a lot to make us doubt it. (I repeat: Cohabitation may be wonderful and to be recommended for all sorts of other reasons but the issue here is the recommendation for the specific reason discussed by Dr Bonnici.)

If we want to encourage politicians to be more rational and iconoclastic then we should make sure we encourage evidence-based policy suggestions rather than platitudes recycled from talk shows.

Generally, however, the criticism aimed at Dr Bonnici centred on something else, namely that a politician should not aspire "to encourage" one kind of sexual arrangement rather than another.

Why not?

Just about everyone else in an open society can pitch in on the subject. From agony aunts to activists and academics, from talk shows to the arts and think-tanks. What is so toxic about politicians?

One argument is that when a politician touches the subject it is unwarranted, coercive interference in people's private bedrooms. Actually, Dr Bonnici stayed out of the bedroom; he simply suggested encouraging unmarried couples to share a bathroom, kitchen and living-dining room as well.

But, in any case, was it interference? The term usually means bringing undue pressure to bear on matters that are exclusively private.

Dr Bonnici made it clear that he was raising the subject because he believes it has a positive bearing on marriage. The fact that such a claim is doubtful is beside the point. What matters is that, as a politician, he has suggested encouraging one sexual arrangement because of its relevance to the consolidation of the institution of marriage - a partly public matter not an exclusively private one.

But is it illegitimate for politicians or political parties to show a preference (however poorly based on evidence) for certain kinds of sexual arrangements? To answer yes would be to argue that it is illegitimate for any government to give preferential treatment to marriage by way of tax and housing policy, etc. In fact, such an argument is made around Europe and there are rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. But it is not part of a debate on whether politicians are crossing the red lines demarcating their competence. It is part of the policy debate.

And so it should be. Generally, it is considered legitimate for government or its agencies to make recommendations on all kinds of things to do with our private lives, for example, on diet. We can see the public interest in that and find no objection as long as the recommendations remain non-coercive.

Sexual matters are not different if the same conditions are respected. Sexual education is certainly not seen as off-limits for governments. There are, as often, disagreements running across the conservative-liberal spectrum over what policy would be sane and what would be barmy. But what would make it illegitimate for a politician, in the spirit of a public servant and not a hectoring sermoniser, to make a general statement about what he (or she) believes would be preferable in the light of what he takes (however mistakenly) to be good sense?

The difference between debate and intimidation is generally clear. It would be a pity if we had public debate about everything under the sun except the public dimension of sexual arrangements. Without public debate it cannot be part of public policy, except by stealth. And that, not debate, is a recipe that often aids and abets repression.

ranierfsadni@europe.com