Azzjoni Nazzjonali has again been invited to submit to the appropriate Select Committee of the House its proposals on how to reinforce the electoral system. Is it worth the bother?

We are living at a time when the extensive and extending powers of the executive and its agencies, together with those of the prime minister, have been accepted by a parliament that has never been more emasculated than at present. Because people and institutions are not being subjected to the physical assaults of the past, this does not mean that all is well with our democracy. Because no one is protesting loudly, it does not mean that real peace, harmony and tranquillity reign in the state of Denmark.

It is worthwhile remembering that our parliamentary procedures were based on those used by Westminster. The British Parliament evolved over hundreds of years. Its main purpose was to take power away from an entrenched executive based around the monarch and give that power to the people through their elected members. Because there was an ever-present competition for power between the Executive and Parliament, there were often clashes and wrangles but, as time went by, Parliament gained the ascendancy because it represented the people. If our Parliament then is to remain relevant in the 21st century, it is essential that it establish at least equality with the Executive.



Parliament exposed

Some of the most important functions of our Parliament are:

• to provide a forum for popular representation

• to legislate, and this includes acts of Parliament to put into effect EU directives: this, more often than not, happens without any detailed examination. Moreover, many of these acts are often enabling acts; in effect this means that Parliament has abdicated its control over the Executive by permitting the minister to introduce any further amendments the EU thinks necessary

• to provide funds for the governance of the country

• to scrutinise the actions of the Executive as a whole, from ministers down to each and every department, authority and corporation, agency, foundation and so on.

However, it is now widely accepted that government MPs are there only to support the Executive, while members of the Opposition are hamstrung by the tactics and procedures of government. I have hardly ever met anybody who believes that Parliament should act in the public interest as a buffer against unrestrained executive power. This is due to the fact that, to all intents and purposes, the march of the Executive has only been noticed by those in politics who see it as a benefit. On the odd occasion that MPs dare show disagreement, the papers scream about rifts in the party in office or in the one in opposition.

Parliament, however, should represent the aspirations and interests of all our people. Have our citizens forgotten that each and every MP is in office because s/he was elected by his/her constituents? Do MPs still believe that their duty is to reflect the views of their constituents rather than have decisions forced on them by the political parties they represent? These questions are all the more important in that, unfortunately, due to modern political trends, our Parliament now represents only political parties, or government and Opposition. Parliament is dominated by the all-pervading party political interests and by the ambition to have and to exercise power. However, if Parliament is to be relevant, it must respect its independence and autonomy and our citizens must learn to keep a close watch on Parliament, for not all MPs may be the proverbial high-souled, public spirited and conscientious representatives of the people.

We have recently had appeals to respect authority from both the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister. Ironically, these appeals came at a time when a former Chief Justice had been found guilty of misusing his office and some ministers and MPs were the object of some very serious allegations. Also, the nature of both appeals was along the lines of trust-us-for-we-know-better. That is hardly going to go down well at a time when, in most democracies, people have lost a great deal of the faith they once had in institutions.



Azzjoni Nazzjonali proposals

So if our MPs really believe in democracy, they must push for more transparency and for measures that guarantee the citizen’s freedom of information. Fully cognizant of this prevailing situation, Azzjoni Nazzjonali had made a number of suggestions to reinforce both Parliament and the electoral process. These include:

• Having fewer electoral districts, with more MPs elected from each district to widen the people’s choice.

• Having some MPs elected on a national quota so that people would also be able to elect deputies outside their district. This would reduce the need for clientelism and require more knowledgeable MPs.

• Giving the President the power to choose the heads of the innumerable corporations we now enjoy so that political bias would be excluded from these appointments.

• Alternatively, appointments to such posts would follow assessment by a Standing Parliamentary Committee.

• Creating a Council of State, presided over by the President and composed of ex prime ministers, ex police commissioners, ex heads of the Civil Service and citizens who had served their country with distinction. This Council would have the power to investigate any serious allegation of corruption in all sectors of government, including Parliament, the Law Courts, local councils and parastatal organisations.

Azzjoni Nazzjonali also suggested that, in order to give real meaning to the word ‘democracy’, the electorate should be allowed to express its views on sensitive issues through the use of referenda, and not have to wait for five years to pass, when it might be too late to rectify matters.

A very jarring note has been introduced into our elections, and that is to make serious accusations on the last day of the campaign, which of course cannot be refuted and the damage from which can be lasting. Azzjoni Nazzjonali proposes that campaigning should end two days before the day of rest, with the day following the end of campaigning being devoted to an official reply in the media by the party that considers a very serious and damaging allegation has been made in its regard.

Finally, should we at Azzjoni Nazzjonali bother to answer the invitation to send in our views? What I have said here can be found in our election manifesto, which has now been around since the last election. For the Executive and Parliament to accept our proposals – all aimed at enhancing democracy and therefore, by implication, limiting the powers of the politician – demands a high degree of responsibility from the political class and a determination to put the country and the people first. Will they do this? So far it hasn’t happened, but hope springs eternal.



Dr Muscat is the leader

of Azzjoni Nazzjonali