Confessions of a legal pro-life

Prof. Serracino Inglott engages in a discussion with Miriam Vincenti on today’s The Sunday Times on his proposal for a constituent assembly with a mandate of redrafting our Constitution. In the new constitutional set up which Fr Peter envisions, the President would play a more prominent role on the stage of politics while Parliament would have to share the legislative throne with a new, more representative, second chamber. He states that “[t]his does not of course mean that the 1964 Constitution was not an excellent piece of work at that time. It means that since then the world has changed and in more than half a century the Maltese are bound to have learnt something useful.” (my emphasis)

Such a proposal, more precisely, the proposal to give greater powers to the President, sadly represents a break away from the Westminster Model of parliamentary democracy and a move to a presidential form of government. This is tantamount to the administration of a legal euthanasia on the present system- which is a product of our recent past and a link with our Commonwealth counterparts - and the re-engineering of a new system.

The Westminster Model is a form of democratic government which was first established in the United Kingdom following a bloodless revolution in 1688. A hundred years later the French and the Americans were to establish the first embryonic forms of presidential government following years of bloodshed. The British model, which is also adopted in the majority of Commonwealth states including Malta, New Zealand and Australia, seeks to achieve the accountability of executive power by directly linking it to Parliament. Thus, in theory, government does not control Parliament but Parliament controls government.

As Fr Peter rightly says, our system was conceived in the British Parliament following years of discussion with the Maltese political actors in Marlborough House. In itself, the 1964 Constitution which endows Malta with statehood and with Westminster model, represents both a continuation and a break away from the colonial rule.

Over the years, the Westminster System has shown that it is conducive of prosperity and stability. A reason why the political turmoil in the late seventies and early eighties that hit Malta did not degenerate into a civil war was the model which we adopted. The Mintoff government needed an opposition in order to govern legitimately. On this basis, Mintoff had no other option but to enter in dialogue with the opposition then boycotting Parliament. The situation might have been different were it not for the system that we employed back then and still employ this very same day.

Fr Serracino Inglott’s argument seems to be based on a conception of time and its effects. Fr Peter in fact argues that times have changed and so the system needs change. He also adds that our experience of the different events may persuade us to change the system. Change is a word that has different connotations. It may mean both a break away with the past where something new is established and an evolution on the past. Change as a word may give us a false impression that we live in something new and unexplored when in fact we are living the product of our previous actions. Fr. Peter seems to give such a rendering to the word ‘change’ when he seems to state that our EU Membership is a new state of affairs which is opposed to (negates) the source that gave rise to the action that made us make such an important step in 2004: our Constitution. This is why the word change might have to be replaced with the word evolution. Evolution is closer to the element of continuation which characterizes every society, including ours. Thus times don’t change but evolve.

If the present then isn’t a revolution of the past but a continuation of it, then the system doesn’t need revolution but evolution. One may suggest two facets of the evolution that our system needs: an evolution of approach and an evolution of form.

The political actors have to understand that time has come to interpret the Constitution with maturity and responsibility. Since the present set up has fit our purpose in the past, no one would discount the fact that it wouldn’t today. Some of the responsible decisions that need to be taken to ensure that the system yields better results are the conversion of Parliament into a full-time institution as are the other branches of government and equip it with more staff. Thus the Government’s proposal to employ ten research assistants, five on each side of Parliament, are welcome and should be interpreted as an act of responsibility.

Although the framework should remain the same, it isn’t said that the current form doesn’t need improvement. Thus, the proposal for the setting up of a second chamber should be taken into serious consideration. However one cannot afford a replica of the current Parliament as that would entail a waste of resources. One has also take into consideration if the small size of our state would afford such a complex legislative process knowing that dynamism is the essence of survival.

The Westminster Model is a winning system that helps states succeed. It values accountability and encourages stability. It is a system that has been employed for more than 400 years now in the United Kingdom. Certainly, our 50 year experience during which we have had our fair share of highs and lows shows that our system is still a toddler compared to others. Like all toddlers, our system needs education and evolution, but not wholesale change. This is why, I am a legal pro-life.

Matthew Mizzi is a third year Law student at the University of Malta and Development Officer of InSite, the student media organisation. www.insite.org.mt