A people’s way to constitutional change

The republican Constitution of 1974 was updated on various occasions in its 39-year history but, every time, change was forced by controversial circumstances.

The most notable change came in 1987 when, after very long turbulent years characterised by violence, the two major political parties agreed on constitutional changes to the electoral process.

In the 1981 general election, the Nationalist Party obtained an absolute majority of votes but a minority of seats in Parliament. This meant that the Labour Party remained in government only on the strength of its parliamentary majority (and gerrymandering).

The constitutional change approved by two-thirds majority after the shocking killing of Nationalist Party activist Raymond Caruana was an important milestone. It allowed the party that obtained an absolute majority of votes in the general election to also have a majority of parliamentary seats, burying once and for all the spectre of a warped result.

But changes to the electoral system – wanted by the PN – were bundled with other changes that included a reference to Malta’s neutrality and non-alignment, wanted by Labour.

The circumstances in 1987 may not have provided the ideal backdrop for change to the land’s highest law. When things got out of hand, the political parties were forced to reach agreement between them and avoid a repeat of the perverse electoral result of 1981.

However, if the constitutional changes made in 1987 were justified by the circumstances prevailing at the time, the same cannot be said for subsequent changes that happened on the eve of the 1996 and 2008 general elections.

On these two occasions, the two major parties agreed to change the electoral process once again.

Meanwhile, the anachronistic reference to non-alignment as being “equidistant” from two superpowers that exist no more remains entrenched as are references to the Roman Catholic faith and the Church’s right and obligation to teach what is right and wrong.

It is time to debate these issues that are part of this country’s identity – in order to determine whether they should be reaffirmed, changed to reflect circumstances or abolished outright.

Within this context, President George Abela’s call on New Year’s Day for a comprehensive review of the Constitution that will include input by civil society was a welcome development.

The political parties seem to have taken the cue. The PN proposes reviewing certain aspects of the Constitution, particularly the neutrality clause, and submitting the changes to a referendum. The PL has proposed the setting up of a constitutional convention that will review every aspect of the Constitution. A welcome change from both parties is the notion that constitutional change must involve the people, whether by referendum or a constitutional convention that will include participation by civil society.

The political parties have an important role to play but they should not be the only voices to contribute to the debate.

Experts, non-governmental organisations, social partners, people on the street must have the opportunity to influence the debate without bogging down the convention’s work in a never-ending discussion. The final document can then be put to the vote. Whether this is in Parliament or through a referendum would need to be determined.

But, whichever means is chosen, constitutional change will, for the first time in almost four decades, be embraced by the widest spectrum of society.