The rule of law encapsulates the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accoun­table to law that is fairly applied and enforced.

Though the country still enjoys the trappings of a modern democracy governed by the rule of law, the basic essential elements of good governance, that include accountability, transparency and the uniform and universal enforcement of laws, are being swiftly and dangerously eroded.

Society is fast losing its moral compass. Self-interest and greed, rather than the core values of good governance and the common good, often motivate the conduct of public affairs. There is a manifest weakening of institutions that have the function to ensure law and order and to guarantee that all are subject to the same laws. Authorities charged by law to keep the public administration accountable are no longer effective as they should be and public trust in them is being undermined.

While urgent steps need to be taken to res­tore and guarantee the independence, autonomy and effectiveness of these au­thorities and institutions, the rule of law could best be served by a constitutional re­form ensuring a strong Parliament and a more accountable Executive. Regrettably, the sharp decline in the values of correctness and integrity is blurring the notions of what is just and proper, right or wrong.

Strengthening authorities and institutions is essential. It is even more important to ensure that the people entrusted with the responsibility to keep the government accountable and to fully ensure the observance of law and order are honest, upright and capable of fulfilling their duties without fear or favour. Experience has shown that this has not always been the case.

Lack of transparency and accountability provide fertile ground for corruption. Institutionalised corruption inevitably leads to a breakdown of the rule of law, and ultimately to violence.

Self-interest and greed often motivate the conduct of public affairs

Essentially our Constitution and the posi­tive amendments made to it from time to time have served the country well for 50 years. Notwithstanding excessive political polarisation and severe ideological confrontation, which are in themselves a sign of democratic vitality, the Constitution has evolved into an effective legal instrument that guarantees a relatively stable legislature, a good level of administrative governance and an independent judiciary. A constitutional reform could continue to evolve well tried, existent structures proven to be built on solid institutional foundations.

Any changes made have to be the result of mature thinking and wide consultation and lead to a high degree of consensus on a reform that can only be implemented according to the provisions of the present Constitution. Changes should be forward looking. They should also be respectful of past tradition to ensure continuity.

Any revision of the Constitution should not be entrusted solely to political parties or the House of Representatives, even if amendments have, in some respects, to be approved by a qualified two-thirds majo­rity. It should also be ratified by the popular vote that the Constitution itself provides.

Referring the proposed amendments to the people for approval is not just a matter of political convenience. It is a matter of fundamental principle because the Constitution of the country is there to serve the people. It is not there to serve the State.

While the input of political parties is necessary in the process of constitutional reform, it is above all the voice of the people that needs to be heard. All State authority emanates from the people. It is from the power exercised by the people that the Constitution attains its supremacy. It would therefore be advisable to have wide consultation at different levels.

The Constitution is a complex document that establishes the structure and functioning of the organs of the State, defines and guarantees rights and freedoms and en­sures good governance. The consultation process should first involve an in-depth study by a core group, including representatives of the political parties, the best available academics in public and administrative law, political thinkers and legal drafters. The study should outline the basic principles and values that should be the guiding spirit of the country’s basic law.

Constitutional amendments should not be the result of hasty, superficial conclusions based on populist slogans or political convenience. The drafters need a clear and definite sense of State on vital issues. These include the concept that all State authority emanates from the people; that it is from the power exercised by the people that the Constitution attains its supremacy; that power has to be exercised by the people’s representatives strictly according to their mandate for the common good; that the  Constitution’s supremacy needs to be de­fended by the people; that the State as­sumes responsibility when public officers’ actions harm the people; that it has a duty to care; that the individual’s right to a good public administration is recognised; that administrative controls should be reassessed to keep the Executive accountable; and that the independence and autonomy of judicial organs and authorities having the duty to keep the Executive ac­coun­table are strengthened and guaranteed.

Once this study has been completed, the findings of the expert group should be submitted to the widest public consultation possible. They should form the agenda for discussion by a national convention representative of all sectors of civil society, including all political parties, local councils, trade unions, NGOs and others, who would give their input on how these basic principles could best be translated into a constitutional text that would ensure for the country a republican democratic State in which the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms prevail.

Joseph Said Pullicino is Chief Justice Emeritus.