The 100th anniversary of the 1921 constitution is worth commemorating. It was a crucial step in Malta’s political and constitutional development since, among the many different constitutional arrangements – from official majorities to representative government – Malta was granted ‘self-government’ for the very first time.

The premise of the ‘diarchy’ was simple. Malta was to have two governments. The imperial government was to take care of all ‘reserved matters’ concerning imperial interests in Malta. ‘Reserved matters’ included control over military and defence, the dockyard, harbours, communications and censorship. They also comprised functions such as the issuing of passports and the minting of currency.

The Maltese government was administered by a ministry – the predecessor of today’s cabinet – headed by a head of ministry (or prime minister). They were accountable to the 32 members of the legislative assembly, elected every three years, and the 17 members of the senate, elected every six years. Seven of the senate members were chosen by special voters representing the clergy, nobility, university graduates, the Chamber of Commerce and trade unions.

One of the most enduring legacies of the 1921 constitution is the introduction of the Westminster system. The cabinet of ministers (the executive branch of government) is chosen from among MPs (the legislative branch of government). The same cabinet opens itself up to the scrutiny of the legislature.

This parliamentary model based on the Westminster system has evolved through the ages, adapting relatively well to Malta’s particular circumstances. For example, following independence, Malta retained the practice of separating the office of head of state and head of government. The symbolic and ceremonial aspect of the presidency does not render it useless or meaningless, rather, it strengthens it in a polity that is rife with blind partisanship.

One key difference is that parliamentary sovereignty is limited and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Though not perfect, the complete overhauling of this tried-and-tested model may not lead to the benefits we may aspire to obtain.

There is, however, much in the centenary of the 1921 constitution which is worth celebrating.

In his excellent book Party Politics in a Fortress Colony, the eminent historian Henry Frendo explains the significance of this development: “Just as the grant of representative government had led people to think about responsible

government, so the arrival, even the prospect, of internal self-government had made the idea of independence plausible as a possibility.”

Though entertained as a possibility, independence also brought with it a certain degree of fear, “especially by those who depended – or thought they depended – on the British for their livelihood”.

This bears reflecting upon; the right to self-government also brought with it some rights and several responsibilities.

There is much from the period which resonates with our modern-day politics. Even though parties had similar platforms (save for the language question), politics was an incredibly antagonistic affair characterised by forceful personalities, charismatic leaders, fierce competition among factions and the occasional slanderous remark. Physical scuffles were not unheard of. The party-owned newspapers did their bit to whip up the crowds and voter turnout was always relatively high.

Politicians’ responsibility is to think ahead boldly not to fear the disfavour of the crowd- Vaclav Havel

The stakes were also higher. Politicians now were also responsible for drafting a coherent political vision and following through, should the electorate choose this. It also added an element of accountability: elected representatives had to answer to the legislative assembly or the senate and they could be removed or re-elected at election time. It was also in their interest to show the colonial government that the experiment in self-government could be successful.

In other words, on the one hand, the Maltese elected representatives gained some measure of autonomy. On the other hand, they also had to be responsible enough to deliver and succeed.

A century removed from this event, the concept of responsibility remains relevant.

Successive Maltese governments can look back with a certain degree of pride at what has been achieved. Despite its smallness, Malta has managed to show resilience rather than vulnerability in the international arena. It has also been able to make its modest contribution in various fields. This is to the country’s credit.

Yet, responsibility also requires us to be introspective. It necessitates a certain degree of humility to understand where we have failed and where we can do better. We are also to blame for the decimation of our natural environment, the ongoing destruction of our urban environment, the creeping uglification of Malta and the gradual erosion of standards in public life.

Ultimately, the exercise of democracy presupposes a level of responsibility. Yet, being responsible also implies taking difficult and often unpopular decisions. Our political system has developed in such a way that the two mainstream political parties are sometimes reluctant to take such decisions lest they upset an influential lobby group or a particular segment of society.

On this significant anniversary, we can, perhaps, allow ourselves to be challenged by the words of Vaclav Havel:

“The main task of the present generation of politicians is not, I think, to ingratiate themselves with the public through the decisions they take or their smiles on television. It is not to go on winning elections and ensuring themselves a place in the sun till the end of their days.

“Their role is something quite different: to assume their share of responsibility for the long-range prospects of our world and, thus, to set an example for the public in whose sight they work. Their responsibility is to think ahead boldly not to fear the disfavour of the crowd.”

He drives the point home: “Politics must do far more than reflect the interests of particular groups and lobbies. After all, politics is a matter of serving the community.”

The centenary since the granting of responsible government seems like an excellent opportunity to gauge the extent to which our political class was irresponsible and hold them to account for this. We owe it to ourselves.

André DeBattista, political scientist