The prime minister and the leader of the opposition have a grave responsibility to shoulder when deciding on the 11th president of Malta.

They must deal with the matter with the utmost care because – precisely because ours is not a presidential system – the president has to be a unifying figure and all depends on them, not the electorate.

Although we usually speak of the president mainly having a ceremonial role, the constitution lays down that the “executive authority of Malta shall be exercised by the President, either directly or through officers subordinate to him…”.

That this office is no mere formality also emerges from the constitutional provision that the president must at least enjoy the support of two-thirds of parliamentary members. This proviso also underscores the need of the president being a unifying factor.

Regrettably, information emerging over the past days does not bode well. With the clock ticking, the latest news is that talks between Robert Abela and Bernard Grech have “stalled”.

Earlier this year, Abela raised hope when he declared he was convinced the two leaders can find an agreement “in good faith”. But he also made a disturbing comment, insisting the sovereignty of the majority of the people must also be respected.

What Abela was saying is that he has no option but to listen to what Grech has to say but, since Labour has a majority in parliament, what the prime minister decides goes.

So, heads the government wins, tails the opposition loses.

It is practically an admission by Abela that the two-thirds proviso introduced to the constitution in 2020 was merely to silence the calls from various quarters, including the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. The Labour government never really wanted to compromise.

With the clock ticking, the latest news is that talks between Robert Abela and Bernard Grech have ‘stalled’

Such wayward thinking could only have become more resolute when the Nationalist parliamentary group rightly decided to rule out for the post any politician who formed part of Joseph Muscat’s administration, which was held responsible for Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder.

Meanwhile, Abela had no qualms excluding Lawrence Gonzi from being nominated.

Just over three weeks away from the day George Vella’s tenure officially ends and it is clear the two sides are at an impasse.

Really and truly, that should surprise nobody, though it is certainly exasperating and another telltale sign of the sort of politicians this country is ‘endowed’ with.

Vella himself, for one, saw it coming. He not only reported that his efforts to hold a convention on the constitution failed because of bickering on who should lead it. Only last December, the outgoing president declared: “It certainly did not reflect well on our country, both politically and administratively, that, in order to agree on who should occupy the constitutional role of Ombudsman, we had to wait for almost a year and a half… I am saying this only three and a half months away from the appointment of the next President of the Republic.”

Yes, democracy demands that the majority rules but, of course, in full respect of the rights and wishes of the minority.

Politics, they say, is the art of the possible: resolving conflict, whether by compromise, conciliation or negotiation. Otherwise, political power would be what Karl Marx preached: the organised power of one class for oppressing another.

Abela has a clear choice to make, especially in a context where practically all of the government’s entities have been captured by Labour Party acolytes.

There are many individuals, from academics, to respected activists, and even former politicians who could win broad supportand step up to take on the president’s role. We cannot fail this important test.