In September 2021, Robert Abela called for Malta’s electoral system to be reassessed.

“Societies evolve, so structures and rules need to evolve accordingly to better reflect them,” the prime minister said as he called for a national debate about the country’s electoral system.

One-and-a-half years and one legislature later, that debate has yet to begin.

Talk of electoral reform is as old as the hills and seems to be just as difficult to move. It does not help that Malta’s electoral system borders on the labyrinthine for the uninitiated. Talk long enough about single transferable votes and electoral quotas and even the most engaged citizens’ eyes will start glazing over.

One proposal everyone can understand, though, is the idea of eliminating Malta’s electoral districts in favour of a single national list. Having a single national electoral district instead of 13 regional ones offers key benefits. 

First, it removes any incentive for the government of the day to meddle with district boundaries to suit itself.  The primary benefit of chucking electoral districts in the political dustbin, however, is that of making it much harder for candidates to rely on dishing out favours to secure their seats.

There are good reasons for MPs to have constituencies but, unfortunately, generations of citizens and politicians have distorted that system and turned it into a race for the proverbial pork barrel.

While it is difficult to eradicate some problems associated with small countries, Malta is increasingly turning nepotism, clientelism and tribalism into an art form. In a 2019 paper, political scientist Wouter Veenendaal used Malta as a case study of how smallness fosters clientelism. His analysis reveals not only that patron-client linkages are a ubiquitous feature of political life in Malta, but also that the smallness of Malta strongly affects the functioning of clientelism by eliminating the need for brokers and enhancing the power of clients versus patrons. Clientelism is found to be related to several other characteristics of Maltese politics, among which the sharp polarisation between parties, profound executive dominance and the incidence of corruption.

Talk long enough about single transferable votes and electoral quotas and even the most engaged citizens’ eyes will start glazing over

The STV system, while aiming to provide representation to diverse political views, has led to fierce competition among candidates from the same party within a single district. This unhealthy competition often results in politicians prioritising convincing voters not to vote for their internal rivals rather than engaging with people from opposing parties.

The need for patronage in such a system becomes prevalent, fostering a culture where candidates make unrealistic or disgraceful promises to secure votes. After all, a few dozen votes on one district can win candidates a seat in parliament.

We need to have a system which would shift the focus away from district-based competition and make it increasingly difficult for candidates to make parochial promises that only cater to specific communities.

The scandal involving fraudulent disability benefits was, in fact, largely linked to Labour-leaning localities and individuals. Candidates have easy access to such candidates, promising jobs/favours for votes, thus perpetuating a system that favours personal connections over meritocracy.

Removing electoral districts could also make it easier for a third party to smash the PL-PN duopoly that characterises our political system. Given the clear signs of fatigue that citizens are displaying with regard to our two main parties, fresh blood and ideas could help revive local politics.

The system used for the European elections has served well and will be tested again in June. There is no reason why we cannot adopt something similar – not necessarily using the single transferable vote system – for our general elections.

When Abela first floated the idea, he said that he would keep his views to himself because he did not want to “shut down discussion”.

That tactic – keeping quiet and hoping society will fill the silence – failed miserably. It’s time the prime minister found his tongue, spoke his mind and moved this debate forward.