Until 1987, strategically shaping electoral districts within Malta’s 13 boundaries could determine the outcome of an election. This was starkly evident in 1981 when the Labour Party secured a majority of parliamentary seats despite winning fewer votes than the PN. The controversial result sparked widespread unrest.
A majority rule clause was then inserted in the constitution, ensuring that the party winning an absolute majority of votes would have the right to govern. As that safety mechanism only kicks in when two parties are represented in parliament some fear there could be a 1981 repeat.
The nascent of new political parties can only fuel such fears. Still, rather than raising the spectre of another perverse electoral result, as, hopefully, we have learnt our lessons, the latest proposals to adjust the boundaries should best be viewed as a clarion call for electoral reform.
There appears to be growing consent that the electoral system needs addressing. More than three years ago, the prime minister had spoken about reassessing the electoral system. Nothing meaningful happened. In fact, just over two months ago, the matter was raised by President Myriam Spiteri Debono in her Republic Day address.
Acknowledging provisions already introduced, she said more needs to be done “to perfect the correlation between voters at first count and seats in parliament”.
In her view, doing so “would make it more possible for minorities to be represented in parliament”.
No doubt, many voters who have had enough of the two large political forces and, certainly, the emerging small parties would agree with the president that the prevailing electoral system makes minority representation in parliament “an impossible possibility, existing only between the lines”.
That is not likely to be music to the two large political forces’ ears, though, certainly, a move that members of the electorate who long for a more level playing field would want and support.
The manner in which citizens make wise use of their vote or vote by their feet is proof enough that the gap between the blinkered, happy with the status quo, and voters demanding change is getting wider.
Divergent opinions will, of course, remain as already appears with regard to the number of districts Malta should have. But the matter requires attention, perhaps urgent attention, too. Does tiny Malta really need 13 districts, for example?
The Labour and Nationalist parties are unlikely to take the initiative. Neither would the Electoral Commission, dominated as it is by appointees of the two big parties.
The president’s office can take the lead itself, pushing for a start to a national debate.
The president ought to bear in mind the sour experience of her predecessor, who was unable to further his work on constitutional reform because “there was no willingness to agree on who should lead this convention”.
She should, therefore, best keep political prima donnas out of the equation for the time being, use her influence to put together a team of election experts – which she should chair – to analyse all proposals received and make recommendations. The public should continuously be updated with what is happening. All political parties should be roped into the process.
Legal experts can then draft a bill, at which point the political parties in parliament will have to be involved.
Ultimately, it is up to parliamentarians to decide. That would separate the men from the boys and the wheat from the chaff, exposing those putting party interest before the national good.