Editorial: Time to rethink Malta’s electoral system
Malta’s electoral system has served the country well in many respects, but it is showing clear signs of strain. The time has come to give it a thorough and thoughtful overhaul
The composition of Malta’s parliament has been finalised, with MPs yesterday taking their seats at the start of the 15th legislature since independence.
Much has been said about the general election having been a calm and orderly process, as every democratic exercise should be. But beyond the smooth conduct of the vote, this election has also highlighted the need to take a fresh, critical look at Malta’s electoral system.
The facts are striking. Of the 79 MPs now sitting in the House, 29 were not directly elected. Two entered parliament through the proportionality corrective mechanism, 12 through the gender quota system, and 15 via casual elections after candidates elected from two districts relinquished one of their seats.
Can the country be satisfied with a system in which 37% of its MPs were not the electorate’s first choice and, in many cases, not even their second, third or fourth? Can it be content with a reality where some representatives secure a parliamentary seat with only a few hundred first-preference votes?
The issue runs deeper still. Can the country be satisfied that no third party has, on its own ballot, been able to get anyone directly elected to the House since 1966? Thousands of votes are effectively rendered meaningless in the process, leaving many citizens without direct representation in the nation’s highest democratic institution.
This is not to say the electoral system has not improved. Over the years, reforms have brought Malta closer to proportionality between votes cast and seats allocated than ever before. But this progress should not breed complacency.
Rather, it should encourage further reform, not only to refine proportionality but to ensure that those who make it to parliament are, as far as possible, those who voters actually choose.
Several viable proposals have long been on the table. The Galdes and Gonzi commissions of the 1990s suggested the introduction of a national threshold, whereby smaller parties that secure a share of the national vote could gain parliamentary representation even without winning a district seat.
Can the country be satisfied with a system in which 37% of its MPs were not the electorate’s first choice and, in many cases, not even their second, third or fourth?
Naturally, such a reform would need safeguards to preserve governability and prevent fringe groups from becoming disproportionate kingmakers.
Comparable systems abroad offer tested models that could be adapted to Malta’s context.
It is also time to reconsider the structure of electoral districts. Does Malta still require 13 districts? A system with fewer, larger districts – for example, six in Malta plus Gozo – combined with a rule limiting candidates to contesting a single district, could reduce distortions and improve representation.
The current system encourages politicians to focus on highly localised issues and promises, often prioritising the interests of a particular area over the country’s broader needs. We have repeatedly seen projects and policies driven by electoral considerations rather than sound long-term planning. Larger districts would require candidates to appeal to a wider electorate, placing greater emphasis on national policy and vision rather than local favours.
Other related issues merit review as well. Should proportionality adjustments remain limited to situations where only two parties are elected to parliament? And should the gender mechanism, introduced as a corrective tool, continue in its current form?
The electoral system is the engine of democracy. Its design determines not only how power is distributed but how faithfully the will of the people is reflected. Malta’s system has served the country well in many respects, but it is showing clear signs of strain.
The time has come to give it a thorough and thoughtful overhaul.