Editorial

It was probably coincidental. It was certainly sad. On Sunday, January 16, Opposition Leader Alfred Sant addressed the Labour Party's annual conference and called for reforms to the electoral system to ensure that political parties are properly represented in Parliament on the basis of the votes they win at the general election. On January 15, 1992 the House of Representatives was debating the same issue. And getting nowhere.

The fact is that ever since the anomalous result of the 1981 general election, constitutional watchers hold their breath whenever a general election is held. For the so-called proportional representation system sometimes does not produce strict proportionality. Piecemeal amendments improved matters somewhat but the risk of distortion remains.

We are assured now that a party winning an absolute majority of first count votes, or a relative majority when only two parties are elected, will have the right to govern. But apart from the one seat majority credited to the biggest party in a two horse race when it does not win an outright majority in the House, the strength of the parties in Parliament is still decided on the basis of returns from the electoral districts, whose boundaries are a constant source of friction. There have been several instances of parties being over- or under-represented in the House.

In his carefully worded remarks, Dr Sant said it should be ensured that the party with the majority of first count votes and the one winning the minority of first count votes operate under a system that give parties a (corresponding) proportionality of seats in Parliament - on the basis of first count votes not on votes inherited under other counts. And, he added, it should be ensured too that the governability of the country is safeguarded.

In 1992 the parties had been unable to agree on a more proportional system because of problems over cross-party voting and the Nationalist government's wish to introduce a national five per cent threshold to safeguard governability by ensuring that no tiny party would hold the balance of power.

The issue was revisited in 1996 with little progress other than the amendment on the party winning a relative majority. It is not clear if any stands have shifted since.

The remarks made by Dr Sant, and, significantly, another call for agreement on the electoral system made by President Eddie Fenech Adami when he stepped down as Prime Minister, underline the need for the issue to be reopened and settled.

Nothing can be more sacred to a democracy than the electoral system. It is the electoral system that gives a democracy its underlying strength.

Just why Dr Sant chose to link proposed changes to the Local Councils Act on the term of office of the councils to the changes needed to the electoral system is unclear. The Bill to amend the Local Councils Act is already before Parliament; the issue of the electoral system is far more complex and will take longer to be settled.

Proportionality, and ways to ensure that the districts, whatever their boundaries, do not have a direct bearing on the parties' strength in Parliament, are at the heart of the issue. But a review of the law should also take in other matters, such as the voting rights of the Maltese working abroad, especially in the light of court judgments prior to the European Parliament elections.

The need for a comprehensive review is obvious. The time to do it is now. Thirteen years is too long to wait.