Editorial

The term of office of President Eddie Fenech Adami expires on April 4, when the former Prime Minister and leader of the Nationalist Party seals a brilliant political career spanning 40 years. The legacy of service he has given is hard to beat.

The country is now awash with names of possible candidates for the post, though the list is generally being narrowed down to four or five. In their respective ways, the names being mentioned are all suitable for the post. However, choosing the right candidate for a role that ought to symbolise national unity in a country riven with political controversy is no easy task, one reason perhaps why the argument favouring election, rather than appointment by resolution of the House of Representatives, surfaces practically every time a new President is about to be chosen.

However, going beyond this and other arguments over the role and duties of a President - matters that ought to be discussed and considered at length over a time that is not close to the appointment of a new President - there is one particular point that ought to be tackled in every appointment: the need to have as wide a consensus as possible over the appointee. This has been niggling the parties and the people in general ever since the first President, Sir Anthony Mamo, was succeeded by Anton Buttigieg.

Sir Anthony, who died on May 1 last year at the age of 99, was acceptable to all, a true symbol of national unity. Practically every President appointed since then was held with political suspicion, at least at first, as the appointee was invariably seen as belonging to the party to which s/he formed part before taking up the role of constitutional Head of State. Maybe the extent of political suspicion varied from one candidate to another but, in such a stifling political environment as that prevailing in Malta, such suspicion could hardly be ruled out.

However, despite this, all Presidents have served Malta well as they all managed to rise above party politics, a prime requirement for the post. Both Dr Fenech Adami and President Emeritus Guido de Marco had at first been considered as a bad choice, yet they both did their job well, which proves that party affiliation ought not, and, indeed, should not, disqualify a candidate for the post.

Prof. de Marco had some very wise words to say about the President's role when he wrote in his memoirs that when amendments to the Constitution were being discussed in 1974 "we wanted to make as few changes as possible... we were convinced that, if we left aspects of the Presidency undefined, the role would evolve over time according to the historical necessities and the personality of those who occupied the post". He argued that the House did not want the President to exercise administrative functions or to duplicate and complicate the functions of the Prime Minister. He added: "We wanted a President who could rise above party politics, who, when speaking on behalf of the government of Malta, could reflect the policy of the democratically-elected government. We wanted, above all, the President to be the symbol of national unity..."

In line with the new spirit of constructive politics which both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat are so eagerly promoting and working for, it will do the country good if the choice falls on a person who is immediately acceptable to all.