Editorial

Notwithstanding any flaws it may have, parliamentary democracy, as the one practised in this country, remains the best system of governance. It allows the people to decide for themselves how their country should be run by electing their representatives in Parliament and determining which party should be in government.

The election of MPs directly by the people is crucial and no stone should be left unturned to ensure that, first and foremost, the deputies in the House are increasingly seen to be conveying and effectively do convey the desires and sentiment of their electors to the country's highest authorities and institutions. If the voice of the people thus transmitted is not allowed to be heard or, worse, is stifled by other forces, including the political parties, then the system of parliamentary democracy risks being abused and rendered ineffective.

Against this background, certain events that have taken place recently are worrying.

Take the choice of George Abela as the next President of the Republic. There was agreement between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about Dr Abela, who has also received nation-wide support. It is imperative to bear this in mind because the "dissent", if that is the correct term, expressed by members of the parliamentary groups of both political parties was mainly addressed at the way the matter was handled. They objected to their being presented with a fait accompli and merely expected to rubber stamp the decision.

What happens now when a vote Dr Abela is taken in Parliament? The objectors have three options: vote in favour against their will; vote against or abstain (even by staying away from the parliamentary sitting).

Because they are responsible people, such MPs will likely feel in duty bound to be present and vote in favour. But they will only be doing this in order not to weaken the President and the Presidency.

This will be another occasion when the political parties' leadership will ride roughshod over the people's representatives and manage to get away with it because MPs put the common good first.

What a pity! There will be other pitiful situations.

One will result from the Opposition Leader's parliamentary motion calling on the government to immediately revoke its backing of the proposed underground extension of St John's Co-Cathedral museum. At least one government MP has been very vociferous about these plans, even denouncing them in Parliament. Certainly, there must be others.

Another would be the controversial issue of whether it is time or not to introduce divorce legislation in Malta, a debate that is very likely to take centre-stage as the campaign for the European Parliament elections hots up. The Leader of the Opposition has been very open about his thoughts and has declared his intention to move such legislation. It is an open secret that even within the Nationalist Party there are elements that deem it opportune to start such a debate.

Now, of course, dealing with an issue deemed as being a fundamental principle of a political party is one thing but on more mundane topics MPs deserve to be given more space to decide in line with what they think their constituents would want them to.

Will MPs from both sides of the House be allowed to stand up and be counted? Or will the voice of the people be stifled and denied? The weeks and months ahead are likely to give many answers.