Should we go for fixed-date general elections?

On paper, the next general election is not due before the first half of 2027 but speculation about an imminent snap election has been making the rounds for quite some time now. Prior to the last general election, we had a plethora of calls for certainty on when general elections should take place.

Several rumours and conjectures about the election date abound whenever the time for the general election to be held is approaching and this tends to disrupt businesses.

Local council elections, too, lack a specific date for them to be held, though they do not tend to disrupt businesses as much as the general elections do.

Perhaps the only certain election dates we can refer to are the European Parliament election dates, which, according to the 1976 Electoral Act, take place every five years in the period from Thursday to Sunday in the first full week of June.

It is our prime minister’s prerogative to call an election within the five-year period laid down by the constitution. We know that Robert Abela voluntarily renounced the traditional prime minister’s prerogative of choosing whom to appoint to the judiciary, as attorney general and as commissioner of police, among other important institutional appointments.

So, this background begs the question as to why there is all this reluctance not to also do away with this prerogative that has always had a habit of creating an air of uncertainty and instability in our economy and business sectors whenever general elections were approaching. This is not to exclude the possibility that there may be a number of valid and justified reasons for retaining that prerogative.

It would also be interesting to know whether a Nationalist administration would seriously consider legislating to have certain fixed-date general elections every five years.

It is pointless to analyse whether there are more advantages than disadvantages if we were to have fixed-date general elections, as do a good number of parliamentary systems around the world. For almost two decades now, parliaments in several Commonwealth countries, including the mother of Commonwealth parliaments in Great Britain, have struggled with the pros and cons of fixed-term parliaments and fixed-date general elections.

The UK adopted the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in 2011. The only time an early election was held was in June 2017. In 2021, the House of Commons agreed to a proposal to appoint a joint committee to review the 2011 Act, which is clearly not serving its purpose.

Several rumours about the election date tend to disrupt businesses- Mark Said

Canada adopted a fixed-date election law with exceptions in 2007 and then promptly used the exceptions to hold a general election in September 2008 and again in May 2011.

In Australia, state and local government elections are generally held on fixed dates established by law. However, national general elections are not restricted by a fixed election date.

The US has had a national election date since 1792 for reasons connected to the harvesting of crops. A fixed date for the election of the president was further codified in 1845 following the development of the Morse electric telegraph, which threatened to influence the voting in different time zones across the country.

The United States holds its federal elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. A November election is convenient because the harvest would have been completed but the most severe winter weather, impeding transportation, would not yet have arrived and the new election results would also roughly conform to a new year.

Tuesday was chosen as Election Day so that voters could attend church on Sunday, travel to the polling location (usually in the county seat) on Monday and vote before Wednesday, which was usually when farmers would sell their produce at the market.

Some politicians in countries that follow the Westminster tradition of government believe a fixed-date election is preferable to their own, which permits a prime minister to call an early election at any time of his choosing. To bolster their argument, they cite increased certainty about the term of a government, which removes the partisan advantage of an incumbent government in selecting general election dates.

Voters need to have confidence in their electoral system and having a fixed date could mean predictability and transparency, which will limit any perceived advantage by the government in controlling the timing of the next election. It could also allow for a better plan for future elections, which can result in significant cost-savings.

A fixed-term parliament may, however, prove inconvenient due to unforeseen circumstances. Early elections may sometimes be in the overall best interest of a country, such as when a government with a small majority needs to establish a clear majority.

Allowing the prime minister to call an early election means that the government can choose a time when it is popular in the polls rather than waiting for the end of its term, when it may not be so popular. Conversely, not allowing the prime minister to do this takes the politics out of things and allows all parties to plan with some certainty.

One could continue arguing about whether we should legislate to have fixed-date general elections or otherwise leave things as they are.

As it is, we have enough constitutional guarantees to hold general elections as is expected in a modern mature democracy, among which is the right to vote, and that right is best exercised by people who constantly take time to learn about the issues, snap elections or not.

Mark Said is a lawyer.