Rule of law NGO Repubblika last week presented a raft of proposals on the appointment of the president and the composition of parliament and cabinet.

The initiative was a breath of fresh air in a society where constitutional and parliamentary reform appears to be the exclusive domain of politicians.

The thrust of Repubblika’s proposals is to put clear water between the roles of parliament and the cabinet. It also proposed that the president should be elected and that the prime minister should be able to pick ministers from outside parliament. 

It is true that an election could provide democratic legitimacy for the president but the first role of the head of state is to represent the whole country and to promote unity. Elections do not breed unity. What this country needs is a head of state appointed by the widest possible consensus.

The path towards granting some executive powers to the president is another on which the country should tread carefully, again because of the risk of undermining the role of the office as a unifying factor.

The president, however, should have an effective role in safeguarding the constitution.

The greater urgency is to properly separate the roles of parliament and the government. One of the principal roles of parliament is to enact laws and to monitor the government and keep it in check.

The latter function has practically disappeared, with all MPs on Labour’s benches having a direct role in the government. In reality, this problem dates back more than a decade, to when the Nationalist government appointed several of its backbenchers as parliamentary assistants. No wonder it is often so difficult to differentiate between party and state in Malta.

It is about time the country explores systems adopted in other countries limiting the percentage of MPs who can form part of the government, directly or within its agencies. 

Having technocrats as ministers is a system that several countries have adopted. While it could yield much-needed expertise around the cabinet table, it also raises the risk of ministers being absolutely loyal to their prime minister, rather than to their party or, indeed,the people. 

The overriding need is for parliament to no longer remain a rubber stamp of the government’s actions, which is increasingly costing it credibility and relevance.

A very valid proposal is to employ MPs full-time and compensate them well for their work. People who could provide a valuable contribution to the country remain reluctant to serve in politics because they have to give up their professions or careers.

The result is a parliament with a dearth of talent and generally unable to rise above populism and small-party politics.

A key aspect of the composition of parliament is fair representation. The point has been made about a fair chunk of people not being represented when they vote for a third party that does not achieve a district quota despite winning thousands of votes nationally.

Proportional representation in the Maltese parliament has improved in leaps and bounds since 1986 and is far now better than most other democracies. But the system still needs to be fine-tuned. The Gonzi Commission of the 1980s proposed a national threshold to guarantee parliamentary representation if a party obtains, say, five per cent of first-count votes cast nationally. 

None of the proposals made should be rejected. It is time we engage in a mature discussion about our political representatives which transcends inward-looking politics.