Letters to the editor - August 4, 2024

The constitution should defend the president

The contributions by Giovanni Bonello and Kevin Aquilina are interesting but baffling to me as a lay person.

I will not go into details of the interpretation of the constitution. The learned gentlemen have gone to lengths to interpret and explain its provisions as they understand them.

They interpret the constitution as is, but no one suggests alternatives to protect our president, to whom I look up to to defend our democracy and constitution. As worded, our constitution ridicules our president, making them subservient to the cabinet.

Why have a president at all? To put them in an awkward and unfair situation, to assume a responsibility shifted on to this highest office by what may well be a dictatorial or irresponsible cabinet or minister?

In what situation does our president find themself when the nation’s cabinet or minister decides to grant a pardon? Our president largely holds a ceremonial position with limited executive powers. We have a figurehead.

The Throne Room in the Grand Master’s Palace, Valletta. Photo: Shutterstock.com

Our president acts by signing on the advice of the cabinet.

The real executive power and responsibility lies with the prime minister and his cabinet.

The prerogative of mercy, including the granting of a pardon, is a power typically vested in the head of state, who, in this case, bears less democratic accountability and responsibility because they are not elected by popular mandate.

Our cabinet consists of MPs elected by voters, therefore, it should solely shoulder responsibility for its decisions. It should not shift its responsibility onto the president who has no electoral mandate and who has no discretion to refuse (unless they resign).

Yes, indeed, the present constitution potentially ridicules the office the president occupies. How would you describe a father with no authority?

Sign or resign: The present scenario underscores the lack of autonomy of the president when granting pardons. The constitution undermines the president’s dignity and authority. It imposes on the president.

The rationale to maintain democratic accountability by preventing the concentration of power is flawed and ridiculed in practice.

Our president is not chosen by the electorate. They are chosen by parliament and can only be removed by parliament.

Elected governments remain the primary decision-makers and, thus, their responsibility should not be shifted on to the president who has no say on granting pardons and whose primary role is to uphold constitutional continuity, accountability and impartiality.

The present system of the cabinet shifting its responsibility onto our president, who has to forcefully sign or resign, is ridiculous. This makes our president an accomplice in the acts of the cabinet.

In my opinion, the constitution needs to be changed to protect our president. There are two clean and fair options to do so.

One option could be removing the need for the president to ‘rubber-stamp’ a pardon decided by the cabinet and change the name from presidential pardon to cabinet pardon.

Alternatively, now that the president is elected by at least two-thirds of MPs in parliament, we could opt to give this power entirely to the president to decide upon requested pardons.

After all, the president does not need to bestow pardons for electoral votes, whereas ministers forming the cabinet may fall into such temptation.

JOSIE MUSCAT, MD – Sliema