Reforming the parliamentary trinity

When asked, in the course of the latest Eurobarometer survey, which institutions command their trust, the majority of Maltese put Parliament in 10th place with a trust level of 47 per cent, well below charitable organisations (87 per cent) and religious institutions (74 per cent). Their government fared only marginally better, while political parties were consigned to the bottom of the heap (33 per cent), even worse than the much-aligned press.

Over the years we have witnessed the unchecked decline, denigration and emasculation of Parliament, its powers relentlessly usurped by the executive and its agencies and an increasingly overbearing Prime Minister, whichever party he hails from.

In a 1976 Richard Dimbleby Lecture, Lord Hailsham coined the phrase "elective dictatorship" to describe a Westminster democracy where "the government controls Parliament and not Parliament the government". The eventual adoption of the new EU constitution will lead to a further emasculation of the Maltese parliament.

An audit of the record of the Maltese Parliament will show that it has failed to perform some of its most important functions in an effective and meaningful fashion, i.e. to legislate, to deliberate and to hold the government to account.

One way to measure the performance of Parliament is to ask the following questions: (1) Is there genuine representative democracy in Malta? (2) Do we have good and accountable government? (3) Do the Maltese have a say in the decisions that affect their lives?

As to the first question, this is probably the most straightforward. Since independence 40 years ago, we have had four peaceful changes in government. The introduction of local councils has somewhat decentralised the centres of power. But citizen participation in our democratic institutions remains limited to elections, with too little recourse to referenda and other direct consultations with the electorate.

On the second question, the record is somewhat dismal. If there were good and accountable government, there would not be so many cases where abuse of power, political favouritism, breaches of ethics and corruption have either not been investigated or where investigations have gone nowhere.

As to whether citizens have a say in decisions that affect their lives, if they had we would not have the extraordinary declaration by the Prime Minister that there is no need to submit the new EU constitution to a refendum, even though it will supersede many of the provisions of our Constitution and override it.

To my mind, the fatal flaw of our system of parliamentary democracy is that what we have is not a strong Parliament but a strong executive and an even stronger Prime Minister, rendering Parliament effete, impotent and even useless to carry out its functions .

A root-and-branch reform of Parliament to ensure genuine representative democracy and a good and accountable government must be one of the priorities on the national agenda. We badly need greater checks and balances to our system of governance. This would ensure that the executive is held accountable by members of Parliament.

Democratic reform is not merely about bringing higher ethical standards to political life, though the appointment of an ethics commissioner accountable to Parliament would do away with prime ministerial discretion as to whether a minister has acted correctly or not, as happened recently in the John Dalli case.

But even meeting reasonably ethical expectations should not be confused with democratic reform. The necessary reforms should include free votes on matters ranging from the President's speech at the opening of Parliament through the budget to campaign promises. MPs should have greater freedom to speak their minds, even in disagreement with the party line. They should be encouraged to draft Bills, not just review drafts prepared by ministers and bureaucrats. Then, and only then, will MPs lose their reputation as mere rubber stamps.

There should be broadened scope for specialist parliamentary committees, preferably one for each ministry. Such a system ease the pressures on the floor time of Parliament, eliciting information and providing surveillance, as well as providing a venue where consultations on legislation could take place with the wider public.

Parliament should also have greater staff resources so that MPs can strengthen their representative capacity. A small step in this direction has been made with the recruitment of some research analysts, but it is not enough.

The Prime Minister's powers of appointment to boards, agencies, commissions and the courts should be severely circumscribed and be made subject to parliamentary approval.

The government of the day always lambasts the opposition for wrecking rather than constructing. Why doesn't Prime Minister Gonzi drum up courage and propose opposition business days where the opposition decides on the parliamentary business? Then he would put the onus on Dr Sant to propose legislation on the burning issues of the day and the opposition would no longer just oppose for the heck of it but would have to carry the weight of governing this country. One day, the roles will be reversed.

It can be argued that the opposition of the day uses Parliament more to impugn the credibility of governments than to exercise accountability for the sake of good governance. Unsurprisingly, the opposition likes to focus on issues it judges to have significant immediate political payoffs rather than on the day-to-day functioning of government. The opposition is likely to focus attention on political scandals, where it can attack individuals rather than try to force institutional and systemic changes.

There are many specific proposals for parliamentary reforms that should be given serious. For example, when are we going to have a Prime Minister's question hour, where he would appear at least once a week to personally answer questions?

One other reform could be fixed dates for elections so that the timing of this most fundamental instrument of democratic accountability is not left to the whims and partisan advantage of the Prime Minister.