For the past century, the November 1 date has marked the anniversary of the opening of Malta’s parliament and the establishment of self-government.

The events of November 1, 1921, were the culmination of hard work by members of society, personified by Filippo Sceberras, who was fittingly knighted on the same day that parliament was inaugurated. It was also the result of the bloodshed in the Sette Giugno 1919 riots.

Malta’s democratic system of governance has improved since. Independent Malta has a single parliament chamber, instead of the Senate and the Legislative Assembly of a century ago.

All men and women over 16 have the right to vote, once, irrespective of their wealth, education or background. Parliament is more representative of society than it has ever been.

Importantly, Malta’s parliament enjoys the dignity of being returned by well over 90 per cent of the electorate.

But all is not well. A century since Edward, Prince of Wales, inaugurated the first parliament, serious questions are being asked about its role and standing in our democracy.

Last Sunday, Archbishop Charles Scicluna characterised the behaviour of parliamentarians as marked by “tribalism, pique and hatred”. Opposition leader Bernard Grech on Monday described the House as a toothless institution that fails to hold the government to account. A day later, two Council of Europe rapporteurs highlighted the risks of corruption and conflicts of interest arising from the practice of MPs being employed with government agencies.

Parliament has returned largely stable governments since independence. But the price of that has been high: the House is effectively a rubberstamp of government decisions. While it efficiently performs its primary function of legislation, it is ineffective at keeping the administration in check.

Malta’s highly polarised two-party system means party interests all too often come before the country’s needs, while personal interests have bred impunity. The difficulty that a parliamentary committee has in questioning one of its own, Konrad Mizzi, who engaged in humiliating histrionics last Wednesday, is symptomatic of the malaise.

The award of state-paid positions to backbenchers renders farcical MPs’ role of monitoring the government that employs them. Instead, we should start discussing the need to financially compensate MPs better to try to lure a new breed of politicians who remain reluctant to leave their well-paid professions.

A suggestion of having full-time MPs could result in worthy candidates shunning political service rather than leave their professions.

Suggestions for reform have been made by both sides of the House, such as reducing the number of electoral districts to curb nepotism. A century ago, Malta had seven districts. It may be a good idea to return to that number.

While there is the need to reform and refine the electoral system, including the way parliament operates, the real solution lies not in new rules but in a change of attitudes.

It is up to the parties and their leadership to ensure parliament is not reduced to a level of partisanship bereft of dignity and respect for the other side. Parliament is all about the democratic clash of political ideas.

MPs must choose whether to be examples of a healthy way of conducting democracy or a shameful one.

The electorate has a role to play by holding their MPs to account, not just on polling day but throughout the legislature.

But a century since the biggest political achievement before Independence, many people simply do not recognise what an MP’s proper role is. This is a failing of both parliament and our education system.