The current political structures of Malta cannot be taken for granted anymore, not with talk of constitutional changes already underway. It does not seem like a great time to be scribbling changes to such a fundamental document. It isn’t convincing that there is a common understanding of the true significance of the Constitution or of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in it.

A snapshot of Maltese politics leaves much to be desired if changes are really going to be adopted at this stage. Firstly, what technical debates are being had on the substantive clauses that need to be changed? Most probably, Malta’s paternalistic culture will kick in to defer these matters to the most important members of our communities: our politicians.

By and large, our politicians belong to two political families who have continuously been struggling to control the Maltese political apparatus. This has been going on for generations, and it has been more or less well documented in academia. The tools at their disposal are more numerous than can be said for other political cultures. Their use of broadcasting and state resources for party political purposes, especially the governing party, is more than serious democracies would be comfortable with.

International organisations have done more than raise eyebrows on these issues. But there are worse ones still.

Giovanni Bonello has written a book that ought to have already been read by anyone keen on following the constitutional debate in Malta.

The institutions that were designed as checks and balances against demagoguery are not functioning properly.

This includes the judiciary, which is reluctant to strike down laws which contradict the constitution. If the mixed legal jurisdiction of our country confuses judges, it only serves to bolster the masters at Freedom Square, who enjoy decreasingly less accountability and scrutiny for their actions.

Bonello deserves to be quoted on this issue. “Its main weakness is that it is a constitution written by gentlemen for gentlemen, and anything meant for gentlemen has the habit of being taken advantage of when it falls into the hands of scoundrels.” Are we living in a political culture of rogues?

If the Constitution is to be amended, the individual has the most stake in the changes that will be brought forward.

Wartime Europe experienced fascism in all its ugliness and was determined to design a new political order, not necessarily centred exclusively on majoritarian rule, but with mechanisms in place for the protection of groups and the individual, what we call human rights.

Hopefully, Malta can agree that it’s better to have fundamental rights than not to. On this issue, Malta doesn’t shine particularly brightly when it comes to their protection. As Bonello notes, the Maltese government has the dubious honour of boasting the worst record when it comes to cases decided against it in the European Court of Human Rights.

Our constitution is being played around with by people with ostensibly little appreciation for the fundamental rights on which it is premised

The ones currently responsible for changing the Constitution are the ones with most to gain from emasculating the provisions that were fundamentally designed to keep them in check.

You would have to be astoundingly naive to trust political parties to slash chunks of their own power, especially at this stage.

The incumbent Labour Party enjoys a parliamentary majority and polling numbers that might render a two-thirds majority in Parliament enough to make changes unilaterally to the Constitution.

The Nationalist Party and the Maltese media are both facing financial difficulties in trying to flourish in an everchanging world that they couldn’t keep up with.

Saviour Balzan is a prime example of the supposedly independent press waving a begging bowl to the government he is supposed to be scrutinising.

It is a fundamentally unbalanced playing field which will do untold harm done to that important document.

We know this because the so-called reforms that Owen Bonnici spearheaded, for example, on financing of political parties, are Swiss cheese.

A critical reading of the legislation makes for a tragic read. Loopholes allow political parties to carry on doing what they have been doing. The Act of Parliament is nothing more than a public relations rebuttal ready for use if ever they are criticised on the subject.

The Venice Commission, the legal advisory body to the Council of Europe, had published a report on this particular piece of legislation, giving technical advice particularly with reference to the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Bill was full of loopholes, it lamented. Not much was done to close them off, because the actors responsible for enacting that piece of legislation were the ones who would lose out on enjoying them.

In the Financing of Political Parties Act, there are two changes to the Constitution that empower the Constitutional Court to unseat a newly elected Member of Parliament if it can be proven that they lied about their campaign expenditure. To the unsuspecting public, this ‘sends a message’ about how serious the minister is about electoral integrity.

To any lawyer who has read the ECHR Protocol 1 Article 3, they know that such a provision could never actually be enforced. Bonnici knows this, because the Venice Commission brought it to his attention before the Bill was debated in Committee.

Its effect on fundamental freedoms was not brought up at any point during the parliamentary debates.

The reality is that our constitution is being played around with by people with ostensibly little appreciation for the fundamental rights on which it is premised.

The Financing of Political Parties Act is a glimpse into the real interests of our legislators, that is, to delimit the power at their disposal.

They face little opposition by a faltering civil society. If our leaders are willing to neglect fundamental freedoms and use the Constitution as a benign public relations smokescreen to hide their activities from the world, then the current debate on changing the Constitution is set to be a nauseating one.

Benjamin Dalli is a student reading for a law degree at the University of Glasgow and Sciences Po Paris.