The European Commission for Democracy through Law, or the Venice Commission, as it is better known, had raised the issue in an ‘opinion’ two years ago. And the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life referred to it a number of times, the latest just a few days ago.
Still, the two large political parties persist in allowing MPs who represent them to take up public appointments or jobs. This has serious implications for a backbencher’s responsibility to keep the government in check.
Parliament has a crucial role to play in ensuring that the separation, balance and independence of powers are constantly upheld and that authority is not concentrated in any one branch of government.
This responsibility becomes even more pronounced in a unicameral system of government such as ours, where there is no upper chamber to act as a counterweight.
Regretfully, one administration after another has found ways of ‘buying’ the loyalty of as many members of the House as possible. A large number of government backbenchers hold positions in officially appointed bodies and some opposition MPs have government jobs or are employed with public entities.
This led the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, George Hyzler, to remark in a report earlier this month: “The role of Parliament and its backbenchers is to keep the government under scrutiny, so backbench MPs, whether they are on the government or the opposition side, should not be dependent on the government for their livelihood.”
He was repeating a call he had made months before for backbenchers to be given the choice of either serving as full-time MPs and receive a higher pay or retain the present part-time arrangement.
An MP’s purpose is to serve the country and its people.
It is not to use the position to supplement his or her income.
On the other hand, members of Parliament and their families, just like all families, need to make a decent living. To do this they need to earn a decent wage, if not one that is above the average so as to serve as an additional safeguard against state capture.
As the Venice Commission had rightly noted, the small size of Malta’s parliament makes it all the more imperative for guarantees to be in place to ensure the House of Representatives is able to fulfil its role of controlling the executive.
Regrettably, along the years, it has, whether by omission or by commission, or a combination of both, slowly but surely lost its teeth, paving the way for a climate in which blatant abuse of power and outright corruption can thrive.
Waiting is no longer an option. Urgent reforms have become essential to put in practice the concept of separation of powers so fundamental to democracy, by giving teeth to parliament. The House needs to be a watchdog that can truly bite.
Ensuring full-time MPs are adequately compensated and have all the necessary resources at their disposal to fulfil their duties would be a good beginning.
That, together with the legal privileges they enjoy, should give them the liberty to speak out without fear or favour. They need to be in a position, from both legal and financial standpoints, to take up the cudgels on behalf of the electorate, irrespective of who is on the receiving end.
The government was quick to react to placate the Venice Commission and secure the backing of the opposition to rush through a number of constitutional changes in parliament.
There is no reason why the same cannot happen to make parliament strong again.