On Friday, the Venice Commission published a positive assessment of the government’s proposals for institutional reform piloted by the new minister.
Most of these proposals originated in the Maltese Parliament a decade or so ago. One wonders why it took so long and the country had to go through so much turmoil and tragic events, before realising they are so essential.
Was it because time, quoting Thomas Paine, makes more converts than reason? Or because, as I had pointed out when I was formulating similar reforms, Parliament lacked autonomy, basic resources and facilities and lacked essential communication facilities to get the message across?
In January 2010, as the then-Nationalist government’s youngest MP, I had given an adjournment in which I lamented the lack of autonomy, resources, and scarce communication facilities that Parliament had, stuck with only radio as it was, whereas the country had reached excellence in IT.
It would take almost six more years before Parliament got better means of communication, including TV broadcasts.
It was in the same January 2010 adjournment that I had also proposed a two-thirds majority requirement for appointing Presidents.
Considering the position of the President at the apex of the Republican pyramid, the proposal to appoint future Presidents by a two-thirds majority can be taken to symbolise the rest of the raft of changes being considered through the Venice Commission exercise.
That 2010 adjournment came in the aftermath of George Abela, a previous Labour deputy Leader, being nominated to the Presidency by a Nationalist government, a decision I had described in the same speech as "historical and important and a decision which certainly elevated the concept of the Maltese State.”
“Whether a Presidency is successful or otherwise depends largely on a psychological factor, on the way a nation looks at the incumbent,” I had said at the time.
"Mr Speaker, I think the time has come to effect changes in the manner the President is appointed since the dispositions of our Constitution regarding the appointment of the President, taking into account the function, role and significance of the Presidency in a Republican constitution like ours, is inadequate, by a resolution that does not even require a quorum.
“However since this two-thirds requirement may lead to a constitutional deadlock, in case agreement isn't reached and thus the amendment should also include a clause whereby an absolute majority would be sufficient if a two-thirds majority isn't obtained in the first round. We ought to continue elevating the office of the Presidency as much as we can, whilst at the same time be practical, understand that circumstances may arise where that high majority requirement isn’t reached in Parliament and thus to avoid a constitutional deadlock, we should opt for at least an absolute majority, allowing two thresholds of voting to this Parliament. "
In that adjournment I also touched upon other crucial themes tackled by the Venice Commission, such as the law on party financing which we didn't have at the time; the real role and vocation of members of Parliament as checks and balances on Prime Ministerial power; besides the issue, which still rages on, about whether political parties should have their own media stations.
"Mr Speaker, I have mentioned various times the law on Party Financing and I will continue to mention it. We are very late compared to other countries. . . . . . When members of a political party are elected to Parliament, it’s not the whole party which is elected to Parliament, the secretary-general and the president of the party are not elected to Parliament, they are answerable to the members of the party and its structures but party members who are elected to Parliament have dual loyalties, one towards the party to which they belong, and another towards the constituency, towards the electorate, a loyalty which shouldn't be ignored. A member of Parliament is not just a delegate of the party on whose ticket he was elected but also the voice of his constituency and of the nation as a whole.”
That January 2010 speech was one in a series, culminating in private members’ motion 260 of November 2011, in which I formulated a holistic justice and constitutional reform, including judicial appointments and discipline, the split of the Attorney General’s roles, splitting the police investigation and prosecution roles and various other issues currently resurrected by the Venice Commission report, a decade of turmoil and mischief down the line.
If this country has really learnt its lessons, we must ensure that reason makes more converts than time and ensure the voices of reason in this society are not buried under the cacophony of political militarism and polarisation. Political parties are a means to an end, not ends in themselves.
Again no words can better express this sentiment than those of my January 2010 speech.
"Let’s look forward, let’s not make this mistake to stagnate in the past. Let us respect the past. But we will be respecting the past only if we continue to build on it, if we see what we need to ameliorate... I’m on this side of the House in the name of the PN, however first and foremost we are all Maltese. I would like to see ingrained a sense of nation, that we are all Maltese. We have different opinions but first and foremost we are all Maltese brothers and sisters.”
In a pejorative sense, it is said that history repeats itself. And one may add it repeats itself even more to those who have short memories. For the future, let it be reason that converts, us rather than time!
Franco Debono is a criminal lawyer and former Nationalist Party MP