The current debate on the proposed amendment to the criminal code concerning abortion has raised two fundamental questions.

One of them is about the wording of the proposed government amendment, which can only be interpreted as introducing not simply abortion on-demand but also abortion on-demand till the very last moment of the pregnancy. This is the most liberal stance on abortion possible, which even moderate pro-choice individuals find distasteful and unacceptable.

I am convinced that President George Vella is not the only Labourite who opposes this extremist amendment. Labour might have embraced liberalism but Labourites are not libertarian extremists.

For instance, I remember Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi publicly declaring his complete opposition to abortion. Will he follow his leader blindly? There are others in the Labour parliamentary group whose conscience is telling them that this amendment will, for all ends and purposes, introduce abortion on demand, even late-term abortion.

The plan concocted by Labour is a tragic example of subverted democracy.

Prime Minister Robert Abela himself has declared that his government doesn’t have the electorate’s mandate to introduce abortion.

Yet, his government is proposing an amendment which is clearly inspired by English law. In England and Wales, abortion is illegal but is permitted where, among other things, the health of the mother is purportedly at stake.

When the UK parliament legislated the Abortion Act, they weren’t foreseeing abortion on demand. Yet, abortion has become normalised in that country. So much so that 200,000 abortions are performed there every year (only an extremely small percentage is performed on non-residents).

To put it differently, the British wording which has inspired Labour derives from wording which strayed from the intention of the British legislator. In the UK, what had to be a rare occurrence has been normalised. Some 24 per cent of pregnancies are terminated in England and Wales. That wasn’t the intention of the British Labour government when it introduced the exception to abortion.

Which necessarily means that, whereas Britain’s Labour was somehow in good faith, Malta’s Labour is not. Because Malta’s Labour is wise to the British experience.

This means that Labour knows that it is trying to fool the electorate. It does not have a mandate to introduce abortion on demand, even up to the very last moment of the pregnancy and, yet, with this amendment it is trying to do just that.

And this raises the second fundamental question, relating to democracy. A friend of mine told me on Facebook “Parliament is sovereign!” I replied “No! The people are sovereign!”

Robert Abela and Chris Fearne do not have the mandate to introduce abortion- Mark Sammut Sassi

Our entire constitutional setup is based on the notion that the government, and even parliament, don’t own the country but the country belongs to us all.

Because the country belongs to the people and not to parliament, parliamentary democracy means that parliamentarians represent the people.

Parliamentarians are elected not to govern as they please, as tyrants, but to govern on behalf of the governed and, therefore, with the consent of the governed.

This is basic, modern constitutional theory.

When Labour governs as if it owns the country, it is defying the basic principles of parliamentary (representative) democracy.

No, we don’t do what we want because we are in government (literal translation of a widespread sentiment expressed in the vernacular).

A government governs according to the mandate given to it by the real sovereign, the people.

And Robert Abela, Chris Fearne and the other libertarians do not have the mandate to introduce abortion, neither directly nor through trickery.

If Abela, Fearne, et al want to whitewash their reputation sullied by the corruption and sleaze of the Muscat administration, then they should do the honourable thing. Bring the miscreants to justice. Not introduce abortion through trickery to score points with the socialists abroad.

This fiddling with democracy is pernicious. If it goes unchecked, it will further downgrade our little country’s moral standing, reducing us to a joke.

This is a matter of national interest that transcends petty partisan allegiances. I hope that the patriots among Labour MPs are ready to do the right thing.

Mark Sammut Sassi is a lawyer. He has obtained, among others, a Master’s degree focusing on legal theory, legal history, and medical ethics from the University of London.