It is disappointing and shameful that a majority of politicians belonging to the two main parties, Nationalist and Labour, cosy up to each other and see eye to eye when a legislative proposal comes up that is to their mutual benefit.
Indeed, for the prime minister, the justice minister and the leader of the opposition, April 14 will remain a historic date when scandalous and blatant anti-third-party legislation obtained 97 per cent of parliamentary backing. A historic date that will be remembered for the dubious and faulty legislation approved by parliament.
The legislation will expose particular future MPs to the fact that they owe their parliamentary seat to their gender and not to the constitutionally correct and time-honoured procedure of significant electoral approval.
The description “gender quota” members will probably fit perfectly these future representatives in parliament.
Having approved this law, the PL/PN expect and feel entitled to praise and gratitude from the electorate and from lobby groups for female rights. It seems we should be grateful to an almost full house for approving avant-garde legislation that other EU member states do not yet even dream of.
In reality, a close examination of what has actually been approved shows up an arrogant imposition that allows “female friendly” political posturing from both parties as well as an opportunity to strike a blow to this island’s perennial effort to achieve a presence in parliament by a third party.
How should this condescending male concession be viewed and considered by female voters? Well, particularly militant women’s associations will welcome this development since, historically, they have always approved achievement of higher female advancement in most spheres through mandatory imposed quotas.
In principle, they are not committed to exclusive achievement of higher female participation, in whatever sphere, through encouragement and provision of solid equal opportunities.
In contrast, a broad band of females find such patronising legislation quite humiliating and, in principle, favour more political participation through training and the provision of equal opportunities.
Rather than dishing out patronising state concessions, the PL and the PN would have cut a better figure had they committed themselves to coming up with 50/50, male and female, balanced lists of electoral candidates.
It is now very clear that the two big parties want to exclusively share these extra 12 MPs, leaving out third parties. To ensure this, the approved legislation has a proviso whereby measures will not come into force if a third party manages to elect one member.
Is this legislation constitutionally valid when in a supposedly free election it coerces an elector to avoid a third party vote if she or he favours this law?
The two big parties want to exclusively share these extra 12 MPs, leaving out third parties- Arthur Muscat
In a general election, in addition to a choice of candidates, is it legitimate and constitutionally correct to discriminately give third party voters the power to annul what has been described as historic legislation?
This proposal, stupid as it is, should never have been put to a parliamentary vote but, at most, included in a future party electoral programme or made subject to a referendum.
What are patient and abused voters and taxpayers to expect from the probable outcome of the next general election? As there is a low probability that, overnight, 40 per cent of 65 elected candidates will be female, there is a high probability that we shall have to assume the expense of an additional 12 female (six each for the PL and the PN) parliamentary members.
It never crossed the minds of the PL/PN to reserve parliamentary seats for females from the current 65. Possibly, these additional 12 candidates would have reached parliament member status on the basis of embarrassingly minimal electoral support.
Within the EU, on average, at least 45,000 votes are required to achieve MP status. Malta has the lowest vote requirement for the achievement of this status, about 3,400 votes.
Ridiculously, with 77 parliament members, this country will be lowering this threshold even further.
Hats off to those two upright members of parliament who dared to vote against an intrinsically vitiated piece of legislation.
Hats off to those third parties that will put up a challenge.
Arthur Muscat, human resources and industrial relations specialist