Presidential theatrics and arm-twisting

(photo: presenting to President George Vella proposals for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention : 5 November 2019)

The role of the President in the governance of this Republic, on paper, is just an issue of formality. In practice, however, it can be much more than that.

Undoubtedly Myriam Spiteri Debono will be a different President from her predecessors. Spiteri Debono has a distinct advantage over all of her predecessors: she has no political baggage because she has not held any executive political office to date. Only Sir Anthony Mamo, the first President, had the same advantage!

In her inaugural speech as President, Myriam Spiteri Debono made many an important political point. Fundamentally she emphasized that she will not seek to influence the political debate (a difficult pledge which, however, she did not strictly follow herself). Although she did not name him, this was a clear dig at her predecessor, who, in addition to lobbying the executive intensively in favour of his contrasting political views, unashamedly interfered in the public debate on proposals relative to the IVF legislative changes as well as on Bill 28 which sought to clarify the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code.

His Excellency George Vella would have been taken to task in any self-respecting Parliament. A motion for his removal, because of his behavior, would have been submitted for Parliament’s consideration.  Almost two years ago, given the President’s behaviour in office, I had written in these columns that there are “valid reasons to consider the impeachment of Dr. George Vella from his Presidential duties.” (TMIS: The Presidential rubberstamp: 31 July 2022)

Any person who allows his personal views to conflict with his or her Constitutional duties is, in my view, not fit for office.

Parliament, unfortunately, was not irked by George Vella’s arm-twisting of the executive. It was not bothered, as it thanked Vella for his services! Not one of the Members of Parliament stood up to remind one and all that when the holder of the office of the President interferes in the political debate, he/she is performing a grave disservice to the Republic.

One only hopes that there is no repetition of this interference in parliament’s work.

Parliament needs to reinforce the office of the President. In particular, for example, the Constitution needs some clarity as to how the President can defend the Constitution when he/she does not have the appropriate legal tools available. 

Let me clarify: It is essential to consider in some depth the role of the President of the Republic. Specifically, we should consider whether the President should continue to be just a rubberstamp or whether he or she should have limited review powers over Parliament’s legislative function.

ADPD- The Green Party, in submissions to the still pending Constitutional Convention, focused on this specific matter, among other issues. In the document submitted to the Convention, my party proposed that the President should be able to send legislation back to Parliament for its reconsideration, if, in his/her view such legislation runs counter to the provisions of the Constitution.

The President, on assuming office, declares that he/she will do all it takes to defend the Constitution. He/she is not however equipped with any (constitutional) tools with which to carry out this responsibility.

The Green proposal presented more than four years ago for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention identifies an essential tool with which His Excellency the President can act responsibly within the parameters of the law. We further proposed that should Parliament refuse to budge, the President should refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a final decision. 

This is how the Presidency should function. Much better than when it was subject to the George Vella theatrics, lobbying, and arm-twisting of the executive.

published in Malta Independent on Sunday : 14 April 2024

Inħarsu l-ambjent, bil-Kostituzzjoni

Fi żmien għaxar xhur, tkun intemmet il-Presidenza ta’ George Vella. L-entużjażmu tiegħu għall-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali, s’issa, ma wassal għall-ebda riżultat konkret magħruf. Bla dubju, l-Covid-19 ma kienx ta’ għajnuna.

Id-dibattitu dwar il-ħarsien ambjentali permezz tal-kostituzzjoni hu tajjeb. Dan jista’ jwassal biex inaqqas jew saħansitra jelimina d-diskrezzjoni tal-Gvern dwar meta jaġixxi f’dan il-qasam. Ifisser ukoll l-għarfien li m’għandniex fiduċja li l-eżekuttiv jista’ jeżerċità diskrezzjoni b’mod raġjonevoli, u dan għax sal-lum, ftit li xejn aġixxa b’mod raġjonevoli fir-responsabbiltajiet ambjentali tiegħu.

Il-Kostituzzjoni tagħna, fit-tieni kapitlu tagħha fiha diversi dikjarazzjonijiet li permezz tagħhom huma stabiliti diversi miri bażiċi tal-Gvern fosthom dawk ambjentali. Il-miri ambjentali kienu msaħħa riċentement permezz ta’ emenda kostituzzjonali ppreżentata minn José Herrera, dakinnhar Ministru għall-Ambjent. Huma fundamentali għat-tmexxija tal-pajjiż, iżda ma tistax tmur il-Qorti, jekk il-Gvern jonqos milli jimplimenthom. Fil-prattika dan ifisser li dak li tgħid il-Kostituzzjoni dwar l-ambjent ma jiswa’ xejn.  Hu meħtieġ li l-iktar kmieni possibli, s-sitwazzjoni tinbidel kif repetutament emfasizza ADPD kemm fid-diversi manifesti elettorali kif ukoll fis-sottomissjonijiet li ippreżentajna quddiem il-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali li tidher li hi ġġammjata.

Il-PN issa qed jipproponi li l-ambjent għandu jkun meqjus bħala dritt uman fil-kostituzzjoni. Ma nafx x’iridu jgħidu biha din. Naħseb li qed jużaw il-kliem żbaljat għax l-ambjent ma jistax ikun dritt uman. Li probabbilment iridu jgħidu hu li l-aċċess għal ambjent protett għandu jkun garantit bħala dritt uman.  Din hi mira diffiċli għax tfisser, fost oħrajn, li l-PN ikunlu meħtieġ li jibdel il-posizzjoni tiegħu fuq diversi materji biex ikun kredibbli: fuq quddiem nett nistenna li jibdel il-posizzjoni tiegħu dwar il-pjan ta’ razzjonalizzazzjoni tal-2006, anke għall-konsistenza. Ikollna nistennew biex naraw kif ser jiżviluppaw l-argument.

Il-ħarsien ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni fil-fehma tiegħi ghandu jfisser li l-bniedem jirrispetta l-eko-sistema, li tagħha, aħna niffurmaw parti, flimkien mal-pjanti u l-annimali l-oħra.  Għandu jfisser ukoll il-ħarsien tal-bijodiversita, kemm tal-fawna kif ukoll tal-flora, fil-kuntest naturali tagħhom. Ifisser ukoll il-ħarsien tal-ilma tal-pjan li m’għandux jitqies bħala propjetà privata. Ifisser ukoll l-għarfien ikbar tal-valur nazzjonali tal-wirt storiku.

Sfortunatament, il-Kostituzzjoni, filwaqt li tagħraf b’mod dettaljat il-ħtieġa tal-ħarsien tal-propjetà privata tonqos milli tirrikonoxxi s-sinifikat u l-valur intrinsiku tal-eko-sistema, li niffurmaw parti minnha u li hi tagħna lkoll.

Referenza għall-ambjent naturali fil-Kostituzzjoni għandha tkun waħda ekoċentrika u mhux antropoċentrika. Dan ifisser li meta tikkonsidra l-ambjent naturali l-Kostituzzjoni jeħtieġ li tqis il-ħarsien u d-drittijiet tan-natura u l-wirt naturali u mhux drittijiet umani. Huwa essenzjali li nibdew naħsbu bis-serjetà dwar id-drittijiet tan-natura u kif dawn jintrabtu mal-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri li ukoll għandhom dritt li jkollhom arja nadifa biex jieħdu n-nifs, ilma mhux imniġġes u l-possibilità li jgawdu n-natura fl-aspetti kollha tagħha.  Dan hu l-wirt komuni tagħna lkoll u għandna nieħdu ħsiebu.

Ir-referenzi ambjentali fil-Kostituzzjoni tagħna għandhom jassiguraw li wara snin ta’ prietki dwar is-sostenibilità, nistgħu, forsi, nittraduċu dak li nemmnu fih f’għodda legali biex il-Gvernijiet ikunu obbligati li jimplimentaw politika sostenibbli.

Kif inhuma l-affarijiet, illum, il-Kostituzzjoni tipprovdi linji gwida meta titħadded dwar materji ambjentali. Dan, iżda, irriżulta li mhux biżżejjed għax l-ebda wieħed mill-Gvernijiet Maltin mill-1964 sal-lum ma mexa ma’ din il-gwida kostituzzjonali.

Jekk għandna nitgħallmu xi ħaġa mit-taħwd li aħna mdawwri bih hi li t-triq il-quddiem hi li jkollna l-miri ambjentali miktubin b’mod ċar u li dawn jorbtu jdejn il-Gvernijiet.

Li nħaddru l-kostituzzjoni għandu jkun l-ewwel pass fit-triq tal-kisba tal-ordni ambjentali. Fl-aħħar, imma, għandhom ikunu l-Qrati li għandhom ikollhom is-setgħa li jiġbdu widnejn il-Gvern meta dan jonqos milli jagħmel dmiru.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: 4 ta’ Ġunju 2023

Greening the Constitution

Within another ten months, the presidency of George Vella will have come to and end. His enthusiasm for a Constitutional Convention, so far, did not lead to any known tangible results. Covid-19, definitely did not help.

The debate of entrenching environmental protection in the Constitution, thereby reducing or completely removing governmental discretion as to when it can act, is healthy. It signifies recognition that we cannot trust the executive with exercising reasonable discretion, as it has not to date been reasonable in the way it has acted on environmental stewardship.

Let us start at the very beginning. Our Constitution, in its second chapter, contains declaratory provisions which establish a number of basic objectives of government, amongst which the environmental objectives to be attained. The environmental objectives, which were amplified in a recent amendment to the Constitution, moved by then Environment Minister José Herrera, are, in terms of the Constitution itself, fundamental to the governance of the country. They cannot, however, be enforced in a Court of Law. This means that in practice these environmental provisions of the Constitution are for all intents and purposes a dead letter. They need to be enforceable, the soonest, as my party has repeatedly emphasised both in its electoral manifesto in various elections as well as in its submissions to the now stalled Constitutional Convention.

It is now being suggested by the PN that the environment should be a human right entrenched in the Constitution. What does this mean? I think that what has been stated so far is a wrong choice of words. The environment cannot be and is not a human right. What they most probably mean is that access to a protected environment should be a guaranteed human right.  This is a tall order and it signifies that the PN has to reverse a substantial number of its policies in order to be credible: first on the list it needs to reverse its commitment to the 2006 rationalisation plan for consistency. We will wait and see what they really have in mind.

Environmental protection in the Constitution should, in my view, mean ensuring that humans respect the eco-system of which, together with plants and other animals we all form part. It should mean protection of biodiversity, both fauna and flora as well as their habitats. It should also signify the protection of the aquifer as this is not and should not be considered as private property. It also signifies a recognition of the national value of historical heritage.

Unfortunately, the Constitution emphasises in the minutest of details the need to protect private property but then it ignores the significance and the intrinsic value of the eco-system of which we form part and which belongs to all of us.

Reference to the natural environment in the Constitution should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric. This means that when considering the environment, the Constitution should deal with the protection of the rights of nature and not human rights. It is about time that we should start thinking about the rights of nature and link this with the rights of future generations who have a right to breathe unpolluted air and drink unpolluted water and enjoy nature in all its aspects. This is our common heritage and we should handle it with care.

Environmental references in our Constitution should ensure that after years of preaching sustainability we can, maybe, translate our beliefs into legal tools in order that governments are bound to implement sustainable policies.

As things stand the Constitution provides guiding principles when dealing with environmental issues. This has proven to be insufficient as none of the Maltese governments since 1964 has acted in accordance with this constitutional guidance.

If we are to learn anything from the current mess it is that the way forward is to spell out clear environmental objectives which tie the hands of governments.

Greening the Constitution could be a first step in bring our house in order. At the end of the day, however, the Courts must be in a position to be able to instruct government to carry out its duty when it has failed to do so.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 June 2023

It-timbru tal-President

Waqt li inti qiegħed taqra dan l-artiklu, l-Eċċellenza Tiegħu il-President  qiegħed  fir-Renju Unit wara li attenda għall-inawgurazzjoni tal-logħob tal-Commonwealth. Huwa telaq minn Malta nhar l-Erbgħa fil-għodu.

Hekk kif l-ajruplan tal-Air Malta bl-Eċċellenza tiegħu fi triqtu lejn Birmingham inqata’ mill-art, l-Aġent President il-Professor Frank Bezzina kien fl-uffiċċju tal-President qiegħed jiffirma l-liġi bl-emendi tal-IVF. L-istess liġi li Dr Vella kien ilu ġranet sħaħ jirrifjuta li jiffirma.

L-istorja ma tieqafx hawn. Meta l-President, George Vella, irrifjuta li jiffirma huwa mar lil hinn mill-awtorità li tagħtih il-liġi u dan billi hu ma għandu l-ebda diskrezzjoni dwar kif jista’ jaġixxi: għandu jagħti l-kunsens tiegħu bla dewmien. Hekk jistabilixxi l-artiklu 72 tal-Kostituzzjoni tar-Repubblika ta’ Malta.

Anke l-Eċċellenza Tiegħu hu soġġett għal-liġi, f’dan il-każ il-Kostituzzjoni. Li jirrifjuta li jimxi ma dak li tgħid il-liġi, f’dan il-każ il-Kostituzzjoni, hu ksur serjissimu tar-responsabbiltajiet Kostituzzjonali Tiegħu. Fil-fehma tal-partit tiegħi dan hu suffiċjenti biex ikun ikkunsidrat li Dr George Vella jitneħħa mill-kariga ta’ President tar-Repubblika. L-Eċċellenza Tiegħu messu jkun ta’ eżempju dwar kif inbaxxu rasna għas-saltna tad-dritt. Kif nippretendu li ħaddiehor jaqdi dmiru jekk il-Kap tal-iStat jaġixxi b’dan il-mod u jagħti l-agħar eżempju possibli?

Għad baqa’ ċans biex il-Parlament jikkunsidra t-tneħħija ta’ Dr George Vella mill-ħatra u dan minħabba l-imġieba tiegħu li hi kemm inaċċettabbli kif ukoll illegali.

Imma l-Parlament għandu bżonn li jmur lil hinn minn ċensura qawwija ta’ Dr George Vella.  Għandu jikkunsidra fil-fond ir-rwol tal-President tar-Republika. Speċifikament għandu jkun ikkunsidrat li l-President ma għandux ikun sempliċi timbru imma li possibilment ikollu poter li jibgħat lura għand il-Parlament dawk il-liġijiet li fil-fehma tiegħu ma jkunux kompatibbli mal-kostituzzjoni.

Fis-sottomissjonijiet li l-partit li jiena immexxi kien għamel lill-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali konna iffukajna fuq din il-materja, fost affarijiet oħra.  Fid-dokument li ippreżentajna lill-konvenzjoni, fis-sezzjoni intitolata : Il-President tar-Repubblika: ħatra u responsabbiltajiet, il-partit kien ippropona li l-President għandu jkollu id-dritt li jibgħat lura quddiem il-Parlament liġi biex din tkun ikkunsidrata mill-ġdid kemm-il darba fil-fehma tiegħu din il-liġi ma tkunx kompatibbli ma’ dak li tipprovdi l-Kostituzzjoni.  

Il-President, meta jidħol fil-ħatra, jiddikjara li hu/hi ser jiddefendi l-Kostituzzjoni. Imma minkejja li jassumi fuqu dan l-obbligu m’għandux għodda kostituzzjonali biex dan ikun jista’ jagħmlu.  Il-proposta tagħna ilha li ppreżentajniha kważi tlett snin. Biha ipproponejna l-għodda kostituzzjonali meħtieġa  li permezz tagħha l-Eċċellenza Tiegħunil-President ikun jista’ jaġixxi  b’mod responsabbli u bis-saħħa tal-liġi, f’ċirkustanzi serji fejn dan ikun meħtieġ. Konna pproponejna ukoll li jekk il-Parlament ma jibdilx jew jimmodifika il-posizzjoni tiegħu għas-sodisfazzjon tal-President dan ikollu l-possibilità li jibgħat il-liġi in kwistjoni quddiem il-Qorti Kostituzzjonali għal deċiżjoni finali. Hekk isiru l-affarijiet bis-serjetà.

B’dan il-mod l-uffiċċju tal-President ma jibqax sempliċi timbru kostrett li jgħid iva bilfors, inkella jopera barra mill-parametri tal-liġi. Dak li għamel il-President f’dawn il-ġranet hu gravi u setgħet inħolqot kriżi kostituzzjonali. Mhux l-ewwel darba li konna fix-xifer lijinqala’ incident simili. Xi snin ilu President ieħor kien indika (privatament) li ma kienx komdu li jiffirma il-liġi dwar l-Unjoni Ċivili (Att IX tal-2014).  Biex jikkalma s-sitwazzjoni u jevita kriżi Kostituzzjonali l-Gvern ta’ dakinnhar kien ippospona ftit il-vot finali fil-parliament sakemm laħaq inħatar President ġdid. Il-liġi dwar l-Unjoni Ċivili, fil-fatt kienet ġiet iffirmata mill-President nhar is-17 t’April 2014, tlettax-il jum wara li bdiet il-Presidenza ta’ Marie Louise Coleiro-Preca.

Jagħmel tajjeb il-Parliament jekk jikkunsidra din il-materja issa u jikkunsidraha sewwa. Hu essenzjali li l-President tar-Repubblika jkollu l-għodda kostituzzjonali biex ikun jista’ jaħdem b’mod responsabbli u skond il-liġi. Iktar ma dan isir malajr, aħjar.

ippubblikat fuq : Illum: 31 ta’ Lulju 2022

The Presidential rubberstamp

While you are reading through this article, His Excellency President George Vella is in the United Kingdom – after attending for the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. He left these islands on Wednesday morning.

As soon as the Air Malta plane taking His Excellency to Birmingham was in the air, the Acting President Professor Frank Bezzina was at the President’s desk signing into law the IVF amendments. Those same amendments which Dr Vella refused to sign in the days before.

This is not the end of the story. By refusing to give his assent the President, George Vella, acted beyond his authority as in terms of law he had no discretion on the matter: he had to signify his assent without delay, as established by article 72 of the Constitution.

Even His Excellency is subject to the law, in this case the Constitution. His refusal to follow what is prescribed by the law is a serious breach of his Constitutional responsibilities, and, in the view of my party this gives rise to valid reasons to consider the impeachment of Dr George Vella from his Presidential duties. His Excellency should show us the way as to what it means to be subject to the rule of law. How do we expect others to carry out their duties if the Head of State acts in this way: the worst possible example?

There is still time for Parliament to consider impeachment proceedings against Dr George Vella and remove him from office in view of his unacceptable and illegal behaviour.

Parliament needs, however, to go beyond clearly censuring Dr George Vella. It is essential to consider in some depth the role of the President of the Republic. Specifically, it should consider whether the President should be just a rubberstamp or else whether he or she should have limited powers of review over Parliament’s legislative authority.

In submissions which the party that I lead presented to the Constitutional Convention we focused on this specific matter, among other issues. In a section of the document submitted to the Convention, entitled, The President of the Republic: appointment and responsibilities, my party proposed that the President should have the right to send legislation back to Parliament for its reconsideration, if, in his view such legislation runs counter to the provisions of the Constitution.

The President, on assuming office, declares that he/she will do all it takes to defend the Constitution. He/she is not however equipped with any (constitutional) tools with which to carry out his responsibilities. The Green proposal presented almost three years ago for the consideration of the Constitutional Convention identifies an essential tool with which His Excellency the President can act responsibly within the parameters of the law. We further proposed that should Parliament refuse to budge the President should refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a final decision.  This is the manner in which the Presidency should function. Much better than the present-day theatrics.

In this manner the President’s office would not be a mere rubberstamp, constrained to assent or else act outside the parameters of the law.  The President’s actions in the past days conveyed the worst possible message. It almost happened some years ago when another President had (privately) indicated that he would not assent to legislation relative to Civil Unions (Act IX of 2014). In order to avert a Constitutional crisis government had then slightly delayed the final vote in parliament, timing it with the swearing in of a new President. The Civil Unions Act was in fact signed on the 17 April 2014, just thirteen days into the Presidency of Marie Louise Coleiro-Preca.

Parliament would do well to consider the issue further. It is essential that the President of the Republic is adequately equipped with the necessary constitutional tools in order that he can carry out his duties in a responsible manner and within the parameters of the law. The sooner this is done, the better.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 31 July 2022

L-uġiegħ ta’ ras tal-President tar-Repubblika

Il-President George Vella ma iffirmax il-liġi li taġġorna l-liġi tal-IVF għax għandu riżervi kbar dwarha.

Dan hu normali u mhiex xi ħaġa ġdida.

Il-Kostituzzjoni kif inhi illum, imma, ma tagħtihx il-fakolta li joqgħod jaħsibha għax tobbligah li jiffirma l-liġi bla dewmien. Hu għalhekk li l-bieraħ kont kritiku tal-President u tkellimt dwar proposta li għandu jitneħħa mill-kariga.

Il-partit li jiena immexxi diġa ippubblika soluzzjoni possibli għal din il-kriżi, li bla dubju, issa li nħoloq l-ewwel każ ser tirrepeti ruħha f’ċirkustanzi oħra li għad iridu jinqalgħu.

Fid-dokument li ippreżentajna lill-konvenzjoni kostituzzjonali konna għamilna proposta ċara li biex iħares u jiddefendi l-Kostituzzjoni kif stabilit fil-ġurament tal-ħatra, il-President għandu jkollu is-setgħa li, kemm-il darba jkun hemm dubju serju dwar il-kostituzzjonalità ta’ xi liġi approvata mill-Parlament, jibgħat lura quddiem l-istess Parlament il-liġi in kwistjoni biex din tkun ikkunsidrata mill-ġdid.

Din il-proposta ilna li għamilniha u għadha valida sal-lum.

Min irid jaqra id-dettalji dwarha jagħfas hawn u jmur fis-sezzjoni 12 intitolata: Il-President tar-Repubblika: ħatra u responsabbiltajiet. (paġna 15 sa 18).

Issa li ħareġ ir-riżultat finali tal-elezzjoni!

F’dawn il-mumenti li qed joħorġu l-aħħar riżultati qed issir magħrufa l-komposizzjoni tal-Parlament.

Il-Parlament issa hu magħmul minn 79 membru parlamentari.

Ir-riforma li saret setgħet tat riżultati aħjar. Minflok kompliet għaffġet.

Għal uħud, li daħlu fil-Parlament 12-il mara bil-mekkaniżmu tal-ġeneru hu mument ta’ ċelebrazzjoni.

Naħseb li mhux. Anzi hu mument ta’ negazzjoni tal-proċess demokratiku.

Mhux qed nikkritika l-fatt li l-Parlament aġxxa biex jindirizza l-iżbilanċ tal-ġeneru fil-komposizzjoni tal-Parlament wara l-elezzjoni. Il-kritika tiegħi u tal-partit li mmexxi hi iffukata fuq il-mod kif dan sar.

Il-Parlament spiċċa biex raqqa’ s-sistema elettorali b’mod li sistema elettorali mimlija difetti saret agħar milli kienet.

Il-Partit Laburista illum ghandu 38+ 6 = 44 siġġu parlamentari u l-Partit Nazzjonalista illum ghandu 27+ 2+ 6 = 35 siġġu parlamentari : b’kollox 79.

Il-Partit Laburista kiseb 162,707 voti fl-ewwel għadd: jiġifieri kull wieħed mill-44 siġġu parlamentari tal-PL qed jirrappreżenta 3698 vot. Il-Partit Nazzjonalista kiseb 123,233 vot fl-ewwel għadd: jiġifieri kull wieħed mill-35 siġġu parlamentari tal-PN qed jirrappreżenta 3521 vot.

L-ADPD fl-ewwel għadd kisbet 4747 voti. Bl-istess kejl li l-PN u l-PL qed japplikaw għalihom infushom aħna għandna dritt għal siġġu parlamentari aħna ukoll. Dik hi r-realtà tar-riforma li trodd il-proporzjonalità lill-PLPN u iċċaħħadha lill-bqija.

Kien hemm soluzzjonijiet oħra li kienu jirrispettaw il-volontà tal-elettorat. Sfortunatamanet dawn ġew skartati. Fid-dokument li ippreżentajna għall-konsiderazzjoni tal-kovenzjoni kostituzzjonali kif ukoll fis-sottomissjonijiet fil-proċess konsultattiv dwar kif għandu jkun indirizzat l-iżbilanċ tal-ġeneru fil-parlament repetutament għidna li hu possibli li jkollna parlament ta’ 65 membru, li jirrappreżenta proporzjonalment lill-elettorat li jagħżlu kif ukoll li jkun iktar rappreżentattiv tal-ġeneri. Imma dejjem sibna l-bibien magħluqin. Ħadd ma ried jiddiskuti.

Soluzzjoni ġusta tirrikjedi tibdil sostanzjali u mhux li tipprova temmen li solvejt problema billi toħloq oħra. Imma hemm wasalna illum!

Riforma tal-Parlament

Il-Prim Ministru ilu jinki lill-opinjoni pubblika dwar meta ser ikun xolt il-Parlament kif ukoll dwar meta ser tissejjaħ l-elezzjoni ġenerali.

Imma Robert Abela kien ikkwotat jgħid ukoll li sa Ġunju 2022 ikun għadda kollox!

Kif inhuma  l-affarijiet illum, hi responsabbiltà kostituzzjonali tal-Prim Ministru dwar meta jkun xolt il- Parlament kif ukoll dwar meta tissejjaħ elezzjoni ġenerali.  Dan jagħmlu billi jagħti parir dwar dan lill-President tar-Republika.  Ħafna drabi nassumu li dawn it-tip ta’ deċiżjonijiet jittieħdu fl-interess nazzjonali avolja hu ċar daqs il-kristall li hu l-interess tal-partit fil-Gvern li jiddetermina kollox: dejjem.  Miżura li ssaħħaħ il-posizzjoni tal-Gvern qabel u waqt l-elezzjoni: the power of incumbency.

Dan mhux sewwa u għandu jinbidel kif inbidlu bosta affarijiet oħra.

Il-partit li immexxi qajjem dan il-punt fis-sottomissjonijiet li għamilna quddiem il-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali: konvenzjoni li, dejjem ġejja, imma qatt ma tasal!

Hu propost li t-terminu tal-Parlament ikun wieħed fiss u li l-Prim Ministru ma jkollu l-ebda diskrezzjoni dwar kif u meta dan ikun xolt.  Fil-prattika kemm l-Istati Uniti kif ukoll il-parti l-kbira tal-Ewropa kontinentali għandhom Parlament b’terminu fiss. Anke r-Renju Unit, meta kienet immexxija mill-koalizzjoni bejn il-partit Liberali u dak Konservattiv, ftit snin ilu, introduċiet leġislazzjoni għal Parlament b’terminu fiss.

F’dan il-kuntest tajjeb li jkun emfasizzat ukoll li t-terminu ta’ ħames snin għall-Parlament huwa ftit twil. Dan ma kienx dejjem hekk. Meta twaqqaf il-Parlament Malti għall-ewwel darba fl-1921, mitt sena ilu, il-ħajja tal-Parlament kienet ta’ tlett snin. Sal-lum il-ġurnata, l-Parlament Federali Awstraljan għadu jkun elett kull tlett snin. Il-Kamra tar-Rappresentanti tal-Istati Uniti min-naħa l-oħra tkun eletta kull sentejn.

X’uħud jistgħu jkunu tal-fehma li għall-Parlament, tul ta’ sentejn jew tlieta bejn elezzjoni u oħra huma ftit wisq. Għal min qiegħed fil-Gvern, ħames snin jistgħu jkun perjodu addattat. Imma għal min qiegħed fl-Opposizzjoni hu twil wisq! Tlett snin hu perjodu ferm iktar addattat.

Il-Parlament għandu ħtieġa ukoll ta’ membri li xogħolhom ikun biss dak ta’ membri tal-parlament u li ma jagħmlu xejn iktar. Hemm bżonn ukoll li n-numru ta’ membri tal-parlament jonqos għax in-numru li għandna illum hu kbir wisq.  Membru Parlamentari full-time jaqta’ għal kollox kull kuntatt ma xogħol u/jew professjoni u bħala riżultat ta’ hekk inaqqas sostanzjalment il-possibiltà ta’ kunflitt ta’ interess meta jkun f’posizzjoni li jieħu kwalunkwe deċiżjoni.

Id-daqs tal-lum tal-Parlament, jiġifieri dak ta’ 65 membru parlamentari, kien determinat bħala riżultat tal-emendi kostituzzjonali tal-1974.  Imma dan, illum il-ġurnata, sa mill-1987, mhux id-daqs definittiv għax miegħu jistgħu jiżdiedu iktar bħala riżultat tal-applikazzjoni tal-mekkaniżmu kostituzzjonali tal-proporzjonalità.   Jista’ jiżdiedu iktar ukoll, bi tnax-il membru ieħor riżultat tal-miżuri kostituzzjonali ġodda dwar il-bilanċ tal-ġeneru, jekk dawn ikunu applikati.

Il-Parlament li jmiss, għaldaqstant, jista’ jkunu kbir mhux ħażin jekk jintużaw kemm il-mekkaniżmu dwar il-proporzjonalità kif ukoll dak dwar il-bilanċ tal-ġeneru. Jista’ jkun daqs li jikber sa 77 membru u possibilment anke sa 81 membru. Dan hu enormi għall-pajjiżna.

Is-sistema elettorali, li ż-żewġ partiti fil-Parlament ilhom ibgħabsu għal żmien twil, tipprovdi għal riżultat proporjonali u b’element korrettiv favur il-bilanċ bejn il-ġeneri meta fil-Parlament ikunu eletti żewġ partiti politiċi biss. Meta jkun elett it-tielet partit dawn il-mekkaniżmi kostituzzjonali dwar il-proporzjonalità u l-bilanċ tal-ġeneru ma jistgħux jaħdmu. Hemm biss eċċezzjoni waħda. Din tkun fil-kaz ta’partit politiku li jikseb iktar minn 50 fil-mija tal-voti fl-ewwel għadd fuq livell nazzjonali. Dan ikollu dejjem il-jedd li jiggverna billi jkun allokat is-siġġijiet neċessarji għal dan l-iskop.  

Hemm numru ta’ soluzzjonijiet alternattivi li kieku ġew applikati kien ikun possibli li l-Parlament tagħna jkollu bilanċ aħjar bejn il-ġeneri u proporzjonalità mingħajr ma jikber fid-daqs.  Dawn is-soluzzjonijiet, imma, ġew skartati kompletament. Dan għax ir-riforma kellha dejjem l-iskop li toħloq l-inqas tibdil possibli. Tibdil kosmetiku fl-istil tal-Gattopardo: tibdil li jħalli kollox kif kien!

Dan hu l-Parlament tagħna. Jeħtieġ li jinbidel mill-qiegħ.   

ippubblikat fuq Illum : il-Ħadd 13 ta’ Frar 2022

Reforming Parliament

The Prime Minister has been teasing public opinion for some time as to when Parliament will be dissolved and when we will consequently be proceeding to the next general election.

Robert Abela has been quoted as stating that it will definitely be over by June 2022.

As things stand, at this point in time, it is within the Constitutional prerogative of the Prime Minister to determine when Parliament is dissolved and a general election held. This he does by advising the President of the Republic accordingly. It is generally assumed that such decisions are taken in the national interest even though it is amply clear that it is always in the interest of the political party in power. It reinforces the power of incumbency.

Is this right? Should it remain so?

My party has raised this matter in its submissions to the Constitutional Convention which Convention has been pending for a number of years!

It is being proposed that Parliament should be a fixed-term Parliament and that the Prime Minister should have no discretion whatsoever in dissolving Parliament.  In practice both the United States as well as most of continental Europe have fixed-term Parliaments. Even the United Kingdom, some years ago, led by a Liberal-Conservative coalition, introduced legislation for a Parliament having a fixed-term.

Within this context it would be also pertinent to emphasise that a five-year term is a little bit too long. This was not always so. When Malta’s Parliament was originally established in 1921, 100 years ago, it had a three-year life span. The Australian Federal Parliament in this day and age is still elected every three years. The United States House of Representatives on the other hand is elected every two years.

Some could argue that a two- or three-year life span for parliament would be too short. Five years may be right for those governing. It is however too long for those in Opposition! A three-year term could be the right balance.

Parliament also needs fulltime MPs and probably less of them. A fulltime member of parliament would cut off completely all of his/her links with profession and/or employment and as a result substantially reduce instances of conflict of interest when faced with decision taking.

Parliament’s present size of 65 members was determined as a result of the 1974 Constitutional amendments. Since 1987, it is however not a definite size, as it is increased as a result of the constitutional adjustment mechanism for proportionality. It will be increased by a further twelve members if the newly introduced constitutional gender balance requirements are applied.

The next Parliament could be quite large if both the proportionality and gender balance adjustment mechanisms are in use. It could inflate to a size between 77 and 81 members! This is enormous for a country our size.

The electoral system, which the two parties currently in parliament have been tinkering with for ages, provides for proportionality and gender balance only if just two parties are elected into Parliament. If a third party is elected, both the constitutional provisions for proportionality and gender balance will not be activated. There is just one exception and this is relative to the political party which obtains more than 50 per cent of the votes on a national level: in such an instant, irrespective of the number of political parties making it to Parliament the party having an absolute majority of votes is ensured of having the parliamentary seats required for governing.

There are a number of alternative solutions available which make it possible for our Parliament to be both gender-balanced and proportional without any increase in its size. These solutions have however been completely discarded as the “reform” brief was always to change as little as possible. Cosmetic change is the order of the day in Gattopardo style: change which leaves everything the same.

Such is the state of our parliament. It needs a complete overhaul, which is long overdue.  

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 13 February 2022

It-timbru tal-President tar-Repubblika

L-aħħar diskors tal-President, f’Għawdex fl-okkazjoni ta’ Jum ir-Repubblika, juri President inkwetat għax in-nies kienu qed jgħidulu biex ma jiffirmax il-liġi, approvata mill-Parlament, dwar l-użu responsabbli tal-cannabis.

Il-President George Vella, inkwetat, wieġeb, korrettement, li hu m’għandux dan il-poter li ma jiffirmax liġi approvata mill-Parlament. Għax hu l-Parlament li għandu l-poter demokratiku. Jekk il-President għax tniggżu l-kuxjenza ma jridx jiffirma, ikollu jwarrab, u jiffirma l-President li jilħaq ftit siegħat warajh.

Id-diffikultà, naħseb jien, hi li għal dawn l-aħħar snin qed ikollna President li jparla ħafna. President li qed jikkummenta fuq diversi materji ta’ kontroversja. Hu inevitabbli allura li jekk il-Presidenza tibqa’ tgħaddi l-kummenti ser tibqa’ l-pressjoni fuqha biex taġixxi mod u mhux mod ieħor.

Tajjeb li il-President tar-Repubblika jkun iktar minn timbru.

Fil-fatt fil-proċess konsultattiv dwar ir-riforma Kostituzzjonali, Alternattiva Demokratika, illum ADPD, ippreżentat proposti prattiċi dwar kif u f’liema ċirkustanzi l-President jista’ ma jiffirmax liġi u jibgħatha lura għand il-Parlament biex dan jikkunsidrha mill-ġdid.

Għax il-President tar-Repubblika m’għandux ikun timbru għal dak li jagħmel jew irid jagħmel il-Gvern.

Id-dokument li nirreferi għalih dwar ir-riforma kostituzzjonali tista’ tarawh hawn.