Is-saħħa ta’ kull vot: għodda għall-bidla

Il-vot li għandu kull wieħed minna hu b’saħħtu ħafna: ferm iktar milli naħsbu. Fis-sistema elettorali tagħna il-vot hu trasferibbli: jgħaddi mingħand kandidat għall-ieħor. Dan minħabba li aħna nagħmlu użu minn sistema ta’ preferenzi, waħda wara l-oħra. Is-sistema elettorali tagħna fil-fatt tissejjaħ single transferable vote (STV), vot singlu transferibbli.

Dan ifisser li aħna nibdew billi nagħtu l-ewwel preferenza lill-kandidat li nippreferu. Wara nkomplu nagħtu iktar preferenzi lil kandidati l-oħra. B’hekk il-vot tagħna, jekk ikun hemm waqt li ma jkunx qed jintuża mill-kandidat preferut tagħna, jkun jista’ jgħaddi fuq il-kandidat li jkollu it-tieni preferenza. Jekk ikun hemm bżonn imbagħad il-vot jibqa’ jintiret minn min ikollu preferenza iktar l-isfel ukoll. Hekk jiġri fl-elezzjonijiet kollha li jsiru f’dan il-pajjiż.

Imma mhux kulħadd jagħmel użu mill-preferenzi wara l-unu bl-istess mod. Hemm min jagħti preferenzi lil kandidati ta’ partit wieħed biss u jinjoraw lill-bqija. Hemm min jinjora anke parti mil-lista tal-partit li jappoġġa. Hi għażla li issir minn kull votant: għażla li jagħmlu bi dritt.

Hemm min, min-naħa l-oħra, ma jagħtix preferenzi lill-kandidati ta’ partit wieħed biss, iżda, wara li jagħżel il-kandidat jew kandidati preferuti tiegħu jagħżel ukoll lil dawk li jidhirlu li huma l-aħjar fost il-bqija u jagħtihom preferenza ukoll, skond kif jidhirlu li hu xieraq. Billi l-vot jgħaddi mingħand kandidat/i ta’ partit għal għand kandidat/i ta’ partit ieħor insejħulu “cross-party voting”.

Il-partiti l-kbar ma jaqblux mal-“cross-party voting” għax dan il-mod ta’ kif tivvota idgħajjef is-saħħa tagħhom. Fil-fatt huma jiskuraġixxu lil dawk li jappoġġawhom biex jevitaw il-“cross party voting”. F’kull elezzjoni l-partiti l-kbar u l-kandidati tagħhom ifesfsu u jgħidu fil-widnejn li jekk il-vot iħallat kandidati minn partiti differenti, ikun ħażin u ma jgħoddx. Jagħmlu dan biex inaqqsu t-telf possibli ta’ voti tagħhom bejn għadd u ieħor. Aħna bħala ADPD min-naħa l-oħra dejjem inkoraġġejna lill-votanti li possibilment jivvutaw u jagħtu valur lil kull kandidat li jkollhom quddiemhom. Għax hu b’dan il-mod li nistgħu bħala pajjiż ikollna l-aħjar rappresentanti.

Fil-fatt hemm numru mhux żgħir minn dawk li jivvutaw lill-ADPD li jkomplu l-vot tagħhom fuq partiti oħra. Il-persentaġġ ta’ dan ivarja minn elezzjoni għall-oħra. Ivarja anke bejn distrett u ieħor jew lokalità u oħra. Għalkemm hu persentaġġ li jvarja pero ġeneralment ikun madwar it-33 fil-mija: jiġifieri wieħed minn kull tlett votanti li jagħtu l-vot tagħhom lill-ADPD, wara, jkomplu fuq kandidati ta’ partiti oħra. Mhux l-ewwel darba, f’elezzjoni akkanita, li dawn il-voti iddeterminaw min jitla’.

Dan hu tajjeb u juri kemm hu b’saħħtu l-vot individwali. Hu mod matur kif tintuża s-saħħa tal-vot u kif ikun assigurat li l-vot jibqa’ effettiv l-iktar possibli tul il-proċess elettorali. Dan kollu għandna mhux biss nirrispettawh: fuq kollox għandna ninkuraġġuh għax jagħmel il-ġid lill-pajjiż.

Qed ngħid dan fid-dawl tal-kandidatura tiegħi għall-elezzjoni każwali li ser issir għada it-Tnejn 14 ta’ Novembru 2022 wara li Albert Buttiġieġ irreżenja mill-Kunsill Lokali ta’ San Ġiljan, in vista tal-elezzjoni tiegħu bħala Membru Parlamentari.

Nhar l-Erbgħa li għaddew tfajt in-nominazzjoni tiegħi b’rispett lejn kull votant, b’mod partikolari dawk li ma jħossuhomx ristretti dwar kif għandhom jivvutaw. Bħala partit politiku, l-partit li jiena mmexxi dejjem saħaq li l-vot hu b’saħħtu biżżejjed biex jintuża lil hinn mil-limiti artifiċjali mposti mill-partiti politiċi ewlenin. Kuntrarju għall-partiti politiċi l-oħra aħna dejjem inkoraġġejna li l-vot ma jkunx eserċitat b’mod restrittiv iżda b’mod li jagħti apprezzament lill-kandidati kollha lil hinn mill-kulur politiku li miegħu huma assoċjati.

Il-votanti li jaġixxu b’dan il-mod, li ma jħallux lil min jirrestrinġihom, jixirqilhom kull rispett għax qed jisfidaw lis-sistema li tipprova toħnoqhom. Għal din ir-raġuni ma nistax nonqos milli nikkontesta l-elezzjoni każwali, anke jekk il-possibilitajiet għalija naf li huma limitati. Li nikkontesta f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi hu obbligu.

Biex jagħżlu l-kandidati preferuti tagħhom, uħud mill-votanti jaqilbu l-vot tagħhom minn partit għall-ieħor skond kif jidhrilhom li hu l-aħjar. Fil-fatt, meta ġew mgħaduda l-voti fl-elezzjoni tal-2019 għall-Kunsill Lokali ta’ San Ġiljan, fit-tieni għadd tal-voti, 6.33% tal-voti miksuba mill-kandidat Albert Buttigieg kienu jkomplu fuq partiti li mhumiex il-partit li miegħu hu ikkontesta. Dan hu rifless fil-mod kif tqassmu l-voti ż-żejda li kellu Albert Buttiġieġ. Hu probabbli ħafna li dan jirrepeti ruħu anke fl-għadd waqt l-elezzjoni każwali, kif, wara kollox, jiġri diversi drabi fl-elezzjonijiet lokali u anke sa ċertu punt, f’elezzjonijiet oħra.

Kif inhuma mqassma l-voti li hemm fil-pakketti li jiffurmaw il-kwota elettorali ta’ Albert Buttiġieġ, jiena ma nafx. Ma nafx jekk hemmx biżżejjed minnhom biex jagħmlu differenza. In-numri huma żgħar ħafna, ma hemmx eluf involuti: il-kwota sħiħa fil-fatt fiha biss 390 vot. Il-kwota meħtieġa għall-elezzjoni każwali ser tkun ta’ 196 vot.

Ir-riżultat jista’ jkun determinat minn kemm hu kbir in-numru ta’ votanti li għarfu s-saħħa kbira li għandu l-vot tagħhom u għamlu użu minnha. Uħud minnhom wara li ivvutaw lill-kandidati tal-PN, il-partit li ppreżenta l-kandidatura ta’ Albert Buttiġieġ, għaddew il-preferenza tagħħom fuq kandidati ta’ partiti oħra, inkluż possibilment fuqi. Oħrajn għażlu possibilitajiet oħra dwar kif ivarjaw il-preferenzi tagħhom, jekk dehrilhom li dan kien meħtieġ.

Dan hu is-sabiħ tas-sistema elettorali tagħna li mhux dejjem napprezzaw biżżejjed. F’dan il-kuntest il-vot tagħna jsir għodda pożittiva għall-bidla.

Hu l-għarfien u r-rispett lejn dan il-proċess li minnu jgħaddu uħud mill-votanti li wassalni biex nieħu pass li ġie deskritt bħala pass politiku mhux tas-soltu: li nikkontesta elezzjoni każwali li tirriżulta minn vakanza kkawżata minn kandidat ta’ partit politku ieħor.

Irrispettivament minn xi jkun ir-riżultat, inbaxxi rasi, bħal dejjem quddiem ir-rieda tal-votant.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: Il-Ħadd 13 ta’ Novembru 2022

Our vote: a powerful instrument for change

Our vote is much more powerful than we can ever imagine. Our electoral system provides for a transferability of the votes cast through a system of preferences. Our electoral system is in fact known as the single transferable vote (STV).

This means that we cast our vote by indicating the candidate which gets our first preference by denoting the number one next to his/her name. Subsequently we continue with other consecutive preferences. As a result, if at any point our preferred candidate does not require our vote, this proceeds to being utilised by the candidate which we indicate as our second preference. If required the vote can even move on to being utilised by candidates which we would have indicated as being our additional but later preferences. This happens all the time during all the elections organised in this country.

There is no uniform way as to how voters proceed to determine their voting preferences. After identifying the first preference some limit themselves to assigning their preferences to the candidates of just one political party, ignoring the rest. Some limit themselves to a couple of names on one party list and ignore the rest.

Others, pick and choose across party lines. Hence the term “cross-party voting”. Every voter has this right: some use it, others are not even aware of its availability.

The Parliamentary parties are not enthusiastic about “cross-party voting” except when they benefit directly. They consider that it dilutes their strength. In fact, they continuously seek to discourage such a practice by spreading around the admonition, during election time, that this practice could invalidate your vote! This is done to reduce, as much as possible, voter leakage.

On the other hand, ADPD has always encouraged cross-party voting as such a practice genuinely gives value to every candidate on the ballot paper. This is the manner which can help us elect the best possible representatives wherever they are needed.

In fact, some of those who vote ADPD tend to vote across party lines habitually. The percentage of those who vote in this manner varies from one election to another. It also varies by district and locality. Around 33 per cent of ADPD voters, on average, identify preferences on the ballot paper which go beyond green candidates. At times the preferences they select have had a determining effect on the result.

This goes to show the strength and impact of each individual vote. It is the mature way to use your vote thereby ensuring that it is effective for as long as possible throughout the electoral cycle.  We should not only respect those who act in this manner: their behaviour should be encouraged as it delivers good results for all.

All this is being stated to explain why I have submitted my candidature for the casual election due tomorrow Monday 14 November 2022 as a result of Albert Buttiġieġ resigning from the St Julian’s Local Council  after being elected as a Member of Parliament.

Last Wednesday I submitted my nomination as a sign of respect towards all St Julian’s voters, and in particular those who have unchained themselves from partisan prejudice and voted accordingly.  The political party which I lead has always maintained that our vote can and should be utilised beyond the artificial limitations which the parliamentary political parties seek to impose. Contrary to the stand taken by the parliamentary parties we have always encouraged that voting is carried out in a non-restrictive manner such that it is possible to value all candidates without being hampered by their political allegiance.

Voters who act in this manner, refusing to be restricted in the manner in which they exercise their voting rights deserve to be respected. In these circumstances not contesting a casual election is not an option for me, even though I am aware that the possibilities are limited. In these circumstances contesting is a duty.

In selecting their preferred candidates some of the voters switch their vote from one political party to another. When the votes for the 2019 St Julians Local Council elections were counted, at second count stage it resulted that 6.33% of the votes obtained by candidate Albert Buttigieg had their second preference assigned to candidates of the other political parties. This is reflected in the manner in which the surplus votes of Albert Buttiġieġ were distributed. Most probably this will be repeated during the casual election counting process. In fact, it happens continuously during other elections as well.

I am not aware as to what lies in store in the sealed packets containing the electoral quota of Albert Buttiġieġ. The numbers involved are small: the full quota contains just 390 votes. The quota for the casual election will therefore be 196 votes.

The casual election result may be determined by the number of voters who decide to make full use of the power of their vote. Some have, most probably, first voted for all the PN candidates and thereafter proceeded to vote for one or more of the candidates presented by the other political parties, including yours truly.  Others will have selected other options.

This is the strength of our electoral system which is not always appreciated. In this context our vote is a tool for positive change.

We need to respect our voters, knowing what they go through to express their preferences for political change through their vote.  These voters motivate me in my political work, including in the decision to contest this casual election which has been described as an unusual political step.

Irrespective of the result I am humbled by the experience, and as always submit myself to the will of the voters.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 13 November 2022

Is-sistema elettorali u l-co-options

Fil-gazzetti u fil-media soċjali bħalissa għaddejja spekulazzjini dwar x’ser jiġri biex jimtela s-siġġu Parlamentari battal wara ir-riżenja tat-Tabib Silvio Grixti, Membru Parlamentari f’isem il-Partit Laburista.

Diġa kelli l-opportunità, kważi sena ilu, nikkummenta fuq il-co-option ta’ Oliver Scicluna, baħbuħ, li flimkien ma oħrajn sab ruħu l-Parlament mibgħajr s’issa qatt ma ikkontesta elezzjoni.

Il-co-options li saru f’din il-leġislatura, fil-parti l-kbira tagħhom, huma abbuż tas-sistema. L-unika co-option ġusta kienet dik ta’ Kevin Cutajar li daħal fil-Parlament flok l-MP Għawdxi David Stellini. Imma anke hawn għal ftit għax il-PN mhux lilu ried jippreżenta għall-co-option, imma kellu jbaxxi rasu minħabba rewixxta li kien hemm fil-Partit.

Għal darba oħra ħadd ma tefa in-nomina għall-by-election. Issa “skond ir-regoli” il-partit jagħmel li jrid.

Ilna ngħidu, u dejjem ikun iktar ċar minn qatt qabel li hemm bżonn ta’ tibdila mill-qiegħ tas-sistema elettorali. S’issa, kull ma kellna ftit traqqiegħ ‘l hawn u ‘l hemm. Għall-PLPN is-sistema elettorali hi tal-lastku, tiġġebbed kemm hemm bżonn biex taqdi l-ħtiġijiet tagħhom. It-tnejn li huma ġebbdu kemm felħu fis-sistema sakemm qdiethom. L-unika ħaġa li ma jridux jagħmlu hu t-tibdil meħtieg biex din tkun ġusta.

Ma’ Reno Bugeja: lil hinn mill-bebbux

Reno ġurnalista b’esperjenza li għandi kull rispett lejh. Ikun ippreparat sewwa biex ikun jista’ jindirizza l-argument quddiemu.

L-intervista kienet iffukata fuq l-ADPD u l-futur tiegħu. X’inhi r-raġuni għall-fatt li minkejja dawn is-snin kollha għadna partit żgħir?

Tul l-intervista Reno, b’sengħa, kontinwament ipprovokani biex joħroġ l-argumenti u l-ispjegazzjonijiet tiegħi.

Il-ħin ma taraħx għaddej għax l-argumenti jintiżġu flimkien b’ħeffa kbira b’mod li sat-tmiem jidher quddiemek mużajk ta’ argumenti li jagħti stampa ċara.

Id-diffikultajiet li niffaċċjaw huma essenzjalment tnejn.

L-ewwel hemm sistema elettorali li tul is-snin fittxet dejjem li tikkonsolida l-ħakma ta’ żewġ partiti fuq il-pajjiż u l-istituzzjonijiet tiegħu.

It-tieni hemm il-frammentazzjoni. Dawk li jaħsbuha bħalna huma mifruxa. Tul is-snin dejjem kien hemm diffikulta biex ninġabru flimkien. L-għaqda bejn l-Alternattiva Demokratika u l-Partit Demokratiku f’dan is-sens kien pass kbir il-quddiem. Ovvjament hemm ħafna iktar xi jsir biex l-ilħna progressivi jinġabru flimkien.

L-intervista serviet biex nispjega ukoll il-kuntrast politiku tagħna ma dak tal-partiti l-oħra.

Tkellimt ftit dwar l-ambjent. Emfasizzajt li l-ambjent għalina jmur lil hinn mill-apprezzament tal-bebbux, id-dud u l-fjuri. L-apprezzament u l-ħarsien tal-ekoloġija huwa importanti ħafna f’ħidmietna. Imma l-ħarsien tal-ambjent ifisser ukoll il-ħarsien u t-titjib fil-kwalità tal-ħajja, tagħna u tal-ġenerazzjonijiet ta’ warajna.

Tkellimna fit-tul, madwar 40 minuta.

Issibu l-ħsibijiet dwar kif il-pajjiż qed isir dipendenti fuq l-evażjoni tat-taxxa. Nafferma għal darba oħra li l-iskema tal-bejgħ taċ-ċittadinanza mhiex aċċettabbli għalina. Hi prostituzzjoni tal-pajjiż.

Hemm ukoll kummenti dwar l-abort u kif dan fil-prattika diġa qed isir fl-isptar Mater Dei.

Il-ħidma politika tagħna tkompli. Pass pass nimxu l-quddiem.

Constitutional top-ups: a democratic deficit

Earlier this week Parliament started discussing Bill 119, proposing constitutional amendments “to ensure de facto equality between men and women in politics”.  A very noble aim which all progressive politicians share. Unfortunately, in addressing the issue of equality between men and women in politics Bill 119 creates another problem: it goes about it in a discriminatory fashion. It discriminates against third parties through excluding them almost completely.

Bill 119 aims to top-up the number of elected members of parliament by a total of not more than twelve additional MPs through a process identifying unelected electoral candidates from the minority gender when the general electoral process has been concluded. The minority gender being that which has a representation below 40 per cent of the total number of elected MPs.

Clause 3 of the Bill starts immediately on the wrong foot. It lays down that the provisions of the gender top-up based constitutional amendments under consideration are only applicable in general elections “in which only candidates of two parties are elected”.

This wording is a cut-and-paste from another Constitutional top-up which was introduced in 1987 and fine-tuned throughout the years through a number of constitutional amendments relating to proportionality. Even then the constitutional solution was based on a basic discriminatory premise that it is only applicable if candidates of two political parties are elected to Parliament.

It is proposed by Bill 119 that the additional MPs “are to be apportioned equally by the absolute majority party or the relative majority party and the minority party”.

As has been emphasised many times, the proportionality Constitutional top-up, while ensuring majority rule, has created a democratic deficit in our Constitution in view of the fact that it is generally not operative when more than two political parties make it to Parliament. The gender balance top-up, faithfully follows in its footsteps. An existing democratic deficit is being made even worse.

The day when a third party makes it to Parliament on its own steam is fast-approaching. When that day comes, and it may be close, a Constitutional crisis may arise due to myopic legal drafting. This basic (intentional) error has been repeated in the Constitutional amendments under consideration by Parliament at this point in time.

I was surprised when I noted that during the Parliamentary debate, earlier this week, Opposition MP Herman Schiavone gave notice of amendments to address the gender top-up Bill. His proposals are an excellent first step but, in my view, they are not enough as they do not address all the possibilities that may arise when eventually the provision is to be applied. The matter can be explored further when the actual amendments are debated, at which point possible solutions can be explored.

The matter was also emphasised in Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition, possibly indicating that the PN has now changed strategy and has thrown away its previous policy of trying to cannibalise third parties which have the potential to make it to Parliament. A cannibalisation exercise which has been heavily resisted by the Maltese Greens throughout the years.

When the proposal for the gender Constitutional top-ups was published for public consultation, the Maltese Greens had participated and published a document outlining possible alternatives. One cannot keep patching up our electoral system. A fresh holistic revision is needed which will address both the proportionality and the gender representation issues. A possible solution exists through the use of party electoral lists which need be gender balanced. This is already done in various other countries.

We did not receive any reaction to our proposal. The Commission entrusted with examining the matter did not seek to meet us to explore alternative potential solutions. Unfortunately, the Commission too was trapped in a two-party frame of mind and consequently it concluded its exercise by adopting a solution which further reinforces the existing democratic deficit in the Constitution.

The setting up of such obstructions make our life more difficult as it increases unnecessary and artificial obstacles which seek to complicate the political work of third parties. This is not just unfortunate: it lays bare the “democratic credentials” of government and its advisors.

published in the Malta Independent on Sunday : 17 January 2021

Lessons from Ireland : cross party voting

Following the counting process of the Irish General Election was a pleasant experience. Ireland too, like Malta, makes use of the Single Transferable vote.

Once more, the Irish voter made an intelligent use of his/her vote and elected a Parliament with a plurality of political parties as well as independents. When the counting process was concluded 8 different political parties and 19 independents were represented in the Irish parliament: the Dáil.

In order to arrive at this result the Irish voter was very selective as to the manner of voting. The choices made, not just at first count stage, but, more importantly at subsequent counts, indicates the mind frame of the Irish voter in switching his/her vote from one party to the other whenever there was a need for a vote to be transferred.

This cross-party voting ensures that every vote cast is valued in the order of priority established by the voter himself. This is an advantage of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) which the average Maltese voter, so far, does not use adequately.

Even without changes to the electoral system to apply the proportionality rule to all political parties, the STV makes it possible to return a plurality of voices to Malta’s Parliament if the voter does use the powerful tools at hand.

Cross-voting

 

Well over 66% of AD voters in the 2008 general elections did not vote just for an AD candidate. Thereafter they voted for candidates of other parties as well.

Most AD voters already practice cross-party voting in general elections. They already cross over from one party to another when voting.

It is not only AD voters which practice cross-party voting. Even PN and PL voters do so although not as often as one would wish.

Our electoral system is specifically designed so that cross-party voting is possible. Voting across party lines can ensure that you select the best candidates in the different political parties. It is a very healthy political tool at your disposal.

After giving your number 1 to an AD candidate you can then proceed with giving your 2nd preference to any other candidate, irrespective whether he or she is on the PN or the PL list.

Similarly if your giving your number 1 vote to a PN or a PL candidate you may proceed with giving your 2nd preference to an AD candidate. It is a very useful way of voting. It has in fact been in use since 1921 when the present system of voting was introduced in Malta.

Cross party voting is a right. Use it well.

Snippets from AD’s electoral manifesto: (17) Electoral Reform

The following extract is taken verbatim from Chapter 6 of AD’s Electoral Manifesto

Malta should have an electoral system based on absolute proportional representation between seats and votes cast in elections subject to a 2.5% threshold. This principle could be achieved by retaining the Transferable Vote System while widening the current constitutional mechanism ensuring strict proportionality between number of votes and seats from one which applies only in cases where two parties are elected to parliament, to one which applies to all parties surpassing the national threshold of 2.5% of 1st count votes. Malta should therefore have a double threshold, with a district quota of 16.6% that would allow an individual to be elected on her/his own steam for one’s district and a national quota with a threshold of 2.5%, equivalent to two quotas for a party to be represented in Parliament.
L-Estratt segwenti hu mehud kelma b’kelma mill-Kapitlu 6 tal-Manifest Elettorali ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika

Malta għandu jkollha sistema elettorali bbażata fuq rappreżentanza proporzjonali assoluta bejn siġġijiet u voti mitfugħa f’elezzjoni, ikkoreġġuti b’għatba ta’ 2.5%. Dan il-prinċipju jista’ jinkiseb bl-istess Sistema ta’ Vot Trasferibbli filwaqt li jitwessa’ l-mekkaniżmu Kostituzzjonali attwali li jiżgura proporzjonalità stretta bejn l-għadd ta’ voti u siġġijiet u li jimxi minn wieħed li japplika biss f’każijiet fejn żewġ partiti biss jiġu eletti fil-Parlament, għal wieħed li japplika għall-partiti kollha li jaqbżu l-għatba nazzjonali ta’ 2.5% tal-ewwel għadd tal-voti. Malta għalhekk għandha jkollha għatba doppja, bi kwota distrettwali ta’ 16.6% li tippermetti li individwu jiġi elett minn distrett, u kwota nazzjonali b’għatba ekwivalenti ghal żewġ kwoti biex partit politiku jiġi rrappreżentat fil-Parlament.

AD discusses electoral reform with Speaker Michael Frendo

 

A delegation from Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party comprising of Chairperson Michael Briguglio, Arnold Cassola and Carmel Cacopardo met the Speaker of the House Michael Frendo yesterday. During the meeting, AD’s judicial protest on the electoral system and AD’s proposals for electoral reform were discussed.

 

Michael Briguglio, AD Chairperson, said:’The Nationalist and Labour Parties, keep doing their utmost to exclude all other political parties from parliament. The PN and PL conveniently fail to recognize  the fact all countries in Europe, including micro-states such as Andorra and San Marino, have more than two parties in Parliament’.

 

‘The Gonzi proposals in the 1990s for a five per cent threshold of votes on a national basis for parliamentary representation were never put in place. To make matters worse, Malta’s unique electoral system has been changed in a way that only strengthens the two-party duopoly. Besides, Labour’s recent decision to stop participating in the Parliamentary select committee which discusses electoral reform has frozen the whole process’.

‘Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party has proposed a fair and responsible electoral system,  similar to that of highly-developed democracies such as Germany. Given that no progress has been made on this issue, last Monday we presented a judicial protest on the matter. Voters who vote for parties not elected in parliament are being discriminated through the current electoral system’.

 

AD protests in Court on discriminatory electoral legislation

 

 

Today morning Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party presented a judicial protest against the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of the House and the Attorney General calling on them to end the discrimination inherent in Malta’s electoral law.

Michael Briguglio, AD Chairperson said: ‘No progress has been made as regards electoral reform since the positive proposals of the Gonzi commission back in the 1990s. Such proposals then gave due importance to the need for fair representation of political parties in Parliament and the Gonzi Commission had actually proposed a five per cent threshold of votes on a national basis for representation in the House of Representatives. But these proposals were never put in place. Actually, Malta’s electoral system has been changed in a way that only strengthens the two-party duopoly. To make matters worse, Labour has now decided not to participate in the Parliamentary select committee which discusses electoral reform’.

Through its proposal for a 2.5% national threshold AD is proposing a fair balance between democratic representation of voters and functional governance. We are for true proportional representation for all citizens, where each and every vote counts the same. Unlike the PN and the PL, which work as a duopoly that excludes others from the electoral process, AD is putting forward responsible proposals’.

‘AD’s proposals on electoral reform focus on the need to ensure that the number of votes are reflected proportionately for all political parties with regard to the number of seats and not only for the PL and the PN, as is the situation now. Indeed, in the 2008 election the PN’s relative majority of 1,580 votes has been rewarded with extra parliamentary seats while AD’s 3,810 votes have no parliamentary representation whatsoever. We are for a double threshold, with a retention of the existing district quota of 16.6 per cent that would allow an individual to be elected on her/his own steam for one’s district and a national quota of 2.5% of the votes cast (equivalent to
two quotas) for a party to be represented in Parliament. This system would be similar to that of highly-developed democracies. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that all countries in Europe, including micro-states such as San Marino, are represented by more than two parties in Parliament’.

Prof. Arnold Cassola, Spokesperson for EU and International Affairs, stated: ‘Whilst not interfering in internal member electoral systems, the EU is always insisting with non EU countries that they should have fair electoral systems.  The same thing is requested of EU candidate countries, like Turkey, whose electoral system with a 10% threshold is not deemed to be fully democratic by the EU.  We ask the EU Commission and European Parliament to note the antidemocratic aspects of Maltese electoral law, whereby it is only the two parties in parliament whose votes are translated proportionately into seats in parliament, to the detriment of  third parties.’

***

Fil-Prim Awla tal-Qorti Civili   

Illum   21 ta ‘ Gunju 2010
Lil           1. Onorevoli Prim Ministru, Berga  ta Kastilja, Pjazza Ta Kastilja, il-Belt, Valletta
             2. Onorevoli Kap tal-Oppozizzjoni, Partit Laburista, Triq Mile End, Hamrun.
             3. Speaker Kamra tar-Rapprezentanti, Il-Palazz, il-Belt Valletta.
             4. Avukat Generali, Il-Palazz, il-Belt Valletta.

Permezz tal-prezenti ittra ufficjali Michael Briguglio (K.I. 202375 M) f’ismu proprju u fl-isem u l-interess tal-partit politiku Alternattiva Demokratika qed jipremetti:

Illi prezentement is-sistema elettorali Maltija hija wahda li tifavorrixxi biss il-partiti l-kbar u cioe il-Partit Laburista u l-Partit Nazzjonalista, u dana ghax l-Artiklu 52 tal-Kostituzzjoni jipprovdi illi jiskatta mekkanizmu korrettiv fil-konfront ta’ żewġ partiti biex jirristawra l-proporzjonalita’ bejn voti miksuba u membri parlamentari eletti.

Illi dan il-mekkanizmu jiskatta biss meta jkun hemm zewg partiti biss li jkunu eletti, u ma jkoprix il-possibilta li jigi elett/ta membru parlamentari ta partit oltre iz-zewg partiti l-kbar.

Illi dan hu diskriminatorju fil-konfront ta partiti bhal ma hu il-partit mittenti peress li is-sistema taghti vantagg lill-zewg partiti kbar u tpoggi lil partiti ohra fi zvantagg.
Illi l-partit mittenti ilu s-snin shah jilmenta li s-sistema elettorali hi rrangata biex tiffavorixxi liz-zewg partiti l-kbaru fil-fatt fil-passat ha sehem f’diskussjonijiet mal-partiti l-ohra biex tinstab soluzzjoni u meta dawn id-diskussjonijiet waslu fl-ahhar il-partiti l-kbar abbandunaw id-diskussjonijiet bejn tlieta u ftehmu wahedhom
Illi wara l-elezzjoni 2008 twaqqaf Select Committee tal-Parlament b’terms of reference li jinkludu titjib tas-sistema elettorali.

Illi fis-sajf tas-sena 2008 rapprezentanti tal-partit mittenti Alternattiva Demokrattika iltaqa’ ma l-Ispeaker ta dak iz-zmien Onorevoli Louis Galea u ghaddietlu proposti f’dan ir-rigward.
Illi sa s-sena 2010 ma kien hemm l-ebda risposta mill-Ispeaker jew mis-Select Committee u l-partit mittenti rega’ talab li jsiru il-laghat fuq il-ligi elettorali. L-Ispeaker Onorevoli Louis Galea kien stqarr li ghalkemm ma kienx ser ikompli fil-kariga tieghu hu kien gja hejja pjan biex is-sitwazzjoni tkun indirizzata.

Illi ricentement ir-rapprezentanti tal-Partit Laburista iddikjaraw li l-membri tal-partit fis-Select Committee fuq indikata gew irtirati mill-istess Kumitat u dana minhabba tilwima mal-Gvern dwar incidenti fil-Kamra.

Illi dan ifisser li ser nerggha nigu f’sitwazzjoni fejn lejliet l-elezzjoni is-sitwazzjoni diskriminatorja ma tkunx indirizzzata.
Ghaldaqstant, intom qeghdin tigu interpellati sabiex mhux aktar tard minn ghaxart’ t’ijiem minn notifika ta din l-ittra ufficjali tghaddu ghall-emenda u tibdil tal-ligi li hija diskriminatorja fil-konfront tal-partit mittenti. Fin-nuqqas ta’ tali azzjoni rimedjali  il-partit mittenti huma sejjer jintavola il-proceduri gudizzjarji opportuni minghajr ebda pre-avviz iehor.

Ghal kull buon fini jigi dikjarat illi din l-ittra ufficjali qeghda tigi inter alia intavolata sabiex isservi l-finijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 460 tal-Kapitolu 12 tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta. 

Avv. Claire Bonello
206/1, Wisely House
Old Bakery Street
Valletta