Mugabean

Have you ever heard that ignorance of the law is an excuse? This is now a provision in a recent bill passed through Parliament. An individual who lost his entitlement to vote but whose name is still on the electoral register, turns up on polling day, picks up his notice to voters, and votes would be committing no offence, if he proves that he did not know that he lost his franchise, according to the provisions of the Constitution.

This lays down that he must have been in Malta at least for six months in the last year and a half. John the Traveller would not know that he spent three months in Miami, another month in Montecarlo, three months in London, and another month in a skiing resort. If he shows that he did not know that he lost his right to vote he would commit no offence. The election would be constitutionally correct.

The proposed amendments to the Constitution, which failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority, did not envisage doing away with this requirement. Let that be clear.

It has been a traditional concept that the voters should be those who have a continuing link with the government they elect. Under our Constitution there is no automatic entitlement that once a citizen, one also has the automatic right to vote. Had that been the case, the thousands in Australia, with double citizenship, would be entitled to come and vote. Then we would introduce the postal vote, or set up polling booths in Australia itself.

In an electoral system where definitely every vote counts, small margins are relevant. The Italians say "molti pochi fanno assai". A few here and a few there may run into a thousand, and a thousand votes may tip the balance. In Florida a few hundred did the trick for Bush to defeat Gore, with an electorate running into millions.

Amending the Constitution

The recent unilateral attempt by the government to push through Parliament an amendment which needed a two-thirds majority of the whole House, especially when the views of the Opposition were known, amounted to a political gimmick.

The government wanted to extend the right to vote to so many others, yet it could not do so as it did not find the support of the Opposition. In all constitutional amendments, since 1974, the hammering of the clauses was always done through long, some very protracted discussions, until a consensus or a guaranteed majority was reached.

What was at issue from the very start was whether what was already written down in the Constitution was being respected or truly guaranteed. If both parties were still agreed that the residence qualification was to remain, then there must be the mechanism to ensure that in case of doubt or contestation, the Electoral Commission would be in a position to have electoral registers which reflect the precepts of the Constitution. If through the removal of embarkation cards, which no one liked very much, no alternative was found to guarantee that there is reliable information, the possibility of mistakes, to put it mildly, increased.

Even Robert Mugabe had such a problem with his voters' lists. International observers were not sure about such lists. Our Electoral Commission cannot vouch for the accuracy of its records, and is not given the support which is indispensable in its proper functioning. In such circumstances, the Electoral Commission is virtually impotent. It was not intended to be so in the Constitution.

Nor did the Constitution foresee that the Electoral Register would be riddled with errors, which run counter to the existing constitutional provisions. What use is there to amplify constitutional rights, when existing norms are practically disregarded.

The list of voters who actually may evade the requirement is now not that which the government tried to introduce. On many points there was agreement between the parties. As things stand, anyone who may be away for years may turn up, receive a notice to voters and vote. He may not be doing any voluntary work anywhere, or be employed with the Maltese government, or undergoing treatment in a foreign hospital.

He may be earning big money elsewhere, living in a paradise in some remote area, when he comes back again with his Maltese passport, he may find that he did not bother anyone after all, and nobody bothered about him, he was still on the voters' lists, and entitled to vote. He would not need to ask for an exemption to be allowed to vote.

What is worse is that if his residence qualification is contested, and he does not turn up in court or is not even served with any papers because he is again abroad, his registration is not even cancelled.

The Constitution has been made an ass, and the amendments to asses can only be of the same genre.

Fair play

Elections are won and lost. That is the democratic principle. Playing with the rules to favour your own chances may not ensure a victory at the polls.

I saw this happen in 1970, when the system was touched and retouched, to give the party in government a better chance. Fair play supersedes all written rules.