A new senate?

All those Maltese who have a basic knowledge of our country's political history know that from 1921 to 1933 Malta had two legislative institutions, the Legislative Assembly and the Senate.

The latter was made up of representatives of constituted bodies who could stop a Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly from becoming law.

This undemocratic practice led to a period of political instability in Malta which lasted from 1928 to 1947. The problem was finally solved by the British government as the senate was abolished when Malta was given the 1947 constitution.

Why have I brought up this matter of a long-abolished legislative institution? The reason is that many Maltese citizens are at present worried about the implications of the prime minister's statement that he would go on working closely with constituted bodies as he did on the question of European Union membership before the referendum and general election campaigns.

In theory, there is nothing wrong in this and such a practice should be encouraged. However, recent events have shown that one needs to reflect deeply on some latent practical implications of such close cooperation between the government and constituted bodies.

Let me give some concrete examples. The recent mv Doulos controversy was a clear case of a constituted body, in this case the GRTU, being supported in its stand by the Maltese government against the wishes of the vast majority of the Maltese population.

I shall not enter into the intricacies of the issues involved. However, I would like to ask a very important question: "Is the mv Doulos controversy a forerunner of things to come?". I hope not.

The second example concerns the public approval by the Malta Agricultural Lobby (another constituted body forming part of the 'national movement' in favour of EU membership) of any future proposal to raise the retiring age as this, according to the MAL, would be highly advantageous for all those working in the agricultural sector.

Which begs the question: Do the majority of workers employed in agriculture agree with raising the age of retirement? If the answer is in the negative or if the workers concerned have not been consulted, then why did the Malta Agricultural Lobby commit itself on this point precisely at a time when the government is involved in the pensions time-bomb controversy?

The third example is that of the Federation of Industry's attack on the minimum wage. Surely the government is not taking seriously the FOI's statements on this?

I cannot imagine how anybody living on the minimum wage can make ends meet. Are we really seriously considering making the poor poorer?

The very fact that the Federation of Industry feels free to make such statements, which are an insult to the lowest strata of Maltese citizens, is a cause for concern.

Let me make my point clear. The government's working closely with constituted bodies on all matters of national importance is inherently good and a positive initiative.

However, one has to provide against the threat to democracy posed by a situation where one side or the other goes against the expressed wishes of the majority of the Maltese population in order not to offend the other partner.

There could be a clear and present danger to democracy here because as cooperation between the two sides becomes closer, interdependency will become the order of the day.

What the government is duty bound to guard against is that legislation emanating from parliament is not rendered ineffective through pressure from constituted bodies. Otherwise, we would have created a new senate which could again lead to rendering the democratic process unworkable, as happened in Malta in the late 'twenties during the Strickland administration.