The last 60 days

By the end of March, the President of the Republic would have completed his term of office. Thus, I felt it opportune to pass some remarks on this top and highly esteemed post.

In fact, the President of Malta embodies the state itself. As a point of fact, in article 78 of our Constitution we find that all executive authority of Malta is vested in the head of state. In practice, however, this is far from the case since true executive powers vests in the prime minister and his government.

This notwithstanding, however, over the years our Presidents have, in fact, succeeded in carving out an important role in the running of the country which is far removed from occupying a mere ceremonial role. The presidency is in fact as powerful as its occupant manages to make of it. The stronger the personality the greater will be the powers of the presidency.

By and large, Malta has had some notable personalities who have occupied this highest position in the country and who have succeeded in elevating it to the position of great esteem, which it duly deserves.

When it comes to politics, the President has to appear super partes, must be capable of mediating subtly over delicate issues, must act as our country's ultimate ambassador and, above everything else, must be the guardian of our Constitution.

In substance also the presidency does carry some direct executive authority and this not only with regard to parliament, like when the President can dissolve same or appoint a prime minister, but even in other matters.

As chairman of the Commission for the Administration of Justice, for example, the President exercises wide powers indeed. It has also been debated, for example, whether the President should perhaps be granted a more prominent role in such aspects as public broadcasting and the army.

As for myself, I am all for extending prudently the powers of the presidency, however always within the ambit of a constitutional presidency, since in Malta we have a parliamentary democracy. Thus, I am against having a President elected by general suffrage since this would go against the basis of how we practise democracy here in Malta.

There was a time when there was a select committee of the House of Representatives which had as its terms of reference precisely to redefine the functions of the head of state and perhaps it is time, in order to create a better system of checks and balances, to adopt some of the recommendations made.

It has been said by some that it is high time that parliament elects a President, not from within the rank and file of the political class. The reasoning behind this is that such a personality would perhaps symbolise unity better than one who would bear the stigma of a particular political party.

It must be remembered, in this respect, that after all, Malta's first President was a former Chief Justice and a non-politician. Sir Anthony Mamo in fact managed to fulfil his duties well, notwithstanding having played no part in Malta's politics. Members of the judiciary, in fact, could well prove to be ideal alternative candidates were it not for what our Constitution disposes in article 48. Here our Constitution vetoes the members of our superior courts from qualifying for this position.

This amendment was introduced in 1974, the same year when Malta became a republic. The reasoning behind this prohibition seems to be to remove the proverbial carrot from in front of our judges. I feel this is fallacious and indicates a lack of confidence in the members of the bench.

With this line of reasoning, therefore, magistrates should be excluded from becoming judges and judges from becoming chief justices. The possibility of advancement in one's career should never justify measures aiming at short-circuiting such careers themselves.

Apart from members of the judiciary, there are other respected personalities who could occupy the presidency with integrity. Among these one may include top academics, philanthropists, diplomats and even entrepreneurs.

I am not saying that politicians do not make good presidents for in fact past experience has shown the opposite. In fact, ex-parliamentarians and ex-government ministers should always remain the obvious candidates because of their experience in politics and because the function of the President has a lot to do with politics.

This having been said, it is perhaps right and fitting that, occasionally, to foster less confrontation in an already too polarised country, our President is selected from outside the political spectrum.