The President of the Republic has raised the subject of potential amendments to the Constitution. His message, from what I understood, was aimed at "modernising the Constitution" in line with the current international political situation. Constitutions are meant to last, and have an in-built mechanism to adapt.

I hold no brief from the Malta Labour Party to discuss this subject, but I do have the freedom to express my personal thoughts on the subject. Whatever we may say, our Constitution was written with a local political situation in mind, and the final draft was a compromise, hastily imposed by the British government which had a deadline to meet. Colonies were to be given their independence. The political and social stakes in Malta at the time were acrimoniously high. The amendments of 1974, which converted the Independence Constitution into a republican form of government, retained all the shortcomings of the previous Constitution.

Article 6 of the Constitution says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But this is only true as long as a particular provision lasts. The greater part of the Constitution can be amended by an ordinary act of parliament with a simple majority. I would like to see a Constitution which requires a qualified majority to be amended, from the first article to the last. Is it not strange that there is no entrenched article on parliamentary democracy and about the supremacy of Parliament?

I would like to see a Constitution which cannot be ignored with impunity. Breaking the Constitution has practically no sanction, except in the field of human rights. Conveniently interpreting the "neutrality clause" cannot be challenged in any way, and the one interpretation that counts is of the one who is determined to do what he likes. If one smokes in a cinema he is punishable by law, because he is in breach of a law. However, if one disregards the constitutional precepts, and is therefore in breach of that supreme law, he is not liable to any penalty. The same applies to the oath taken by the highest officers of the State, promising to uphold the Constitution. That really means nothing.

Elections

I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution which makes our electoral system more democratic and more representative. Four factors have to be considered: (a) proportionality; (b) without prejudicing the stability of governments; (c) no possibility of gerrymandering, and (d) retaining the right of electors to choose their MPs, rather than let the parties have the final say.

The single transferable vote (STV) system gives electors the right to decide which of the candidates fielded by the party should be elected, rather than having the parties decide who are their front runners and whom they prefer to be elected.

During the election for the European Parliament we had the STV system working without any gerrymandering as there was only one constituency. If that were to be applied to the local parliamentary elections, we would have a system akin to that of Israel, where there is proportionality, but stability is rather imperilled.

I still believe in the system that I suggested years ago. In every constituency of five members, retaining the STV system, only the first four would be declared elected. The fifth would be apportioned according to the pool of votes accredited to each party on the count when the fourth member is elected.

Under present circumstances, the party with the biggest lot of unused votes would get the highest proportion of the last remaining 13 seats. If it deserves eight, let it have eight. No votes would be really wasted. Smaller parties would have an inbuilt threshold which is necessary for stability of a government.

The list is long...

I would like to see a longer list of incompatibilities for those who are eligible to the Presidency of the Republic. Only judges are excluded. But is it right to have Parliament voting in a President in an open vote? Here we are deciding on the most suitable person to be a symbol of unity. History has shown that the parliamentary vote is the will of the majority of the day.

I would like to see an august body of elders who advise on the constitutionality of political decisions and bills before Parliament. Even if their role may be strictly advisory, at least we do not know to resort to litigation to decide matters which pertain to all.

I would like to see additional human rights, mainly in the area of economic and social human rights.

All this may be far away. The only thing of which I am certain is that next Saturday is Christmas, and I sincerely wish you a Happy Christmas in peace and prosperity. Constitutions can wait.