The political adrenalin is gradually but perceptibly rising.

Proof of this is the amendments to the electoral system under discussion particularly so since their significance is far more political than electoral.

In his proposals, Alfred Sant has shown he did not forget the unpleasant memories he must still have of his government becoming the only one since Independence to be voted out of office by Parliament, when his nemesis, Dom Mintoff , voted against the Cottonera project and in effect caused Dr Sant's untimely resignation and eventual electoral defeat in the 1998 general election.

The Leader of the Opposition had attributed the parliamentary defeat to the electoral law. The Labour Party had claimed that the majority of votes it won in the 1996 election should have given it a bigger majority than the one seat it obtained. The Constitution provides that if a party obtains the absolute majority of first preference votes but not the majority of seats, as happened to Labour in 1996, its seats be increased to ensure a majority of not more than one seat.

Dr Sant had argued that had the seats been apportioned proportionately, the MLP would have won with a bigger majority and so would not have succumbed to Mr Mintoff's rebellion in 1998.

The proposed electoral amendment intends to maintain our electoral system but if applied, say, to the 1996 result it could have attributed to the MLP or any other party in that situation a majority greater than one seat if the votes obtained presumably at the last count would have so allowed on the basis of proportionality.

Predictably this amendment is not seen favourably by Alternattiva Demokratika as it ensures proportionality only in the case of a two-party Parliament and in ensuring proportionality between the votes and the seats obtained by those two parties. AD claims that democracy would require that proportionality should apply down the line.

AD however is not correct in equating this amendment to a threat to democracy. In fact, it forms part of a trend started in 1987 to ensure majority rule should the so-called 1981 "perverse result" be repeated when the MLP had obtained a majority of seats without obtaining a majority of votes. The mechanism was used in the 1987 and in 1996 elections.

There exist quite a wide range of electoral systems that would all qualify as democratic: Presidential, semi-presidential and prime ministerial. The important criteria is that the people who vote and who freely select their government do so through an electoral system accepted by them as fair and democratic.

The classic example is that of Britain where the electoral system is manifestly intended to avoid proportionality. The British electorate however has accepted the "first-by-the-post system" and does not show any intention to move to a more proportional system despite the fact that the parties, such as the Liberal Party, are under-represented in the British Parliament.

Similarly, our electorate has adopted what I call the Maltese electoral paradox in that, despite having a proportional representational system intended to favour multi-party presence in Parliament, the electorate has in every election since Independence returned only two parties.

This was so both in the first four elections, which did not have the present system (1966-1981), as well as in the past five elections where the majority rule was introduced (1987-2003). This can only mean that AD has to be very careful in brandishing undemocratic an electoral system that was utilised comfortably by our electorate for the past 20 years.

Naturally, it is more than legitimate to lobby for electoral reform. A unique chance was missed when the recommendations contained in the report bearing the name of the present Prime Minister, Lawrence Gonzi, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, which had envisaged a truly proportional system with a five per cent threshold for a party to be represented in Parliament, were not adopted by the MLP.

The fact, however, is that with the general election fast approaching , it is not feasible to expect radical electoral change; it might not even be desirable.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.