Constitutional history

After decades of having an electoral system that could be piloted to favour one particular party, or one candidate, we have finally come to a solution. When I say 'we', I mean that both sides of the House of Representatives agreed on this refinement of the system. It is a pity that many members were unavoidably absent in the final vote, on account of travel abroad in connection with government or parliamentary duties.

Those of us who were there cast a unanimous vote. Each one of us stood up and was counted. There was no dissenting vote, as in the case of the 1987 amendment. We have finally eliminated the possibility of a result depending solely on the Single Transferable Vote system, where the drawing up of constituency configurations could influence the final outcome.

I am belatedly happy and satisfied. In 1987, I was one of a small core in the Labour Party in favour, at an early stage, of amending the Constitution so that the party gaining the highest number of votes obtains a majority of seats. In 1981, there was a public outcry as the Nationalist Party had polled more votes on first count than the Labour Party, but because of the drawing up of the electoral district frontiers, the party with fewer votes had a majority of seats.

A commission had been set up to suggest amendments. Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, Guido de Marco, Joseph Cassar, Alex Sceberras Trigona and myself were members. Somehow I heard there was a parallel contact group, which was not official, and that two of the people involved were Dom Mintoff and Josie Muscat.

Our discussions broke down, and but I did not believe that our efforts should be in vain. A report was drawn up by Dr Cassar, but I refused to sign it. Some months ago I had another look at that document as it was laid on the table of the House, just to confirm I had not in fact signed.

All of a sudden, the unofficial group seemed to come up with a solution. But everything was shrouded in a package, which was never revealed completely. However, strands emerged from that complicated packet. There was talk that the package contained amendments related to the powers of the President, who the next President should be, and from which side of the political spectrum he should be elected. The most urgent first step was to establish that the party polling a majority of votes (50 per cent plus one) should have a majority - by the addition of one seat.

Auberge de Castille

At the office of the Prime Minister, a meeting was held for Labour MPs. MLP executive committee members were also invited. Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici chaired the meeting and explained, with candour and honesty as usual, what was being proposed.

Those in favour of the amendment were few. First and foremost was Mr Mintoff, who seemed to have brokered the agreement. The other conditions in that agreement were never revealed. Lino Spiteri was also in favour. One member who boisterously proclaimed, "Over my dead body" is still in good health.

Those who were against had a justifiable argument, although I did not agree that past history should decide the future. They reminded one and all that in 1971, the Labour Party had a majority of votes, and it was only through sheer luck, on the final count in Zebbug, that it obtained the majority of seats. The Nationalist Party on that occasion fought till the end to see that all the votes were counted and did not concede on the first count.

Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici had a very difficult task in balancing the different perspectives. During the discussion I argued that it was not fair to give a majority party a one-seat majority, because the electoral districts had been gerrymandered to give a substantial advantage to the party in government.

I suggested that the number of additional seats should be in proportion to the volume of the surplus of votes between the majority and the minority party. I vividly remember Mr Mintoff standing up and saying: "l'ottimo e` il nemico del bene!" (Perfection is the enemy of what is good). This week I met Dr Mifsud Bonnici and reminded him about this episode.

When I was recounting these events in Parliament to the younger members of the Party, Joe Debono Grech immediately exclaimed: "Had your proposal passed in 1987, the Labour Party would not have depended on the vote of one member."

The old amended system has worked against both parties. In 1987, it was a poor additional majority for the Nationalist Party, but the MLP experienced the same predicament in 1996. Joe Falzon, the Nationalist MP for whom I have great respect, made that comment to me.

Now the Electoral Commission cannot influence the electoral result, even in the size of a majority, by drawing boundaries that are tailor-made. Their only residual power is when they change a constituency boundary in such a way that an established MP may find his core of votes are now split between two districts, or a re-drawn district conveniently fits the boundaries in favour of a particular candidate. It happened in the not very distant past. But that residual power is marginal to democracy. At least the voter knows that his vote counts.