Straight answers for the sixth seat

The sixth seat issue for the forthcoming European Parliament election is finally getting some serious discussion.

Austin Bencini's contribution (January 20) made refreshing reading, coming after Simon Busuttil's feeble attempt to rubbish the Alternattiva Demokratika and Labour Party (PL) contributions to this debate. While I feel that the mechanics of Dr Bencini's proposal need further discussion and debate, I totally agree with the spirit behind the article. Clearly, Dr Bencini is calling for a decision on the method to elect the possible Maltese sixth seat to be taken before the EP election, making it clear to the electorate, in a truly transparent and democratic manner, that they will be choosing their sixth EP representative if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.

That we should even be debating such a clear-cut issue beggars belief. However, the PN's public declarations on this issue seem ominous.

The Prime Minister has declared that the government will decide the method of choosing the sixth seat if the issue arises after the Irish referendum. This wait-and-see attitude is an undemocratic one that reeks of political opportunism and would only create havoc should the sixth seat become a reality. It would mean that a sixth MEP would have to be chosen in an arbitrary manner, probably against the actual will of the people.

Dr Busuttil's diatribe against the PL and AD is also disturbing because he indulges in a partisan, biased and inaccurate interpretation of the 2004 EP election results to try and imply ulterior motives to AD's voice on this issue. While wasting a whole article in this negative approach, Dr Busuttil refrains from even attempting some form of proposal to resolve the issue; clear evidence of the paucity of the PN's approach to the matter. The PN cannot seem to agree on the basic democratic principle that the sixth seat should be chosen by the people according to rules that are fair to all and set before the electoral competition in June.

Dr Bencini's proposal is an interesting one but may be too radical for some to stomach. AD is proposing a more straightforward system, which totally retains the present electoral system, does not propose any earthquakes if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and, most importantly, rests the decision on the choice of the sixth seat in the hands of the electorate.

We are proposing that, after the five MEPs are elected using the present STV system, the sixth representative to become an MEP if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified should be the candidate with the highest number of votes among the remaining unelected candidates who have not been eliminated by the final count.

Clearly, this proposal also has its limitations. However, we believe that it is realistic, democratic and fair, given the unique circumstances of these elections. Having said that, we are open to any other pro-active suggestions such as the one put forward by Dr Bencini.

Crucially, the underlying principle should be clear: The sixth MEP seat should be chosen by the electorate using rules that are fair, democratic and which have been agreed on before the coming June election.

Why is it so difficult for the PN to give a straight answer on such basic principles?

Mr Cachia is deputy chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika - the Green party.