Power to parliament

The people of these islands will soon join hands to mark Malta's 45th anniversary of independence.

Throughout this time, we switched from a monarchical to a republican system of government, and Malta has since acquired European Union membership.

Our constitutional democracy has experienced teething troubles. There were times when democracy was under threat. All things considered, however, the pluses have by far outweighed the minuses and our fragile democracy has prevailed.

The government has devolved some of its powers. Human rights are not only constitutionally entrenched, but are further safeguarded by the right of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. Corrupt practices are interdicted by the Constitution and, in Parliament, the executive (the government) could, at least in theory but not always in practice, he held to account by standing committees of the House.

This is progress by any name, but it does not mean that the defences of our liberties are as safe as houses. Much remains to be done.

Under our system, we do not have a House of Review or a Second Chamber - and the executive has to be restrained by checks and balances. Parliament monitors the executive but, for a long time, monitoring has been neither thorough nor adequately effective.

Over the years, we have witnessed the unchecked decline, denigration and emasculation of Parliament, its powers relentlessly usurped by the executive and its agencies, and an increasingly overbearing Prime Minister, whichever party he hailed from.

There is a case for the Prime Minister's powers of appointment to boards, agencies, commissions and the courts to be circumscribed and made subject to parliamentary approval. Citizen participation in our democratic institutions remains limited to elections, with too little recourse to referendums and other direct consultations.

Thirdly, government has to be made far more accountable. If there were good and accountable government, there would not have been so many cases where abuse of power, political favouritism, breaches of ethics and corruption have either not been investigated or where investigations have gone nowhere.

It is easy to be cynical about the ambitions and interests of politicians. Politicians who observe with a modicum of perspicacity must be cynics, as Walter Bagehot was. He was "not misled by shibboleths, nor impressed by sentimental refrains, nor diverted by the claims of patriots that everything was of the best" in Queen Victoria's time.

Electorates have every justification for believing the observation of Prof. Ivor Jennings - a distinguished constitutional lawyer - that they should not assume "that Members of Parliament are all high-souled, public spirited, conscientious, single-minded representatives of the people, intent on the people's good and without reference to their own prestige".

An electorate that is master in its own home must see to it that its affairs are administered by its representatives, in accordance with its wishes and not vice-versa.

The separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitutes an effective system of checks and balances. But modern circumstances demand much more. A judiciary that is at once independent and an effective bulwark in defence of the rights of the weak against the might of the powerful, on one hand, and a champion of human rights on the other, is of the essence.

In these modern times, the executive has to be kept under tight and relentless scrutiny and it would take more than a Public Accounts Committee, an Ombudsman and the paraphernalia of parliamentary monitoring to oversee the activities of a proliferation of quangos and an administrative machine that thrives in terms of Parkinson's Law.

There is an urgent need for more transparency and for measures that guarantee the citizen's freedom of information. Above all, both sides of Parliament should catch up with the times and join hands to give real meaning to direct democracy, whereby the electorate could express its views on sensitive issues as and when necessary, and not just once every five years.

Left to their own devices, most MPs will say 'Amen' to most of the above. How many of them are prepared to stand up and be counted as champions of parliamentary reform?

jgv@onvol.net