Come April, George Abela will be celebrating his first year in office as President of the Republic.

Dr Abela's predecessors have all contributed significantly to raising the stature of the Presidency, enriching it with their personalities and diverse backgrounds.

Dr Abela's candidature was courageous and even historic by nature. It was by no means an obvious choice, given the long list of potential candidates that were thrown around in the media prior to the announcement.

What distinguished the nomination, however, was the fact that the government chose to propose an individual from the opposing political camp. This has rendered Dr Abela's nomination courageous, historic and particularly prudent given the pressing need for unity. The government's choice continued to strengthen our concept of statehood, the respect among institutions and the stature of the role itself.

The Presidency is principally a symbol of national unity and, notwithstanding its predominantly ceremonial nature, represents an overriding harmony by lifting itself above the partisan political divide and conflict that often exists at ground level.

This does not mean that party politics is negative in itself. A pluralism of ideas and contrasting positions is essential in a thriving democracy. The Presidency is essential because it unites the people, particularly in periods when calm and reflection are called for.

The success of the Presidency heavily depends on the individual who is chosen to occupy the role. Indeed, a successful Presidency can be gauged by the public's perception of the figure of the President. This is precisely why I had written about the need for a Constitutional amendment in this regard.

As things stand, the nomination for the Presidency is approved by simple majority. This is the most basic form of endorsement and can be accomplished without the simple assurance of a quorum in the House. In my opinion, this runs counter to the weight and value that this role deserves, particularly in light of the wide consensus the Presidency deserves.

I had initially suggested that the endorsement of the candidate for President be based on an absolute, rather than simple, majority, though I feel that even this position can be refined. In an ideal world, the President of the Republic would be approved by two thirds of members of the House.

Dr Abela himself was virtually approved unanimously by the House.

But the two-thirds majority proposal opens the possibility for a Constitutional deadlock if agreement is not found on a suitable candidate to fit the role of President. This could, however, be resolved if the Constitution is amended in such a way as to provide for a second round of voting, this time calling for an absolute majority of members of the House, should the first round of voting be unsuccessful.

The two-thirds majority rule should be established as a starting point to truly reflect the significance of the Presidency, while providing the necessary safeguards in circumstances where consensus is not reached. A second level absolute majority would thus provide the necessary balance and compromise between the respect required by such an important role and the Constitutional realities we face.

This proposal has already been levelled in the past. On August 13, 1987 a Parliamentary Select Committee, which had been established to provide suggestions for Constitutional reform, tabled a report which stated: "...a role (the Presidency) that should be based on national consensus as far as possible. The individual chosen to fill the role of President of the Republic should not only be backed by legal approval but by moral strength as well."

The report tabled by the Parliamentary Select Committee had also delved into the potential of setting up a consultative Council of State, which would be composed of "persons who have contributed to the country's political development for a period of time and whose patriotism is undisputed, whatever their previous political background". This proposal was recently revived by the President himself and is worth considering.

A year after the appointment of Dr Abela to the Presidency, I feel that these ideas for reform should be discussed so as to continue strengthening our country's institutions and our Constitutional framework in order to continue renewing our commitment to national unity.

Dr Debono is a Nationalist member of Parliament.

This talking point appeared on The Times today but was erroneously attributed to Austin Bencini. The error is regretted.