Of whips, divisions and votes

There has never been a better time to take a good look at the way we vote in our Parliament. The recent debate on the power station extension contract and the resulting vote that has thrown the political class into a war of words can only lead to further alienation of the public who, more often than not, is not aware of parliamentary procedure and neither do many people care how votes are taken.

Before proceeding to my analysis of the situation, spare me a few thoughts on our parliamentary system.

The way Malta's Parliament operates is based on the British House of Commons' rules of procedure with a few adaptations in view of its smaller size. Indeed, till today, the Speaker can still rely on custom developed in the House of Commons when our own standard procedures do not provide the necessary answers.

When a vote is taken in our Parliament, as happens in the House of Commons, the Speaker calls for what is known as a division. A division is a call for a vote on a given issue. While in the UK the MPs physically walk through a No door or a Yes door in order to cast their vote, in Malta the names of MPs are called out in alphabetical order and a yes or no is shouted out. Love it or hate it, this is the way it works and it has been so for the last four decades.

My role as a whip is fundamental in this process. For the sake of clarity, the use of the word "whip" has its roots in 18th century hunting terminology. It is derived from the word "whipper-in", referring to a huntsman's assistant who drives straying hounds back to the main pack using a whip.

While not equipped with a whip, in today's parliamentary setting a whip is an MP nominated by his/her party to help organise parliamentary business. One of the most important functions of my position as whip is to ensure that democracy is served.

Whether the Labour leader likes it or not we live in a democracy in which the people have voted for the Nationalist Party to govern on the basis of its electoral manifesto. It is true that this time round the parliamentary majority is that of one and there is no official pairing agreement, which, once again, makes things harder to manage. Again for clarify, pairing is an arrangement made by the whips for two MPs from opposing sides not to vote on a particular issue, thus not upsetting the balance of power that emerged from a general election. This is useful when government members are away on parliamentary business or even sick.

While debate is good and healthy, I fear that, when spiralled out of control, a debate, such as the one on voting procedures, runs the risk of undermining the institution of Parliament. It is important to remember that politicians are humans and subject to error like anyone else. A system of changing one's vote when a legitimate error is made should be allowed to function. This should take place without the drama we witnessed last week.

We can discuss the issue over and over and never come to a conclusion. As can be seen following the recent developments in the UK, with the resulting hung Parliament, good sense and political maturity can see the day through and two unlikely bed-fellows have managed to secure a coalition. Whether it stands the test of time is yet to be seen but one thing is for certain: an agreement without much bickering has been reached in the interest of the British people and not of party agendas.

Our Parliament can also reach this kind of political maturity and in many cases has done so. Indeed, for a time, Joseph Muscat's policy of conciliatory politics resonated well across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, in practice, it has been harder to implement.

My proposal is a simple one. We need to work together in order to ensure that a repeat of last week's voting confusion does not happen again. In order to do so I am suggesting taking a long and hard look at the British system, which is the one our Parliament is based on anyway. I am not saying that we should adopt this system but merely look at the way it works in practice and the reasoning behind it and, possibly, working out one that works for us, be it with the use of microphones, walking through an aye or naye lobby, electronic voting boards or simply raising one's hand.

The bottom line is that we owe it to our voters to ensure a transparent and efficient voting method that does not undermine the basis of our democratic system. Unless working within a hung Parliament, the governing party should be allowed to govern without petty issues hampering it.

The author is government whip and Parliamentary Assistant at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.