Getting the political parties to talk

Austin Gatt (Who Knows What Labour Wants?, June 4) joined the discussion I am trying to rekindle of the desirability of perfecting Malta's electoral system in his usual robust way. His succinct elucidation of the progress made over the past 25 years is worth noting, not least by the Labour Party.

The system is less imperfect than it used to be when it nearly resulted in a perverse outcome in favour of the Nationalist Party in 1971 and did so in favour of the Labour Party in 1981. Majority of votes rule is now guaranteed. Along the uneasy way outlined by Dr Gatt, the supremacy of the voters' first preference was embedded into the system. Proportionality (I would say somewhat less than strict) is ensured in a two-party race but with the House size having to be raised from its already high 65-members level.

With the recognition that it is first-count votes that actually count most, contrary - as Dr Gatt says - to our declared system of the single transferable vote, we now equate the voters' first preference to a choice of parties, although parties are not at the heart of who the President should call to form a government after a general election.

Despite the hiccupy progress made, there could still be a major problem of a skewed result if three parties get elected. Dr Gatt also agrees that keeping the House at 65 members is eminently desirable (I have in the past argued for its reduction to, say, 50, though not the 36 recently incisively plumbed for by economist Karm Farrugia).

There remains, therefore, work to be done. Dr Gatt implicitly suggests it can be done by basing ourselves on what is known as the D'Hondt system. The former PN general secretary and current minister has put the ball in Labour's court. He says there is implicit agreement that the D'Hondt system would be good but that Labour still has to react to two issues: the threshold and what to do with the votes of parties that do not make the threshold.

If that is the case, Labour should get a move on in the interest of a stronger democracy. Strengthening is needed to show that we value all the valid votes cast in a general election, subject to a fair threshold in the interest of governability. Labour's boycott of the parliamentary committee intended to strengthen democracy need not stand in the way; the parties can go back to the old-fashioned way of meeting face to face.

If I recall correctly, the PL argue that they have other outstanding issues, such as the qualifying resident period and ID cards. Surely, one can start with the system, moving to other issues later, or even concurrently. We are not in the position where a blunt American President said that his number two could not walk straight on the pavement and spit at the same time.

We are two years into this Legislature. The Prime Minister will not call an election for another three years. If the PL believe that some government MP is going to topple the government, they have another think coming. The scurrying that went on behind the scenes over the Delimara issue before Lawrence Gonzi come out with his sweeteners to backbenchers was only a case of the latter using the PL for their personal interest and the Labour using them for short-term gain. Over the coming six months, the general secretaries of the two main parties, together with representatives of the smaller parties, can meet and agree on a new system. Parties have to be at its heart.

We can, in fact, limit the vote to transfers to members of the same party only, to stop the jay-walking between parties instilled in our voters by the canny British government when they introduced our version of the single transferable vote. That is just one opinion.

If the political parties make it known they shall be meeting again to hammer out an agreement which strengthens our electoral and parliamentary democracy, I am sure there will be others who will come up with suggestions that will be considered by the parties. That is unlikely to happen if things remain stagnant.