Parliament does not deliver

In representative democracies around the world, parliaments and assemblies are principally utilised for the purpose of representation of their peoples and the legitimacy of decisions taken. How far the Maltese House of Representatives is actually achieving these two objectives in an effective manner is subject to very different perspectives.

The recent furore on the honoraria of the members of Parliament and also the absence of several MPs during House debates made us all more aware of the deficiencies of Parliament. To me, these two instances were not surprises at all. Several academic studies, including mine, have continuously demonstrated the Parliament’s lack of teeth, both at Committee and also at House levels.

But I believe that this situation cannot continue like this. MPs are all aware that our parliamentary system is not fit for today’s purpose, especially since Malta joined the European Union. There are commentators that argue that Parliament is too big. I would argue that, although Malta has a very high level of voters representation per MP, the big increase in EU legislative scrutiny by MPs calls for a larger Parliament and not a smaller one.

Moreover, unlike any other Parliament in the EU, the Maltese legislature does not even have an independent office in Brussels. Every Parliament in the EU argues in favour of having a direct link with the EU. Since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the importance of national parliaments has been increased significantly.

The challenge is how a small Parliament like Malta’s can cope with the huge number of documents issued by Brussels, especially without even having officials in Brussels who can develop links with other parliaments and European and national officers. I think it is high time we have parliamentary representation in Brussels. We must also work closely with other small parliaments in order to share the workload burden for the sake of a more effective parliamentary representation.

Small national parliaments always find it more difficult to be effective institutions in representing their citizens and, more importantly, in scrutinising the government in its decisions at national and European levels. With more qualified majority voting at the EU level, the ability of parliaments to achieve this has been drastically reduced. In the case of Malta, without even being aware of these significant changes, I believe the lack of structural changes in Parliament will continue to make it less relevant in today’s Maltese political landscape.

Is it acceptable for us to have a Parliament that starts 20 minutes late because there is no quorum? I believe this is unacceptable because this sends the message of lack of discipline and commitment by the MPs. If we really want a more productive economy, can we keep on transmitting these wrong messages to the people?

As such, I do not blame the existing MPs but the system is surely broken and needs to be fixed. Individual contributions by MPs take ages and I am not surprised why some MPs do not even bother to turn up to the House debates. I think the length of time given to every MP should be reduced in order to increase the “excitement” during such debates while, at the same time, there will also be more focus.

Can we keep on having a situation where, more often than not, one MP from the opposition party would ask parliamentary questions? Parliamentary question time is a very important time and should be taken very seriously. For example, in other parliaments, like that in the UK, they have the Prime Minister’s Question Time every Wednesday. They also have parliamentary question sessions for specific topics, which vary each week on a rota basis.

The above are only just few of the many issues that could be related to the functioning of the Maltese Parliament. I could ask about the level of research-based scrutiny being undertaken at Committee levels. One could also ask about how the Maltese Parliament is preparing itself to the soon-to-be-launched principle of more direct democracy through the citizens’ right to initiate EU laws.

I think it is time to make the necessary institutional and rule changes because people are continuously losing respect in this institution. The continuous negative reaction of people towards parliamentarians is something to be taken seriously and the Speaker of the House has a big responsibility in making sure that such changes would be undertaken for the sake of legitimacy and democracy.

Complacency is not the answer to change.