In recent weeks, there have been calls for changes to the Constitution. Some are suggesting the creation of a “Second Republic”, a phrase that is as vague as the idea. Our Constitution may need changes but the need for a complete overhaul has not yet been justified. Over the years, improvement and amendments to the Constitution have been carried out as and when required. The parties held talks, knew what they wanted to change and amended the Constitution accordingly. This time round, the calls for changes appear to be uttered without any basis for discussions to take place.
Only inter-party talks in a Parliament setting can push through any constitutional reform- Hermann Schiavone
If talks on constitutional changes resume, our representatives ought to seriously consider reforming the electoral system. What are the problems and how can they be rectified?
Our system was introduced in 1921 and over the years numerous amendments have been adopted. The 1987 amendment was significant as from that election onwards the Constitution recognised the parties’ first preference national vote tallies. As a result of the 1987 and subsequent amendments, the parties are incentivised to nominate many more candidates than they expect to elect in a district. The principal aim is that of winning a few extra personal votes that would not otherwise be won. Consequently, the parties’ vigilance, especially on the eve of an election, is relaxed and, at the 11th hour, new candidates mushroom in every district. I strongly believe that the recruitment of candidates for national (and local) elections should be carried out more meticulously.
This problem could be addressed by having a two-ballots election, one to choose from the competing parties and the second (the same one in use today) to rank candidates within party lists. Such a reform would eliminate the need for over nomination because the recruitment of candidates will become secondary. Furthermore, the parties will be in a stronger position to maintain internal discipline because a sitting MP would not be guaranteed a place on the party slate in the following election.
Maltese candidates are permitted to stand in two districts concurrently. A number of high-profile candidates are elected from the two districts they contest and casual elections are held to fill their vacant seats. In the last four legislatures, 42 casual elections were required. Anomalous results were registered in half of them. This happened because the technique known as the count back method, applied for casual elections, penalises candidates who do well in the preceding election. The system also tends to bias in favour of candidates featured higher on a party list. The system should be reformed in a way to ensure that the election of candidates in casual (and national) elections is fairly achieved.
If dual candidacies are not permitted, the incidence of casual vacancies would only occur in the case of a resignation or death of an MP, just five (rather than 42) in the last four legislatures. When the electoral system was introduced in 1921, parties were concerned about finding enough candidates to contest all the districts. This is probably why dual candidacies were permitted in the first place. Finding enough candidates is no longer an issue and, therefore, the Constitution ought to be changed to reflect today’s reality.
The parties have discussed the issue of a national threshold but no agreement has yet been reached. As things stand today, a party requires about 16 per cent of support in a particular district to secure one seat. Small parties argue that the threshold is too high.
I cannot see the parties ever agreeing on a national threshold of, say, three per cent. Reducing the number of districts may be a good compromise. Today, we have 13 districts, 12 of which are in Malta and each returning five MPs. If we trim down the districts to six, each returning 10 MPs rather than five, the threshold would be reduced to just over eight per cent. In conjunction with this reform, parties should only be allowed to nominate no more than 10 candidates in a district. Limiting the number of candidates on a party list would ensure that the recruitment of candidates is carried out diligently.
These and other reforms would require the support of both parties but Joseph Muscat has reiterated that the Labour Party intends to continue to stay away from participating in the Parliamentary Select Committee tasked with discussing constitutional changes. At the same time, the PL will be proposing a constitutional convention.
Dr Muscat and the PL ought to understand that the forum within which discussions for constitutional changes are held is the Parliamentary Select Committee. The PL cannot pilot constitutional changes alone. Only inter-party talks in a Parliament setting can push through any constitutional reform.
info@schiavone.com.mt
Dr Schiavone is an electoral systems’ analyst.