The Nationalist and Labour parties are both open to discussing a future change to the Constitution to avoid situations where a government ends up with a one-seat majority in Parliament.

Both have now seen their government’s stability threatened by one rogue MP withdrawing support and causing the downfall of an entire government. This happened in 1998 by Labour MP Dom Mintoff when Prime Minister Alfred Sant had a one-seat majority and could happen soon to the Nationalist Party, judging by Nationalist MP Franco Debono’s declarations. During this legislature, the one-seat majority enjoyed by the Nationalist government has empowered MPs like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jean-Pierre Farrugia to get their ways on issues like divorce and ministerial pay. Dr Debono has gone a step further, challenging the Prime Minister’s leadership and demanding an early election. Sources say there are questions being asked within both parties about whether one-seat majorities give rise to undue instability and, if so, how this should be prevented. According to one proposal, the party winning a majority of votes at an election would be automatically given a three-seat majority to be able to form a stable government. Alfred Grixti, who had unsuccessfully contested the post of Labour Party general secretary, made this suggestion in articles on Labour-leaning daily L-Orizzont.

When contacted, a PL spokesman said it would discuss such a proposal as part of a larger reform of the Constitution, which it has been proposing for months. The spokesman was quick to add: “We are sure that, if we are entrusted with power, the country will have a stable Labour government.”

A PN spokesman said: “It is obvious that, in our system, there is the danger that a government will be held hostage by a single MP. This is not good for democracy because democracy is embodied in Parliament as a whole and not in a single MP out of 65.”

The spokesman acknowledged, however, that discussing such an issue would not look good. “While we have always been open to discuss this issue, discussing it right now might appear opportunistic on the part of the PN and, therefore, not credible.” Alternattiva Demokratika said it was against the piecemeal “continuous tampering” with the “flawed” electoral system that had been going on since 1987.

To ensure proportional representation in Parliament and stability in government, an AD spokesman said there should be a national threshold to ensure that any party winning 2.5 per cent of the vote would be represented in Parliament. This would complement the system where voters elected individual candidates at district level, spokesman Arnold Cassola said.

Joe Brincat, constitutional lawyer

“Experience is showing that parliaments depending on a one-member majority are continuously at risk of being toppled. The strength of the single member far exceeds the strength of the other components of the majority party and it is not always a question of principle that may motivate a member to vote against his own government or keep it on tenterhooks...

Democracy is meant to favour stable governments

“The Italians have invented the ‘majority bonus’, where the majority party has additional seats to guarantee it can function comfortably.

“I think it is advisable for the two political parties to agree on a system that a party winning should have a minimum majority of three seats in Parliament. This would render any soloist from overpowering the chorus of other members. No single individual MP would be indispensable. After all, democracy is meant to favour stable governments.

“This does not mean that the individual member should be just a number.

He is in duty bound to voice criticism to improve anything that his government may not be doing well.

“There is also the German model, which we copied in the Local Councils Act, where a vote of no confidence proposes an alternative to the mayor or deputy mayor.

“This gives a strong element of stability and greater freedom to the individual member to voice his criticism and even vote against a law without endangering the government.”

Ranier Fsadni, anthropologist

“Giving the winning party more extra seats to ensure a stable government involves a contentious democratic trade-off. If the aim is to find ways of institutionalising democratic dissent while permitting stable government, then we should be asking more fundamental questions and not just trying to patch up the system we have.

Do we have a political system adequate to the demands of 21st-century good governance?

“For example, has the time come to have a deliberative second Chamber with members not necessarily elected on any political party platform, having no power to pass, amend or repeal laws but with the authority to make recommendations to the legislature?

“Should we have a presidential system of government, where the Executive is completely separated from the legislature so that, with the appropriate checks and balances, the head of government would have the right to nominate anyone (not necessarily an MP) to a Cabinet position while Parliament, including the MPs of the President’s own party, would be empowered to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account?

“I don’t think we should delve into any single proposal without first canvassing the broad options. The overarching question should not be: How do we avoid a repeat of this highly peculiar 2012 episode in the decades to come? It should be: Do we have a political system adequate to the demands of 21st-century good governance?”