More questions than answers

Constitutional changes reflect developments in the aspirations of people, individually and also as a group in relation to the other peoples around them. “Constitutional” changes within the EU over the years are a case in point.

It seems... we are finding it quite difficult in defining what we really want as a country- Stefan Gauci Scicluna

The calls for major constitutional changes in our political system have been on the increase. However, I believe there is only a general consensus that something has to change. It seems, though, we are finding it quite difficult in defining what we really want as a country.

In very simplified terms, the Maltese political system follows more or less the Westminster/parliamentary democracy model, whereby Parliament is considered to be the highest institution of the country.

Our forefathers adopted several constitutional structures and practices in such a way that suited Malta over these last 40 years. In fact, we function in a very different political culture from that of the UK, resulting in different expectations and perceptions about our Parliament, the party system, the electoral system, public administration and so on and so forth.

Discussing constitutional changes means discussing the very fabric of Maltese society. We need to ask the difficult questions. More often than not, the answers are not going to be straightforward. Moreover, we have to be mature enough in discussing them beyond the red and blue.

What is our common national history? What are we aspiring to be in the future? How do we definine and change our small state? Are we really a sovereign state within the EU? Are we becoming more or less sovereign in face of a closer union?

How do we define liberal democracy in our country, that is the relationship between the common good and the individual rights and duties? What is the relationship between religion and the state? What should be the relationship between the national, the regional and the local levels?

In face of significant international developments on the study of “space”, should the Maltese Constitution define the right of individual “space” in all its dimensions?

The above are among the existential questions. Then we have to ask more specific institutional questions.

What has changed de facto since our independence in terms of the Executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the role of civil society, the role of lobbyists etc? What should be the role of regulatory authorities? What should the electoral system be achieving in terms of representation in a diversified world?

These are only some of the major questions that we should be asking. We have to discuss these matters in light of several international developments that are happening, especially since the financial crisis.

The world is changing and we must avoid making changes that others are now correcting, especially those that used to assume that everyone is perfectly rational in his/her decisions and responsibilities.

Some local political commentators have recently been arguing that, for stability’s sake, the winning party in Parliament should be given a clear three-seat majority. Others are arguing in favour of a more Presidential political system rather than the parliamentary system we now have.

It is very unfortunate that the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Changes has stopped functioning. If parliamentarians do not lead by example on this matter then who else should do it?

It is time to get down to business. This matter requires mature politicians that deliver and are committed to societal sustainability.

I am against changing the Constitution in a hurry. In parallel to discussions about substantive constitutional changes, we have to put in place certain basic modifications in order to increase transparency and accountability among the decision-makers, the decision-takers and the decision-influencers.

I ask whether it is time to start registering all lobbyists through a compulsory register.

Maybe, it is also time to better consolidate the public administration structures to increase economies of scale, efficiency and accountability.

Perhaps, we should also strengthen the Office of the Auditor General by publishing more reports on the basis of public outcomes.

And the list of issues goes on and on.

At this point, there are more questions than answers. Different countries deal with different political and administrative scenarios in their own way. What we can say is that there is no best way.

However, experience is showing us that the most sustainable systems are those that combine technocracy with democracy, the long term with the short term and flexibility with rigidity mechanisms.

We Maltese have lots of challenges in the coming months and years.

Output legitimacy must be synchronised with input legitimacy.