Speaking at the President’s Forum six weeks or so ago, historian and former Labour general secretary Dominic Fenech gave a short historical background on the whys and wherefores behind our electoral system, the so-called Single Transferable Vote (STV) system.

What has been happening in Parliament exposes the weaknesses of our electoral system- Michael Falzon

Fenech pointed out that the introduction of this system in our 1921 Constitution was the work of Viscount Milner and Leopold Amery, two prominent members of the Proportional Representation Society that had failed to introduce the system Britain.

The British thought this system would entice candidates who are not tied to existing political groupings as people would be voting for individual candidates rather than for political parties and the system would also tend to produce a multi-party Parliament with no clear winner – more to the benefit of the colonial master than to Malta.

Over the years we have practically defied the system and, more often than not, managed to promote a two-party system; even amending the system to make the result one where the distribution of seats in a two-party Parliament reflects the distribution of first preference votes garnered by the two parties.

Even so, recent events indicate that something has gone wrong: no Prime Minister should be held hostage by an MP from his own party. The right to govern, once given to the Prime Minister for a predetermined term, should not be sabotaged in this way. Perhaps the British colonialist has had his revenge – quite late in the day, of course.

Writing in The Times last Tuesday, Joseph Vella Bonnici asked whether the recent so-called ‘backbench revolt’ should spur a radical reform in our electoral system.

I tend to agree with Vella Bonnici in that what has been happening in Parliament exposes the weaknesses of our electoral system in which the voter has now become faced with a hotchpotch between the choice of an individual candidate and the choice of an established political party.

I have always been of the opinion that the system does not produce the best result possible – or anywhere near it – for Malta. While many argue that the Maltese voter is used to the system, in actual fact the average Maltese voter is not aware of the mathematical implications of the numbers he indicates in front of the names of the different candidates.

Tell any voter that he has only one vote that can only be given to one candidate and the voter will stare back in disbelief. Tell the voter that this single vote goes to the person indicated as the first preference (with a Number 1) and that the other numbers are just ‘insurance’ in case the preferred candidate does not utilise the vote… and the voter will think you are hallucinating.

Ask any voter coming out of the polling booth to recall the names of the candidates that were given his or her preferences after number three and the voter will stare at you in the face – which partly explains why casual elections are ‘pot luck’ lotteries that leave unexpected ‘victims’ and ‘triumphs’ in their wake.

This system, moreover, has pitted candidates of the same party against each other and this has led to a lot of waste of money, energy and effort as well as to a very high degree of clientelism.

It has given voters the power of blackmail and the political class the bad perception that it enjoys; besides being one of the causes of over-manning in the public sector.

Another problem is that the system has tended to blur the distinction between the legislative and the executive branches of the Maltese state.

As things stand, the Prime Minister cannot appoint technocrats in his Cabinet and the pool of people from which ministers can be chosen is incredibly limited, whether we have a Nationalist or a Labour government.

In contrast to what happens in most European countries, a Maltese minister has to balance his time between his responsibilities to the nation and his responsibilities to his voters; with the two not being necessarily compatible.

A minister’s job should be mainly that of formulating policies and strategic plans in the sector he is responsible for, attaining Cabinet endorsement for them, and then monitoring what is going on to ensure that these policies are actually implemented and see when they need to be adjusted. Dealing with the sob stories of constituents – actual or potential voters – can only be a distraction.

In his introduction to the last meeting of his forum, President George Abela asked – among other things – whether Malta should consider a presidential system of government.

This would imply a President elected by popular vote appointing a Cabinet that would not necessarily be composed of elected MPs and a House of Representatives with the duty to legislate being its main preoccupation.

The checks and balances between the executive and the legislative arms of government would then not depend on the whims and fancies of some maverick MP!

Will we do something about it now, or must we wait for more eccentric episodes before we take the plunge?

micfal@maltanet.net