The third edition of the President’s Forum held last week discussed constitutional reform, a theme the political parties highlighted in last month’s election. The President’s initiative is welcome as there are certainly aspects of the Constitution that need revising; the Prime Minister, furthermore, has already said he intends to set up a Constitutional Convention to examine exactly what changes need to be brought about.
It is important to emphasise that Malta’s Independence Constitution has on the whole served the nation well over the past five decades. Malta is a fully functioning liberal democracy where the rule of law is supreme, even though the country did go through a difficult period in the 1980s. However, whenever the Constitution needed to be amended, this was done; in fact, it has been amended 24 times, including when Malta became a Republic and when the principle of majority rule was agreed upon.
During the electoral campaign, Joseph Muscat spoke about the setting up of a ‘Second Republic’ and spoke about implementing constitutional reform. It is important, however, that such reform is not rushed or based on a political slogan; neither should the Constitutional Convention pre-judge what needs to be changed. The Convention, which will hopefully include members of civil society, should discuss and evaluate in a calm and reflective manner what aspects of the Constitution need to be revised and then make its recommendations.
The Government’s appointment of Franco Debono as the co-ordinator of the Constitutional Convention – without doubt its worst appointment so far – could prove problematic in this whole process. The main characteristic of such an appointee should be the ability to forge a consensus between the political parties, and the Nationalist Party, rightly so, has made it clear that it is very unhappy with Debono being given such a role. It is now up to the Government to find a way to solve this problem which it created.
There are some aspects of constitutional reform which are clear, obvious and long overdue, such as Malta’s outdated concept of neutrality. The world has changed, there are no longer two superpowers, and Malta is an EU member state and a member of the Partnership for Peace. The reference in our Constitution to non-alignment is obsolete. The neutrality clause needs to be revised to take into consideration today’s geo-political realities and our EU commitments.
There are, of course, other aspects of constitutional reform to be considered by the Convention. These could include increasing ministers’ accountability to Parliament, establishing clear guidelines for when such ministers are obliged to resign, making Parliament more autonomous and independent of the executive, strengthening MPs’ functions, judicial reform and amending the role and composition of the Broadcasting Authority to better reflect today’s realities.
A revision in some of the functions of the President might also be in order. Does it make sense, for example, for the President, rather than the Prime Minister, to read out the government’s programme in Parliament at the start of the five-year legislature?
It could also make sense for the Convention to discuss certain political issues that have constitutional implications, such as the right of Maltese citizens who live abroad to vote at Malta’s embassies as well as the establishment of two National Days for the country (Independence and Republic Day) instead of the five we have at the moment.
We wish the Constitutional Convention well and augur that a consensus is reached over what needs to be changed for the long-term benefit of Maltese society.