The President’s initiative to hold a forum on constitutional reform with the participation of experts on the subject and the input of the general public is a welcome contribution to the ongoing debate on the subject.

When the lists of candidates are too long voters tend to select the first two or three individuals but would go haphazardly by alphabet thereafter

This should also be seen in the context of the various declarations already made by the new government, that one of its priorities is that of undertaking wide consultation on such reforms with the possibility of establishing at the end of the national debate a new Constitution and the institution of a second republic.

The intention of the Government seems to be, as a first step, that of launching a national convention on constitutional reform. The appointment of Franco Debono as coordinator of the convention has, however, already proved to be highly controversial and could unfortunately turn out in the end to be a major stumbling block in attaining the required (indeed essential) national consensus.

Given President Abela’s declared interest in the matter and his acknowledged status as a popular unifying national figure and the fact that he is the first ever president of Malta to be unanimously elected to that position by the approval of both main political parties in Parliament, it would seem to me to be most appropriate to assign to him, or his office, the role of national coordination of the debate and the convention in particular.

Turning to the question of the content of the reforms, one can refer to one of the most relevant contributions to the last President’s Forum by Kevin Aquilina who proposed the creation of a Council of State to help the President assume a more relevant role in state affairs and in particular by being given direct responsibility for institutional appointments, as also that of other important appointments in the country.

The neutrality clause would certainly need to be looked into to take into consideration developments since 1974. Another area that needs serious scrutiny is Article 2 of the Constitution on the Religion of Malta. Is such a provision really necessary under a republican constitution that declares “that every person in Malta is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual”?

Although strictly speaking not parts of the constitutional reforms, a party financing bill and reform of the electoral system would ensure that the democratic process in Malta is also greatly strengthened. Debono’s Bill drafted with the approval of the previous government could form the basis of the debate in this regard until a consensus is reached. The single transferable vote (STV) on the voting system has long been established in Malta. The system has generally given good results, but famous historical exceptions (or quirks) are also known.

Various amendments to the electoral law now ensure that in the event of a disputed mandate (such as happened in 1981 and almost so in 1971) the party supported by an overall majority of voters in the final result is awarded a number of additional seats so that the party also secures the required parliamentary majority.

It is a moot question whether we should now embark on a totally new voting system. A system that would be transparent, quick, efficient and less complicated. The STV vote which aims at electing individuals rather than parties has its inherent defects. The most evident is that when the lists of candidates are too long (as is always the case in Malta) voters tend to select the first two or three individuals but would go haphazardly by alphabet thereafter. The results in Malta over the years confirm this propensity.

To my mind the Party List System would solve this problem and would respond to the Maltese tendency to go for the party rather than the individual. The parties would determine themselves beforehand who will fill the seats that they are to be allocated in proportion to the overall votes obtainable in the general election by the party concerned. Elections in Germany and Israel are conducted according to this system.

The system is improved if an open party list system is adopted whereby parties allow voters to be given a degree of decision in the selection of candidates on the lists by holding free party elections on the individuals. This system is in place with some notable variants in Denmark, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

This crucial part of the process could be carried out by the party itself under its own steam and discipline well in advance of the formal general elections to enable voters to form a mature and considered opinion on the individual candidates and the party proposing them. The party elections of candidates on the list could also be conducted under the supervision of the official Electoral Commission, if the party so decides, to give the whole process a blanket of authoritative credibility, but the inclusion of the Commission would not be obligatory. This would be left to the party concerned to determine. However, it would be to the party’s own advantage and interests to show the electorate that the process of selection of candidates has been conducted throughout with the utmost seriousness and above board.