With only four months to go before the current President of the Republic relinquishes his post, time is pressing for the selection of his successor. The worst thing that can happen is to have the post filled by a person considered to be divisive in character.

Uncertainty over this very important aspect of the appointment has been mainly engendered by the string of highly controversial appointments made by the government in no time after its election in the March general election, starting by the appointment of the MP that brought the previous government down as constitutional convention coordinator. In the circumstances, a more divisive appointment than this can hardly be imagined.

It may well be argued that some of the past appointees to the presidency were politically divisive in their careers. This is all too true, but, to their credit, once appointed, each and every occupier of the post has served the country well.

However, would it not be better if the appointment has the widest possible national backing from the start?

It would seem that the Nationalists are expecting the president to be appointed from among their ranks. But surely appointment to such a high office ought not to be made subject to such party political alternation.

It should not necessarily follow that, since the current president is from the Labour camp, the next appointment ought to be from the PN ranks. It is whether an appointee has the quality to act as a unifying force that ought to be given top consideration.

George Abela, who has done a good job as president, touched on this when he spoke at the annual Republic Day anniversary event. This is how he put it:

“The objective should be to choose a strong President that will unite all the political forces around him and who will be accepted by the people so as to really represent the unity in the country. The political reality is that many times the choice to appoint a new president rests with the prime minister who enjoys parliament’s majority. This, although in line with the constitution, is not necessarily aimed at searching for the best candidate to become president.”

So, how should the President be chosen? Never mind for the moment the more heavy issues over what kind of powers the president ought to have so that, to use Dr Abela’s words, he will have “a more active and decisive role”.

This will require far more time to be determined and agreed upon, preferably through national consultation. Indeed, a clear, national vision has yet to emerge of the kind of role the country would like the President to play in the country’s affairs.

However, the more urgent need right now is for clear thinking on the appointment of the next president in April.

Dr Abela believes “it would be wiser if the choice of President would be reached through a wide consensus by all the country’s political forces, within a framework of genuine exchanges to ensure that the chosen person will be acceptable to all parties, thus providing the assurance to carry out his role.”

This should not be the tall order that it appears to be at first, not if partisan political interests are set aside. It ought not to be absolutely necessary either for the appointee to come from the political class. Surely there are persons who are endowed with all the right qualities, including political nous, that make them ideal candidates for the post.

Meanwhile, we wish our readers a Happy New Year.