There is definite lack of clarity regarding the presidency and its power. The political events witnessed a few weeks ago seemed to confirm the widespread perception that the presidency is a (costly) ceremonial post where members of one’s political team with whom the prime minister is not comfortable can be kicked upstairs or an extravagant perk by which one is rewarded (or which one awards himself, as in Eddie Fenech Adami’s case) at the end of a political career.
Regarding the last presidential appointment then, there wasn’t even the attempt to conceal this. The possible occupants indicated clearly that the supposedly top job in the republic was a chair they did not want to occupy.
Then comes George Abela’s last decision as president and the almost unanimous agreement as to what are the powers and role of his office is shattered.
The outgoing president decided not to sign the Civil Unions Bill if it were approved by Parliament. Independently of one’s opinions about the Bill, Abela’s decision set a serious precedent. Ours is a parliamentary republic. If we are to believe the official story (which I don’t), decisions are made and unmade by representatives to whom the people delegate their power to decide matters that concern the State (with the exception of abrogative referenda, through which the people retain powers to affect political decisions).
The president is not elected by the people. In Abela’s case, he wasn’t even appointed by the present administration.
Moreover, in Malta the practice does not exist, as for instance, is the case in Italy, whereby the president may occasionally send a Bill back to Parliament to be further discussed and possibly amended.
As with the governor-generals that preceded them, presidents are expected to have a consultative status and to rubber-stamp decisions that Parliament makes.
We seem to be afraid of neat and cost-effective solutions
Abela’s decision may have paved the way for his successors refusing to sign any Bill they deem harmful to the nation, regardless of what Parliament approves. So if a future president would have a bleak view of a particular law or proviso, s/he might feel entitled to request that the Bill is not presented to him/her to sign it since a precedent has now been set.
Abela’s decision is aggravated by a number of features.
First of all, he did not state beforehand that he would not sign such a law (as, on the other hand, Fenech Adami had done when appointed president regarding a possible abortion Bill), even though he could have done this. He could have made his intentions clear prior to the last election, since the introduction of a Civil Unions Bill was a part of the political manifesto of the three major parties.
Secondly, if, as hinted by some newspapers, Abela made up his mind not to sign the Bill in question following a meeting he had with Pope Francis, then, it would mean that his decision as the head of a supposedly secular and sovereign State follow the ‘advice’ of a religious leader, one who, moreover, is himself the head of a foreign sovereign State.
Thirdly, Abela, who, incidentally, had no qualms about signing the divorce Bill, did not make a conscientious stand in a manner that does not obstruct the workings of a democratically-elected administration, as other heads of State did elsewhere. King Baudouin of Belgium, for instance, requested to be dispensed from office for one day in order not to sign the Bill that made abortion legal in his country.
As stated, Abela’s decision creates that possibility that similar events may re-occur in the future. The solution to this danger, I believe, is cheap and neat: abolish the presidency altogether when Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca’s term is over. After all, why do we need a head of State? We are a republic. It is the people who are supposedly sovereign.
The State-related ceremonial functions associated to the presidency may be taken over by the Speaker. San Anton Palace, the new farmhouse in Gozo and other locations associated to the presidency could be put to better use.
State coffers would also economise on the wages of a sizeable and useless entourage. (Did you know that, apart from butlers, cooks and a myriad of presidential aides, there was an official whose sole role was giving advice to the First Lady?)
The person who would be entrusted with signing Bills (this could be the Speaker himself) would only have a clerk-like function; rubber-stamping decisions which Parliament makes.
It should be clearly indicated that if s/he conscientiously maintains that he cannot sign some Bill or other, there is only one way s/he can do that: resigning his/her post.
But then we seem to be afraid of neat and cost-effective solutions, unless, that is, these concern those in the lowest echelons of society whom we label cheats or bums.