In a strong speech in Parliament recently, the leader of the Opposition rightly deplored any attempt to tamper with Malta’s democratic institutions. It was a wide-ranging speech touching on a number of important governance issues: the inept and opaque handling of Sai Mizzi Liang’s salary package, the lack of transparency over the Enemalta Bill and the Labour Party’s apparent volte face over party political funding now they are in government.

But the main thrust of his argument focused on the Prime Minister’s intention to alter the dates of local council elections laid down in the Local Councils Act. The government may be contemplating the amendment of the law and revoking all local elections for five years.

The Prime Minister was reported as saying last May that elections for local councils were a waste of money. Simon Busuttil, quite rightly, countered that “democracy [as exemplified by the holding of elections when due] is not a waste of money”. Any such move would undermine democracy and “smack of dictatorship”.

Although there is an element of grandstanding about Busuttil’s words (but then when was grandstanding not a part of any politician’s repertoire?), there are wider issues at stake that should give both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition pause for thought.

The Local Councils Act lays down that local elections should be held every four years. For reasons which need not detain us it was decided that after the 2009 local elections, at which only one third of councils held elections lasting a three-year term, local council elections after 2012 would take place every two years, with elections of half the councils (the so-called ‘2012 group’) completing a three-year term in 2015, the other half, whose elections were held in 2013 (the ‘2013 group’), standing for elections after a four-year term in 2017 and the ‘2012 group’ then returning to the polls after four years in 2019. And so on.

Under the law, the Prime Minister is permitted to postpone an election by up to one year if, during that year, a European Parliament or general election is due to be held so that they may be held on the same day. But he has no right, unless he changes the law, to disenfranchise the people of 22 councils in such places as Vittoriosa, Senglea, Qormi, Floriana, St Julian’s, Balzan, Siġġiewi, Attard and others from casting their votes in the elections they were due to hold next year.

Amending the law to revoke council elections for five years would set a poor precedent and simply be seen as high-handed and an abuse of electoral power to the detriment of the legitimate democratic expectations under the law of about 100,000 citizens.

There can be little argument as the Prime Minister has highlighted that the rolling process of local elections presently laid down in the law is Byzantine, politically disruptive, administratively costly and simply ratchets up the political temperature in a country which could do with cooler heads and less, much less, politics.

However, it would be wrong of any government unilaterally to tamper with an electoral process without a proper examination of the alternatives, a clear-headed assessment of the unintended consequences and an attempt at achieving national political consensus on the most constructive way ahead.

Moreover, although in the wider scheme of things, council elections are a relatively minor issue, the proposed change, if pursued, would send totally the wrong message at the very time when the government is due to embark on a review of the Constitution of Malta under a high-powered ‘Constitutional Convention’.

This is not the time for government to act unilaterally to change the Local Councils Act or for the government and the Opposition to enter into a spat over the right of people living in half of Malta and Gozo to exercise their democratic vote at the time laid down by law. Nor would it convey the right message about the vital need to achieve consensus over any changes that may subsequently be proposed by the constitutional convention on the sensitive issue of the Constitution.

A discussion on the Constitution must involve all Malta’s citizens

The forthcoming review of the 50-year-old Constitution should start from a number of basic premises. The first is that one tampers with a Constitution at one’s peril. You only have to recall the Hungarian government’s reform of their Constitution, which led to considerable concerns within the EU, to realise the truth of this maxim. Indeed, in matters of the Constitution, it would be wise of the Prime Minister to be guided by the old adage that “when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change”.

Secondly, it is crucial for there to be broad consensus between the political parties on any rewriting of the Constitution that may be necessary. Indeed, if political agreement has not proved possible, attempted changes to the Constitution could prove highly destabilising.

It would be far better if such circumstances arose to abandon the project to review and revise the Constitution and stick with the tried and tested processes under the current Constitution that have served Malta so well – even if not perfectly – for the last 50 years. It is vital on this issue that the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition should rise above the political fray.

Thirdly, any discussion of the Constitution should begin with a sound assessment of where it stands today.

What are its strengths and weaknesses? How might it be improved for the greater good of the country?

It is no good trying to cherry-pick aspects of the Constitution – whether it be, say, neutrality, or national days, the country’s flawed electoral law, or local government and council elections, to mention just a few topical issues – without at the same time recognising that each action may have an equal and opposite reaction. The Constitution has to work as an organic whole.

Fourthly and most importantly, the supreme value of having somebody of stature, political independence and objectivity to guide the review of the Constitution will be crucial to its success. Consensus-building will be key to the success of the convention. The presence of a person of stature to lead it will help defuse any political heat that might otherwise threaten to undermine the convention before it has even begun.

The Constitution belongs to everybody. It represents the bedrock of the democratic governance of Malta. It is the rule-book regulating Malta’s governing institutions and processes. It constitutes the supreme law of Malta. It does not belong to the politicians or the constitutional policy wonks.

Its discussion must involve all Malta’s citizens. It would be a mistake to seek to restrict discussion to a tight group of politicians working to some preconceived agenda about the way ahead without involving the people who will be directly affected. Any discussion must include a period of listening to civil society.

Whether dealing with amendments to the Local Councils Act or the Constitution of Malta, the promise should be that the rules of the game are predictable. The more often they are changed, the less seriously citizens will take them.

Without proper rules, representative democracy is undermined.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.