What is the difference between Elizabeth Windsor (Saxe-Coburg Gotha), Francois Hollande, Giorgio Napoletano and Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca? None.

They are all the heads of their respective nations. Their style differs, it is true. No headship is like another. Some are more politically-engaged, some less so. It is a result of the political Weltanschauung (world view) of their countries. Some are interventionist, others are remote and some others have an intermittent presence.

I believe that we Maltese have a problem with our presidential nous. I feel we believe we must have a president because it is the sine qua non of being a republic but as to what presidential office stands for, it seems to be enigmatic.

We seem to be in agreement that it should be mainly ceremonial, which proves the suspicion of ‘needing a president because a president we must have’ as being true.

When you have a president who is energetic, still relatively young and deeply philanthropic, you are bound to have ripples. Such a person will feel frustrated by the greyness, the undefinedness, of presidential office.

People who are selected as presidents have outstanding qualities and it is those very qualities which spur them into action.

From this point on, it is my opinion which shall be declared, with all due respect, of course.

I think the President of the Republic of Malta should have, as their primary function, the vigilance of political life.

The office should operate quietly and silently, observing, listening and assessing what all politicians do and say and intervening to check excesses, either privately or, in blatant cases, even publicly.

The office must be supra partes and engage in public applause or opprobrium, acting as check or governor to steer political life through the middle way.

We believe the President’s function is merely ceremonial but the President does have teeth. The President’s signature is required, by law, in many cases. Some of my family’s property was expropriated by presidential decree, for example. Well, nothing obliges the President to acquiesce.

Let politicians behave or the President gives them an ear-tug.

The people must have sufficient space to say what they expect their presidents to do

Does the President have to resign if they fail to toe the line? Probably, but which political party would want such a horror on its history book? No, no, the Presidency does have power. It only needs to realise it.

Unfortunately, this signing procedure has been demoted to a rubber-stamp reflex action. No analytical assessment of the fairness or otherwise of the official requests presented to the office for endorsement seems, to me at least, detectable.

So far, presidents have either been background figures or socially engaged ones. Not a single president came to the fore in times of political crisis (I expect protests at this claim). They were all either quiet or dedicated to harmless, charming causes.

The office of the president must not relegate itself to peripherality. It is a political office, the result not of a plebiscite but of a political decision and, therefore, it is intensely political.

Yet, it must be above partisan politics and manifestly so.

This is not easy but it is, to my mind, necessary.

The President’s duty is not to preach lifestyles, nor is it about what the government itself should do with regard to funding essentials, like providing help and cure to the gravely ill.

I believe the President should be the guardian of a democratic system, safeguarding fair play in all political matters, whether it is the equitability of a Budget or the hygiene of Opposition tactics.

It should serve as a bulwark against the hoodwinking of the public at large, endowing respect to both politicians and politics because of the pressure it would bring to bear.

The President’s personal moral code and sense of ethics should guide the holder of the position to censure, commend, comment on, counsel about or advise amendment to political moves which have substance.

It is a position of trust and that trust must be displayed even by the very Parliament which appointed the person to the office.

This the President should do because they were chosen in the belief that they represent the national soul. Whether all this is carried out privately or not I would leave to the office itself.

But if the President were to move, even secretly, it would be a grave warning note.

I do not think I am speaking out of turn. While it is true that it is politicians who choose presidents, surely the people must have sufficient space to say what they expect their presidents to do.