The lack of adequate safety measures at last week’s racing accident, leading to the serious injury of spectators, has triggered a fresh look at how such events are handled.

The fact that the organisers were linked to the Office of the President has raised eyebrows. An inquiry is ongoing. In the aftermath, a legal expert clarified to this newspaper that fundraising events are not related to the constitutional functions of the President.

Our President’s traditional role is largely ceremonial. In the past the public image was of a national figurehead attending cere­monies and events, making speeches and cutting ribbons, as well as supporting charities, receiving foreign dignitaries and visiting vulnerable members of society, a bit like the British monarch. Of course there are duties like signing Bills into laws, but those don’t get so much publicity.

Actively fundraising for charity, by incessant personal participation in marathons, television shows and other events, is quite different. I think that if this happened occasionally, there would be no issue at all. Supporting a good cause is well-meaning and positive. But the President’s daily role has almost become synonymous with the Malta Community Chest Fund, and that merits a spot of scrutiny.

Originally the MCCF was under the wing of the spouses of the President. Since at least 2009, however, it has been the Presidents themselves who take the lead in this charity work. People seem to have embraced it as the fulcrum of the President’s identity. Former president George Abela had even extended his charity role overseas, travelling across the world to Peru in South America to do some hands-on voluntary work there, while he was still President of Malta.

I repeat, the causes are worthy and I have no doubt that the funds raised have genuinely helped many people in need. Yet it is legitimate to wonder how the role of head of State has morphed into chief national fundraiser.

One reason might lie with the decision to appoint dynamic, youngish politicians as President. The position may be better suited for an older, retired person, who is comfortable with a slower pace. Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca was a committed, successful and active Cabinet minister, with many years of her political life still ahead, when she moved to San Anton Palace.

I cannot answer the question of whether this was the right choice for her personally. She has taken on the position energetically, and remains popular. Yet the Presidency only lasts five years and the new roles that a former president can take on once the term is over, are probably limited. Five years pass quickly.

Coleiro Preca was one of only two women ministers in the government Cabi­net when she was appointed President. Today there is only one woman as minister, Helena Dalli, and a parliamentary secretary, Justyne Caruana.

It is legitimate to wonder how the role of head of State has morphed into chief national fundraiser

Reducing the number of women in leading political roles is a pity. It is hard enough for them to break through all the invisible barriers and glass ceilings as it is. To then ask any one of them to step down midway into a more sedate position, after all that work getting elected, and just when enthusiastically engaged in major government duties, may seem disappointing.

Yes, I know that the Presidency is prestigious, but I suspect that the actual work involved can’t actually be all that challenging. Otherwise we would not have our younger Presidents transforming the MCCF into their main activity, however well they may do it. And even so, running the MCCF and heading a government ministry are two very different worlds.

The duties of the President should be widened, especially if we are to continue with this trend of appointing younger and active politicians.

A report on the Constitution published last year by the Today Public Policy Institute, written by Martin Scicluna and former Speaker of the House Michael Frendo, proposes that the role of the Presi­dency should be reconsidered. This could include granting more powers to the President and allowing a longer term, instead of just five years. It also questions the propriety of appointing senior active members of government as President.

The proposals include responsibility for conflict resolution. Certain powers could be devolved from the Executive to the President, who would appoint the Electoral Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Broadcasting Authority, and so on.

The President would also appoint politi­cally-sensitive posts, like the Commander of the Armed Forces and the Commissioner of Police. In this, presidents would be empowered to carry out consultations with a wider sector of society. The report recommends that the President should, however, no longer chair the Commission for the Administration of Justice, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, as happened in the past.

Whether these ideas are doable is up for discussion. The plan was to debate them at the Constitutional Convention which, as far as I know, was to be organised by Law Commissioner Franco Debono. This was also part of the government’s electoral manifesto, with the rather grandiose idea of founding a Second Republic. So far, no date for this Convention has been set. Perhaps it is time for the Law Commissioner to provide an update.

petracdingli@gmail.com