Talk of constitutional amendments has been gaining momentum. But is there really need for a redesign of the island Republic, seeing as it has neither collapsed nor been discredited?

Lija, February 6, 2013. Joseph Muscat, then Opposition leader, declared he intended to give birth to a Second Republic following a constitutional convention, should he be elected to government.

The choice of venue highlighted Dr Muscat’s attempt to link to the events that had taken place on the site 94 years earlier. On August 8, 1919, the National Assembly under the chairmanship of Filippo Sceberras met in Villa Gourgion in Lija to draft a constitutional proposal following a ban imposed by the colonial authorities on meetings inValletta after the Sette Giugno incidents.

Six weeks after his declaration in Lija, on March 23, Dr Muscat appointed Franco Debono to coordinate the convention leading to the Second Republic. According to a Department of Information statement, his first task was “to prepare the terms of reference for a constitutional convention”.

Since then, not much has happened, at least as far as is publicly known. In recent weeks, however, the debate about constitutional amendments seems to be gaining momentum, although not necessarily over a Second Republic.

Looking at European history, new republics were formed after national catastrophes.

Each of the four expired French republics did so in a coup or war, in 1804, 1851, 1940 and 1958. Similar national traumas led other European countries to wind down the State outfit and set up a new one, including Greece (1924, 1974), Portugal (1926, 1974), Hungary (1946, 1989) and Poland (1918, 1989).

It is a little difficult to comprehend the need for a fundamental redesign of our republic.

It has neither collapsed nor is it discredited. There is general agreement that the 1964 Constitution, as amended over time, has served us well even in the most challenging scenarios within living memory.

In fact, Dr Muscat’s two Labour predecessors don’t share his views about the need for such a radical overhaul of the Constitution.

Soon after the 2013 election, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici said “there is no reason to create a Second Republic if it means destroying the foundations of the First Republic”. He was particularly irked by the suggestion that the neutrality clause should be changed. “The Constitution can be updated but it does not mean we need a Second Republic,” he added.

Alfred Sant, too, was sceptical of the desire for a radical transformation of our Constitution. “I do not believe we need to bring about radical changes in the Constitution,” was his firm opinion, except for a temporary provision mandating female quotas in Parliament and public bodies.

Dr Sant added: “I believe the Constitution is as good as it is managed. I think it has not been managed in good faith.”

We have to determine what our Republic stands for and not just make a couple of piecemeal changes to shut up a backbencher

He remarked that when the Maltese encounter an institutional blockage, they opt to change the structures. Instead, people should ask themselves whether they were making the best possible use of these structures.

“We should reflect on how to manage the Constitution in good faith, not on how to change it.”

Similar views are echoed in a report published in 2014 by the Today Public Policy Institute.

A group photo at the Belvedere monument of the National Assembly tasked with drafting a Constitution for Malta, August 1919.

“Regrettably, there has been a tendency for successive administrations to conclude that institutions should be replaced or reformed, rather than ensuring that the available institutions to organise economic and social behaviour are operated fairly, efficiently and prudently.

“It is for consideration, therefore, that rather than blaming institutional failures, there has mostly been a failure in administering these institutions properly.”

There is no need to change the Constitution radically, but rather to respect it and observe its dictates, former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello told The Sunday Times of Malta.

Dr Bonello considers the refusal of Malta’s Constitutional Court, “the voice of the Constitution”, to enforce the supremacy of the Constitution over all other laws and institutions as the Achilles’ heel in the edifice.

Contrary to what is expressly mandated by the Constitution, the courts have allowed a political Parliament to become supreme, even on the Constitution itself.

Sir Anthony Mamo and Dom Mintoff on the day Malta became a Republic, December 13, 1974.

Changes to the Constitution are not a novelty. It has been amended 24 times in the last 51 years (the US Constitution was amended 27 times in 227 years).

There is general agreement that the Constitution may be improved, the structures it sets up may be strengthened, citizens’ rights can be protected more adequately and new challenges addressed without undoing everything.

In December 2011, during an interview after the Labour Opposition’s withdrawal from the parliamentary select committee established to consider constitutional amendments, Dr Muscat remarked: “We want to give birth to a Second Republic, which is a totally different scenario than hotchpotch amendments; we have to determine what our Republic stands for and not just make a couple of piece-meal changes to shut up a backbencher.”

A monument of Luigi Preziosi in Floriana. Right: Filippo Sceberras.

Looking back, it is fair to state that the most successful attempts at constitutional drafting and amendments took place during the 1919 and 1945-1947 national assemblies and when Malta became a Republic in 1974.

All three exercises shared a common feature, namely a trusted chairman. Filippo Sceberras enjoyed the trust of all the parties when he led the 1919 assembly; the post-World War II assembly was chaired by Luigi Preziosi, with Reggie Miller serving as secretary in order to balance the main lines of thought. Anthony Mamo commanded the respect of those involved in 1974.

The question is whether that factor is present today.