Just before the last election, Labour Party leader Joseph Muscat said he wanted to give birth to a Second Republic should he be elected to government. He won the election handsomely but the promised constitutional reform, or the constitutional convention that was meant to lead up to it, appears nowhere in sight.
The Committee on the Awareness of the Maltese Constitution has published a survey titled ‘Awareness of the Constitution among the Maltese: a study’. The study found that a quarter of respondents did not know whether Malta had a constitution or thought one did not exist. Less than 13 per cent of the overall sample ever looked up information on the Constitution and the majority of them did so for reasons of work or study.
The survey report said it was gratifying to note that people’s awareness of rights and obligations emanating from the Constitution was relatively high. Elsewhere, however, the study says that any significant discussion about the Constitution presupposed an informed public and, given the big number of people not even knowing if Malta had one, “provides a formidable challenge to the committee”.
The problems with kick-starting a debate on constitutional reform are not related to public awareness only. The very nature of the reform is unclear.
To speak of a Second Republic implies a thorough revision of the Constitution that has generally served this country well for half a century. Establishing how far the next reform of the Constitution should go would be a good starting point. It has already been amended 24 times in 51 years.
Dr Muscat’s two Labour predecessors – Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and Alfred Sant – do not share his views about the need for a radical overhaul of the Constitution. Former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello also sees no need for radical changes.
The Today Public Policy Institute had presented a comprehensive review offering possible constitutional changes. They concerned citizens’ rights, the powers of the executive, the presidency, institutional issues and political matters like national days, neutrality and party political funding.
Despite the government’s promises, the convention that was to start off the constitutional debate has not materialised. A stumbling block here is the differences between the government and the Opposition on the possible appointment of Law Commissioner Franco Debono to head the convention. The Nationalist Party does not look favourably upon Dr Debono who, on his part, does not see himself as a stumbling block at all but inversely says that he and the PN “are on the same page in relation to constitutional reform”.
Opposition leader Simon Busuttil has suggested that it should be the President who chairs the talks on constitutional reform and keep it “above partisanship”. This proposal too has met opposition in some quarters with arguments being made that the President would have a conflict of interest if she was to chair talks concerning her office.
For the constitutional convention to take off successfully, it will be essential to have someone of stature and political independence to steer the debate. The convention should be coupled with an information campaign to draw the widest possible feedback from civil society, despite the survey findings.
The Constitution of Malta belongs to the people and not to political parties or protagonists. Therefore, the success of the convention would require not just fruitful debate but also wide consensus to see the changes through Parliament.
Having a controversy over who would actually chair the discussions is already a bad start.