In a speech commemorating Sette Giugno, the Speaker of the House last week made a refreshing proposal for some kind of think tank to be set up within Parliament, something he called a “committee on thought” which, in the search for solutions, would explore “new ideas, concepts and methodologies”.

The suggestion may not say much for the quality of thought that currently pervades the House, although Anglu Farrugia would almost certainly not have meant it that way.

He did, however, call on MPs to improve the quality of their speeches. Parliamentarians need more support in preparing them, he noted, announcing that the team of research analysts in the House of Representatives would soon be enlarged and suggesting that MPs might one day be given an allowance to employ their own researchers.

While the Speaker’s proposals and his reference to the verbosity and low quality of MPs’ speeches were interesting, his comments should prompt deeper reflection about whether Parliament and the people elected to it are equal to the crucial roles and responsibilities with which they have been entrusted.

In a parliamentary democracy, the central function of a House of Representatives is to scrutinise, debate and approve laws. The House is not there to govern the country – which is the role of the executive – but to hold the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to account.

Parliament’s inability to apply the necessary checks and balances to the power of the executive is a gaping hole at the heart of our democracy, as demonstrated so vividly during recent sessions revolving around the Panama Papers scandal.

On one level, plans to give Parliament its own budget and ability to recruit its own staff will undoubtedly strengthen its autonomy. Meanwhile, however, the scope and effectiveness of its select committees need to be strengthened as well, while one cannot say that parliamentary business is being transacted efficiently when the House is only part-time and when MPs, to boot, are regularly absent.

There are more immediate concerns. The increase in the number of ministerial portfolios and the appointment of backbench MPs to public entities have weakened the quality of governance expected from the House and have dented the democratic process. These measures, the latter in particular, have blurred the separation of responsibilities between the legislature and the executive and eroded parliamentary oversight.

But the crux of the issue corroding Malta’s parliamentary democracy stems from a drop in ethical standards in public life. The past three years have exposed a most worrying collapse in public standards. Instead of the government’s overwhelming electoral victory in 2013 leading to a period of stable government, Malta has witnessed turbulence, exposure to a constant diet of corruption claims, maladministration, nepotism and political polarisation unlike anything seen in 30 years – and MPs appear powerless to stop the rot.

There is a dire need to rebuild public and political trust in our parliamentary institutions. The blame for Malta’s malaise today can to some extent be placed on both main political parties. It does not foster constructive dialogue for the Opposition party to be ready to lash out at anything done by the ruling administration. Far worse, however, is that the government side now acts as though the rules of a liberal parliamentary democracy don’t apply to it, or can be applied selectively as and when it chooses.

A society that is constantly at loggerheads cannot progress. It goes without saying that the stability and smooth running of our democracy depends on an unwavering commitment to the rule of law and an unshakable obligation by the institutions, Parliament foremost among them, to uphold democratic values – both in theory and in practice.