The bold decision by the Prime Minister, in the national interest, to appoint George Abela (picture) to the highest office, and behind which decison I was, from the outset, four square, is even more symbolic and meaningful, since the required parliamentary approval, which is legally required, is that of a simple resolution, according to Section 48 of the Constitution, meaning that to fill the highest office, the lowest majority is contemplated, and technically not even a quorum is required. This notwithstanding, the Prime Minister's decision gained unanimous approval.
Our Constitution envisages various degrees of approval, including in amending the Constitution itself: simple majority of those present and voting, where not even a quorum is required; absolute majority, meaning 50 per cent plus one of all the members of the House, in actual fact equivalent to 35 votes; and the two-thirds qualified majority required in certain cases stipulated in the Constitution itself. However, the Prime Mininster soared to unprecedented heights with his decision.
The degree of assent required is generally an indication and proportional to the importance of the particular matter to be decided upon.
Now, the President, like the national anthem and the flag, and possibly the language, represents the continuity of a collective national identity of a people, of a nation. Sovereignty, the exercise of authority in the name of the people, a higher unity above the factious divisions of party politics, and continuity, are the essential attributes of the modern state. It is the ultimate moral depositary of the exercise of authority. The President, then, is the head, as symbol of a unity which is the state itself. The President represents continuity in time and unity in space.
However national unity is a moral, psychological factor. It is a sentiment that can only be gauged according to how people perceive the office-holder, and hence the office. Unity is not a fictitious concept. It is real, and it is composed of the collectivity of single perceptions.
Being symbolic doesn't mean unreal or imaginary. It means the concrete incarnation of a national psychological sentiment. This is the litmus test for presidents. This is the yardstick. Then everything else follows, including the normal discharge of his ordinary functions.
No one can assure us that the historic, bold decision taken by a statesman like our Prime Minister will become standard practice, rather than an isolated episode, though we all augur that the seed sown should be cultivated and nurtured and that future presidents are the offspring of agreement and not orphans of the backing of almost half the House.
We should always strive, in the future, to appoint Presidents with the widest possible consensus.
However, at least we can impose on future parliaments a guarantee that at least, as a minimum, an absolute majority is required, rather than a simple one, thus further injecting prestige and dignity in an office which embodies our national identity and sense of national pride. A simple resolution, not even requiring a quorum, is too low a requirement for such a high office.
Our state is in good shape. It is in a state of good health. This constitutional amendment could be the very first step in nurturing the seed we have just sown, and the next step on our road of political maturity.