In a representative, parliamentary democracy, Parliament is a vital institution. Indeed, it is the most important organ of the popular will. It is through it that what the people want becomes law. But it is not the people who sit in Parliament. In a representative democracy, we choose our representatives to sit in Parliament for us for a number of years and trust that they will do the right thing when they are there.
We do not, as such, express ourselves on each and every issue that comes before Parliament. It is the individuals we choose to sit in Parliament on our behalf who do.
True, we choose them and not others also because we believe that they will make choices that are consistent with the principles of the political party they represent in Parliament, the same party we voted for. In practice, however, it is more complicated than that.
Assume that each one of us has a party "of one's own" with whose principles and programme we are comfortable. Assume that your choice of political party is indeed a considered choice - a considered choice made at each and every election - and not a characteristic you inherit or at best acquire without ever seriously thinking about it. Assume that your choice of party is not transaction for services rendered or to be rendered. Assume it is not a cash transaction.
If you can assume the above, read further. No, on second thoughts, please read on even if, as you were reading the above assumptions, you discovered that you cannot in all honesty say that, yes, they all apply and have all always applied to you. Otherwise, it may well be that very few will continue to read this column today.
Assume further that one's party will behave in Parliament in a manner consistent with its declared principles and programme. Assume, of course, that your party does have a set of declared principles and an up-to-date programme and that you are aware of both. Finally, assume that you have understood the said principles and programme (and their implications for the everyday life of your country) and that you are in agreement with them.
Well, even if you have arrived to this point and have responded to each and every assumption with an unblinking "aye", the issue of the extent to which your will is represented in Parliament is not resolved. The truth is that a lot depends on the quality of the individuals you have chosen, as individuals with a mind and a personality of their own and not merely as names on your party's list of candidates.
This is where things become complicated. This is an issue that both parties need to give some attention to. No, correct that. This is an issue both parties need to give all their attention to. Assuming that a snap election is not around the corner then this is the right moment for both parties to have a long, hard look at the quality of their, of our, representatives in Parliament and of those that aspire to become such.
The point about snap elections is not just a botta, not just a nudge-nudge, wink-wink aside. It is an important consideration. Electoral seasons are not the right seasons for choosing candidates. Electoral pressures blind parties and their leaders to the issue of candidate quality. At that point, the point is votes. The arithmetic of votes outweighs questions regarding quality. Quantity, literally, comes before quality. The time to consider quality, therefore, is when one isn't immediately faced with an election.
Assuming the time is right doesn't make matters any easier. We would still need to define quality. What makes a good candidate to represent you in the House of Representatives? I am not going to attempt to discuss these qualities here. Pontificating about this matter would be a bad and cheap substitute for an open and sincere discussion involving all concerned, regardless of the party they belong to or support.
Moreover, such a discussion should also involve those that do not today recognise themselves in any of the two parties in Parliament or in any of the small political groups outside of Parliament. The view of the party-less is vital in this case, especially the view of those that do not support any political group (inside and outside Parliament) because - to put it mildly - they are not in good faith impressed by the quality of our representatives.
One quality - and I say this just to break the ice and to stimulate the discussion I advocate - that does not count in my eyes as quality as far as an MP or a candidate is concerned, is unquestioning and unthinking passivity. This is especially true of your representatives when their party is in government. If "your government" is not doing what it said it would, if it is doing whatever it is doing in a manner that is not consistent with the principles you thought "your party" stood for (or consistent with elementary decency, if you have no party "of your own"), then the last thing you expect from your representative is passivity.
Dr Vella blogs at watersbroken.wordpress.com.