I refer to Martin Scicluna’s article titled ‘Powers of the President’ (January 30).

I cannot find any reference to the fact that our President’s role and function is confined solely of a ceremonial nature, as a rubber-stamping figurehead.

The correspondent informs us that: “In essence, the President exists to unify and bind the country.” What he does not inform us is how this existence may be achieved without him/her possessing any actual enforceable powers.

While thanking the “soon to be ex-President” for her sterling contribution over these past years, it was intimated that she would be remembered as ‘the people’s President’. But just how realistic is this title, given that the people of Malta never have any say in who will be their President?

The appointment of the President is always and overtly political. Yes, we want more powers for the President but, more crucially, we want more, as the late great John Lennon once reminded us, power to the people. For how many countries are there where the people do not vote for their President?