As expected, the first debates dominating 2011 are the same as those prior to the Christmas and new year break: BWSC, the MPs’ honoraria and the divorce issue. Will the debates on these matters prolong until next Christmas?
Out of the three, I dare say the divorce issue is likely to be a long-drawn-out debate, unless a referendum settles the question before then.
The setting up of a pro-marriage movement last week guarantees a lively discussion in the coming months and the matter will probably take up most of this year’s agenda, leaving little space for any other national debate. One topic that ought to be discussed is electoral reform.
Unfortunately, it appears we are going to miss an opportunity to deliberate a matter which, in my opinion, is of national importance.
This country needs to discuss electoral reform and, as already pointed out, it is not right to review this subject on the eve of a general election.
This is therefore the right time for parties to kick-start the process but I am not hopeful this will happen as the two main parties seem to be busy engaged in other business.
The Labour Party appears to be constantly focusing on vote-catching issues in the hope of taking office in two years’ time while the Nationalist Party’s senior members are concentrated on their roles in government and on combating the ongoing onslaught of the global recession and other national issues. As a result, parties have little time to think on other important matters. Electoral reform is one such issue that is being placed on the backburner.
During his tenure as Speaker of the House, Louis Galea had taken the initiative of setting up a parliamentary committee with the brief of debating matters related to the strengthening of democracy.
The PL walked out of that committee; a wrong decision. On the other hand, the PN should have pushed forward the dialogue with or without the PL, if not in the parliamentary committee in another forum. The point is the PN, as with other issues in the past, should have continued the process of analysis.
There are a number of factors related to our electoral and political system that need to be reviewed. It is not my intention to present here a long list of electoral issues that I think require reform. Instead, today, I am only going to suggest two reforms for the consideration of parties and which may arouse Joseph Muscat’s and the PL’s interest.
I strongly believe the general election date should be set and the duration of the legislature is reduced from five to four years, starting from this legislature.
Regarding the first proposal, among the numerous arguments supporting such a reform, there is one which is very relevant: stability.
A general election generates a degree of uncertainty and the economic activity generally slows down in the period preceding polling day. As long as I can remember, the anticipation of the announcement of the election date starts as early as a year before an election is due. The prolonged anticipation time negatively affects the business community. A fixed date would probably not remove the uncertainty period but would certainly shorten it.
In the case of the second proposal, that of shortening the duration of the legislature, there are also, in my opinion, a number of reasons why parties ought to consider the proposal. Among which is the cost of holding general and local elections. If we amalgamate the two elections and summon the electorate only once every four years, we could save the taxpayer half the cost.
From a parties’ point of view, they will only have to conduct one electoral campaign and save themselves money and energy.
Another reason why we ought to consider shorter legislatures is that four years is long enough for the party in government to carry out its electoral programme. If the American President is elected for four years and the Australian federal elections are held every three years I cannot see why we cannot have shorter legislatures.
Furthermore, it might also be a good idea to limit the time for one to hold an executive post in government to two legislatures (eight years). If one has a fixed time to carry out a programme, one would probably do better in terms of reaching targets.
Should we have a general election in 2012? So far, the matter is in the Prime Minister’s hands. The parties can change that. The prospects of a general election in 2012 might stimulate Dr Muscat and the PL to a point of returning to the negotiating table. That is a good enough reason why the matter ought to be raised.