President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca voiced the frustration of many when she expressed concern at the lack of progress on constitutional reform.
She was speaking last April at the foot of the monument dedicated to Malta’s first president, Sir Anthony Mamo, on her first anniversary as President.
“The President’s role needed to be better defined and modernised to meet today’s needs,” she said, questioning whether the State’s highest official should be limited to rubber-stamping. It is a question that was posed by her predecessor, George Abela, countless times during his five-year tenure.
Politicians always listened and agreed on the need for constitutional change, but that is as far as they got, Dr Abela says, a hint of resignation in his voice. “The political class has to stop going round in circles and kick off the talks, but this requires political will.”
The former president says that the government has an electoral mandate to reform the Constitution and this should be honoured.
Even the Nationalist Party pro-mised reform in its last manifesto, he adds.
His emphasis on the two major political parties is not coincidental. Historically, Dr Abela points out, no change to the Constitution has ever happened without political consensus between the PL and the PN.
“Even if the debate is widened to include civil society, something that is salutary, at the end of the day change will happen if the two parties reach consensus,” Dr Abela says.
Many of the past attempts at reform have floundered on the type of forum where the changes should be discussed and agreed but for Dr Abela this is a secondary consideration.
He insists the most important thing is that the political parties start talking to each other and to do so they must not create obstacles that hinder the debate.
“One cannot object to someone a priori and one cannot insist on someone at all costs,” he says, using diplomatic language to skirt the controversy surrounding the government’s appointment of former PN MP Franco Debono to head the constitutional convention and the Opposition’s objection.
The controversy has so far prevented a debate on the essence of change. Issues such as the ap-pointment of the President, whether the role should enjoy more power, how members of the judiciary should be appointed and removed, electoral reform, neutrality and updating the declaration of principles, remain but irrelevant details as partisan considerations repeatedly torpedo the change politicians say they believe in.
According to the Today Public Policy Institute, an independent think-tank, the Constitution has been changed 26 times since Independence in 1964. Some changes were substantial, such as when Malta became a Republic in 1974, or when provisions were introduced for a corrective mechanism to provide for majority rule and neutrality in 1987.
But other amendments were of a more minor and sectoral nature.
In a report released last year to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Independence, the Today Public Policy Institute said no comprehensive attempt at studying the Constitution as a whole has everbeen attempted.
The report, ‘A review of the Constitution of Malta at fifty: Rectification or redesign?’, included proposals for constitutional change. It also suggested the use of a constitutional convention headed by “somebody of stature, political independence and objectivity” as the vehicle for debate.
Former Speaker Michael Frendo, one of the lead authors of the report, says the wide-ranging proposals are in the public domain and it is now up to the political class to take them up.
While a complete overhaul of the Constitution is not necessary, a review to reflect societal developments is important, he adds.
“There has to be a meeting of the minds, because any changes to the Constitution have to be done in a spirit of consensus,” Dr Frendo says.
Whether the political class will heed that advice is another matter altogether.
kurt.sansone@timesofmalta.com