Last week, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, speaking on the national radio station, made a number of points which made headlines. Chief among them was that the government is contemplating calling a referendum on constitutional reform which could give it a mandate for so-called radical change. This radical change mentioned by the Prime Minister would seem to be congruent with earlier calls made by Prime Minister Muscat for Malta to give birth to a so-called Second Republic.
Yet during the same interview, Muscat only mentioned two points as examples of constitutional reform; namely, the removal of 'Catholicism' from our Constitution and the clause that makes Malta a neutral country.
In themselves, both debates are very interesting. Indeed, I had written my university thesis on the topic of secularisation, with particular focus on Malta and the position of Catholicism in our Constitution and the law in general. Neutrality is another very interesting debate as feelings are mixed - those who believe that the clause has been redundant since the fall of the Soviet Union and those who still firmly believe in constitutional neutrality as a safeguard for Malta.
Interesting as both debates and charged as the feelings may be on the respective debates, they are not subject matters which can be described as being radical enough to warrant a referendum or indeed to lead to the birth of a Second Republic.
One must therefore make a number of assumptions as to what the Prime Minister could possibly be alluding. Could the Prime Minister be muting a change from a parliamentary republic to a presidential republic? Could the Prime Minister be muting far-reaching changes to the way our government is composed and the way our democracy functions? These would indeed be subject matters of so-called 'radical change' and could arguably lead to the birth of a Second Republic. And, if such is the nature of the changes being contemplated, why is the whole process being kept rather hush hush now? Are these not matters of national interest which merit a wide-ranging debate?
The alternative scenario is that the Prime Minister is throwing hints in order to stir the waters but is shying away from any real specifics to divert attention, using our Constitution as little more than a smokescreen to keep the nation's attention away from other political difficulties the government is facing.
By raising the prospect of constitutional change and invoking arguments which are of common interest, the Prime Minister might be hoping to invoke a lively debate which would outshine any other issue including corruption, good governance, an increase in those at risk of poverty, and the environment, thus diverting attention from the said thorny issues.
If the Prime Minister is truly contemplating radical changes to our Constitution, he would do well to open up the process to wide scrutiny and debate. He would do well to reach out to all political forces in Malta, not least the Opposition which should play a major role in the whole process from start to finish. If on the other hand the Prime Minister is using the Constitution merely as a smokescreen to divert attention away from the political minefield issues, it is nothing short of shameful.
One can only hope that our Constitution is not being used as a smokescreen. Our Constitution, and indeed any process that might lead to it being changed, deserve much more respect than being used by the government of the day merely to distract attention from difficulties elsewhere.
[email protected]
Dr Micallef is a Nationalist Party General Election candidate