We are on the threshold of a New Year which will soon see all the political parties under starter’s orders, in anticipation of the next general election. Ours is a relatively young democracy – Malta attained independence only in l964. In this short spell, we have switched from a monarchical to a republican system of government – and our learning curve is by no means complete.

Our constitutional democracy has experienced teething troubles. There were times when democracy was under threat. All things considered, however, the pluses outweighed the minuses, but the long march continues.

The government has found a way of devolving some of its powers. Human rights are not only constitutionally entrenched, but are further safeguarded by the legal right of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights.

Corrupt practices are entrenched in our Constitution and, in Parliament, the Executive (the government) is supposed to he held to account by standing committees of the House. Local Government has been introduced and is fast finding its feet. This is progress by any name. But it does not mean that the defences of our liberties are as safe as houses. Much remains to be done.

Overriding Objective

What has to be done concerns one overriding objective: the exercise of power must be held under restraint.

Under our system, we do not have a House of Review or a second chamber. Power is wielded by the Executive – and the Executive has to be restrained by checks and

balances.

The first principle of a viable democracy is that power is legitimate only when it is under contract. Our “contract” is the Constitution.

Under our system, Parliament monitors the Executive but, for a long time, the monitoring has been neither thorough nor adequately effective.

There has been unanimous agreement to establish standing committees of the House to scrutinise the propriety of government spending, to keep a watchful eye on foreign affairs, to coordinate the work of the House and so on. It does not appear that this arrangement has effectively served its purpose to general satisfaction. The electorate has a say in parliamentary elections, but it has no say in the conduct of parliamentary affairs.

Checks and Balances

Walter Bagehot defined the role of Parliament (on the Westminster model) under three headings, namely, “to express the mind of the people”, to “teach the nation what it does not know”, and to make the electorate “know what it otherwise would not”.

In normal circumstances, it is the Opposition that makes use of checks and balances. The media do the rest.

It is easy to be cynical about the ambitions and interests of politicians. Political analysts who observe with a modicum of perspicacity must be as cynical as was Bagehot. He was “not misled by shibboleths, nor impressed by sentimental refrains, nor diverted by the claims of patriots that everything was of the best” in Queen Victoria’s time.

Since Bagehot’s time, electorates have had ample reason to realise, sometimes to their cost and distress, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

They have every justification for believing the observations of a leading British constitutionalist, namely Professor Ivor Jennings, that they should not assume “that Members of Parliament are all high-souled, public spirited, conscientious, single-minded representatives of the people, intent on the people’s good and without reference to their own prestige”.

Professor Jennings stated bluntly that “there are no such people outside the Saints’ Calendar and, if there were, they could not take part in the rough and tumble of political life”

This statement may be considered to be indiscriminate, but it makes the point and makes it forcefully.

Despotism of Power

Many wise men spoke the same language before and after Professor Jennings. Thomas Bailey Aldrich emphasised that the possession of unlimited power will make a despot of almost any man. There is a possible Nero in the gentle human creature that walks, he claimed.

Edmund Burke insisted that “the greater the power, the greater the abuse”. Charles Cotton said that no man is wise enough, nor good enough, to be trusted with unlimited power. And George Orwell held that power-worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that, whoever is winning at any given moment, will always believe in invincibility.

All of these are variations of the same theme, which is that genuine democracy thrives when power is tamed and when it is exercised under the restraint of consensus and tolerance.

The consent of the governed is the key. An electorate that is master in its own home must see to it that its affairs are administered by its representatives in accordance with its wishes, and not vice versa.

The separation of power between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary constituted an effective system of checks and balances. But modern circumstances demand much more.

Relentless Scrutiny

A judiciary that is, at once, an effective bulwark in defence of the rights of the weak against might on the one hand, and a champion of human rights on the other, is of the essence. But in these modern times, there is a greater need than ever for the Executive to be kept under tight and relentless scrutiny,

It would take more than a vigilant Public Accounts Committee, an Ombudsman and the paraphernalia of parliamentary monitoring to oversee the activities of a proliferation of quangos and an administrative machine that thrives in terms of Parkinson’s Law.

There is an urgent need for more transparency and for measures that guarantee the citizens’ freedom of information. Paper guarantees are not enough.

Both sides of Parliament ought to catch up with the times and join hands to give real meaning to direct democracy, whereby the electorate can express its views by referendum on sensitive issues as and when necessary, and not just once every five years – and when these views are formally expressed, they ought to prevail.

There ought to be no grounds for disagreement between the major parties on this issue, assuming that they would not find it hard to bend their knees before the popular will.

* * *

I take this opportunity to convey my warmest Christmas greetings to the Editor and Staff of The Malta Independent and to all its readers.

[email protected]