The Maltese electorate has been master in its own home since 1964. There is no denying the fact that, as the saying goes, self-government is better than good government.
The Maltese people are responsible for their own destiny. In the course of the past half-century, there have been moments of turbulence, but we have managed to walk the democratic tightrope notwithstanding deep-rooted party political partisanship.
It took some time for Parliament to set up Standing Committees to facilitate its work and to devolve a measure of authority to local councils. The emerging overall picture is an improvement over l964. However, there is still a lot left to be desired.
True democracy means government by consent – not command. It means government by discussion that recognises man’s rights without minimising his capacities. As John F. Kennedy once put it, “Self- government requires qualities of self-denial and restraint”, – which is not an outstanding Mediterranean virtue.
The fact of the matter is that we have developed a “winner-takes-all” electoral set up, which spurs partisanship, and leads into temptation politicians covetous for power.
The arrogance of office tempts ambitious politicians to operate without transparency, and with sleight of hand. In turn, this offers unlimited possibilities to corrupt elements.
Our history of self-government is pockmarked with accusations, with both sides of the political divide alleging abuse and irregularity, most of it to be lost, eventually, in the wash of heated verbosity.
This situation has evolved because, up to some time ago, Maltese civil society stood on the sidelines and the intellectual class kept aloof from the hoi polloi
As a result, we fell short of a democracy for the people, by the people, and all the people. Ever since the March general election, many watched, not without embarrassment, the spectacle of a government, with a one-seat majority in the House, taking a series of decisions, without as much as consulting Parliament, and in breach of its own electoral promises. The same government is soliciting the Opposition’s cooperation with a view to concluding a pairing agreement in Parliament.
Malta’s parliamentary democracy needs shoring up, and the emergence of a significant floating vote suggests that the situation is ripe for change. It is for the electorate to choose whether to govern itself, or be governed. The electoral mood is that government is a trust and that ministers are trustees – and both the trust and the trustees are meant to be of service to the people. This is fortified by the conviction that the purpose of government is to see that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved in equal measure as the legitimate interests of the few.
These sentiments gained wider circulation since the emergence of Dr Joseph Muscat as Leader of the Opposition. To his credit, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi reacted positively, indicating that he had no difficulty discussing suggestions that would improve the way parliamentary democracy works in practice in these islands.
It is heartening to note that the spirit is willing. One hopes that the Maltese body politic will be strong enough to be equal to the challenge.
It is already painfully apparent that Dr Lawrence Gonzi and Dr Joseph Muscat have different priorities, and that some of these priorities (for example, one national holiday instead of five) have little or nothing to do with Malta’s democratic performance.
Would it be wise to treat this subject as the exclusive preserve of the two political parties represented in the House and their elected politicians?
Would it not also be advisable to hear the views of all political parties in this context?
Would there be any harm if one or two eminent and qualified senior citizens were involved in such an exercise, which could conceivably be ongoing, if the going proves to be good?
[email protected]