The word ‘democracy’ originates from the Greek demos, which means ‘people’, and kratos, which means ‘power’. The concept implies government by the people for the people.

Direct democracy was possible in the ancient and small Greek states. As states became larger, and the population scattered, they had resort to indirect democracy, ie rule by representative institutions to which legislative and executive power was delegated.

Although the principle that affirms that power resides in the people has been established, the question as to how power is to be exercised remains a hot potato to this day.

The issue is still being debated from time to time in the corridors of the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. As recently as 2006, the Leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron (then in Opposition), asked for a review of the power of the so-called royal prerogative – namely the executive powers, exercised in the name of the Queen’s government, but actually wielded by government ministers without parliamentary scrutiny.

David Cameron appointed a “Democracy Task Force”, led by former Conservative Chancellor Ken Clarke, to carry out this review, as a prelude to launching a constitutional debate on the matter.

At the launch of the Conservative think tank, Mr Cameron disclosed that the review was to examine how the role of Parliament could be enhanced in four main areas, namely:

● declaring war and sending British armed forces overseas

● making and ratifying international treaties

● approving major public appointments, and

● approving major changes in government structures

Mr Cameron made it clear that the Queen’s personal prerogative, which includes the decision to dissolve Parliament and to appoint the Prime Minister, was not up for review.

In Britain, the principle of consultation with the electorate can be traced, in rudimentary form, as far back as 1680, but the lines of demarcation between the powers of the Executive and the rights of Parliament, as representative of the people, have been the subject of a long hot-and-cold debate.

People power

Libertarian voices on both sides of the House have, on different occasions, broken a lance for people power. Lord Hailsham once went so far as to complain that, under the British system, a strong-willed executive that had enough support in the House could operate a system of ‘democratic despotism’ and run the British Isles!

David Cameron wanted to give a voice to Parliament before certain major decisions are taken, and to ensure that Parliament’s right would be enshrined constitutionally, notwithstanding the fact that Britain has no written constitution.

The thread of British constitutional progress has evolved steadily ever since the Magna Carta, and is still evolving by degrees.

In Malta, we are, as it were, mired in the feudal age of the Grand Masters, where, in the last rest, executive power is concentrated in the government and, ultimately, in a pair of hands.

We are seeing, on an almost daily basis, more ‘authorities’ being created outside the umbrella of parliamentary scrutiny. They are manned by handpicked nominees of the government and sustained by public funds.

Some of them are being dressed up as ‘regulators’ with their own brief. In a number of areas, there are overlaps of responsibility and clashes of authority.

We see ambassadorial appointments announced out of the blue from on high.

The ‘money-no-problem’ mode has persisted and public expenditure runs at a gallop, while Parliament watches from a distance and the tax-paying electorate picks up the bill.

Ever-present danger

Malta is faced by the ever-present danger of the state arrogating too much power, thereby encroaching on the turf both of Parliament and of the Courts.

The other danger is that the real power of the Executive (the government) passes more and more from the hands of ministers, who can be called to account by the elected representatives of the people, into the hands of faceless officials, out of reach of parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentarians with a lively appreciation of their prerogatives could stand up to the despotism of the Executive, when this is in evidence. But faceless nominees on quangos and autonomous authorities, the likes of which are mushrooming at an alarming rate, are out of reach and out of range of parliamentarians, and could conceivably establish a despotism on the ruins of the two leading features of the Constitution – the sovereignty of Parliament and the Rule of Law.

There is no doubt that good civil servants and consultants advise ministers about the powers a department ought to have, if a task entrusted to it by Parliament is to be efficiently performed. It is Parliament that confers such powers and, if it is so minded, it could take them back.

Issue of accountability

The question that arises is how far Parliament should delegate its powers. Should the devolution of power by Parliament run to the extent that ministers cease to be accountable?

Responsible government presupposes that the Executive, when called upon to do so, account for its actions to those to whom it is answerable –that is, ultimately, the electorate.

A system where decisions are decreed by autonomous authorities without any form of public scrutiny is alien to parliamentary democracy. It amounts to absolutism.

The issue that arises from the above hinges on whether the functions, undertaken by or assigned to the Executive, are effectively discharged by ministers, and how they could be properly delegated.

In examining this question, it may be useful to divide a minister’s duties into three categories: the determination of policy, the retention of parliamentary support and the supervision of the administrative work involved.

True enough, decisions could not be taken wisely without the data that only experts can provide or the accumulated experience that permanence can give. But the decision ought to be the minister’s alone

If one were to turn to the second category of a minister’s duties – those in Parliament itself – it is the minister who must occupy centre stage. The role of the official is that of prompter in the wings – or it should be.

Like the prompter, an official should not be heard, much less should he be authorised to take decisions off his own bat. It is the minister who should be on top of civil servants and the bureaucratic cohorts, not the other way round.

When it comes to the third category of ministerial duties – that of day-to-day administration – the size of the bureaucratic machine is such that countless decisions may have to be taken every day by officials on their own responsibility, exercising delegated powers under the law.

Democracy’s high purposes

This has to be within the limits assigned to them by their superiors. This is bureaucracy. Democracy cannot get rid of it, and must make the best of circumstances. But no democratic parliamentary system is worthy of its name if ministers are dethroned and if parliamentary authority could not be effectively exercised under scrutiny in the name of the electorate.

Our main protection against deviations from the high purposes of parliamentary democracy must continue to be the enforcement of the principle of ministerial responsibility and, of course, accountability.

Lord Bryce pointed out many years ago “Neglect to fix responsibility has been one of the most fertile sources of trouble in popular governments”.

Politicians with a thirst for power are not likely to honour this golden rule if they can get away with suiting their personal interests.

A maturing electorate, intent on building up resistance to arbitrary power, would think otherwise and act accordingly.

[email protected]