The recent call for an increase in the salaries of the judiciary is the latest cry for reform of a democratic institution. In this past year we have seen wage packages of our democratic institutions on the front pages. We started this year with the wage increases to ministers and a political storm was created.

MPs’ remuneration increases have been suspended, while mayors have been asked to refund their increase after they were authorised to receive their small increase. Now the judiciary is protesting, by claiming an increase in wages, while missing the Independence Day Mass.

It is clear that wherever one looks, one can feel the economical pinch. On one hand the recipients of salaries and honoraria feel that their position is too much of a financial burden for them and their families, while government is doing everything not to increase costs. These calls for an increase in the remuneration of politicians, judges and magistrates do not attract the public sympathy and support. It is obvious that other sections of our society do not have such increases and most increases depend on negotiated collective agreements. Another reason is that people do not think that ministers, MPs, mayors, judges and magistrates deserve an increase. Some government departments are notoriously inefficient and sometimes both government and opposition introduce mind-boggling policies and impractical measures. People who experience litigation know that they are in a never-ending process and they do not get value for money.

Increasing the income of MPs, judges and magistrates is not a standalone solution. It will not guarantee better legislation nor will it guarantee that cases are heard and decided in a short and reasonable time.

The truth is that our democratic institutions require a much-needed reform, which means a much-needed investment. We can no longer elect or appoint one-man bands. Our democracy is in existence only in part. It exists but it is on a life-support system; the organs work but just about.

MPs are elected to Parliament and are expected to vote on pieces of legislation that many a time are complex and technically difficult for them to fully comprehend. MPs have no support from researchers and assistants that can advise on the changes that are needed and the consequences of those legislative changes. Their remuneration is not sufficient to finance their own political commitment, let alone employ the services of researchers. Would there be a better debate if MPs were armed with relevant information? I have no doubt and we may even have better legislation.

The same goes for magistrates and judges. Once they are appointed to the bench, they barely have an office from where to work but more importantly they do not have legal researchers and assistance. In international tribunals and other courts in other jurisdictions, research teams are formed to carry out all the legal research on the issues of the cases heard before the judge. The judge is given a dossier with all the facts and references to precedents and legislations. The judge would deliberate and decide, motivating his/her decision based on the legal references forwarded by the staff.

Case managers should be employed to make cost-effective choices assuring that the cases are heard and decided efficiently, with the least inconvenience for the parties and making access to the courts affordable and those who choose litigation would not just throw money in an endless pit and hope to have some sort of return within a decade.

Lawyers would have a healthy turnover of cases, which would make it financially viable for them to deal with a manageable number of cases and get a quick return when cases are decided. At the moment litigation lawyers just pile cases, because it is not economically possible to concentrate on a few cases until they are finalised. We accept new cases although we have already a long list of cases pending before the courts.

Therefore to my mind, our democratic institutions require a reform, as much as our transport system required a reform.

There are two obvious stumbling blocks to these reforms. The first is financial and the other is party politics.

To start with the latter, the political will is essential for these reforms. We missed an opportunity earlier this year when the proposal of the increase in MPs’ remuneration was suspended. Both Nationalist and Labour MPs could have sat down and come up with a reform that in reality both want. This was spoilt with attempts from the Labour Party to score political points.

The legal system requires investment; the increase in salaries of judges and magistrates is desperately required. A wider consensus is needed not only from the political parties, but also from the legal profession and the public at large.

Financially, a reform will be a long-term project both in its implementation and in receiving a cost-cutting result. However, I believe it is not only needed but it has now become essential.

Dr Mifsud is a litigation lawyer, and a Nationalist Party candidate

on the first district