The President’s intention to focus his annual Forum, which on present plans will be held in April (though this may have to be changed in the light of the current electoral uncertainties), on the Constitution of Malta is greatly to be welcomed

Soon after Dr George Abela took up his appointment as President of Malta, the Today Public Policy Institute (of which I have the honour to be the Director General), was invited to meet him at the Palace. As I ran through the list of studies on which the think-tank had embarked, I mentioned that one of the areas we were focusing on was the Maltese Constitution.

He expressed great interest in all the studies – divorce, the affordability of our social security system, broadcasting, illegal immigration, fossil fuels and pollution and others – but it was clear to us that the subject of the Maltese Constitution struck a particular chord. He appeared already to have concerns, in the light then (this was two years ago) of his fairly limited experience of being President, about aspects of the Constitution which appeared to be deficient.

Our own work in The Today Public Policy Institute on this subject is still progressing. It has been slower than we had hoped, due mainly (death, illness, the packed schedules of the individuals contributing to it) to circumstances beyond the control of our Lead Author, Father Peter Serracino Inglott. But we hope it will see the light of day in the next few months. The President’s Forum could not, therefore, be more timely.

In tackling a subject as fundamental and important to the democratic well-being of a country as its supreme law, it is crucial to be objective, measured, impartial and conscious of the weight of history. The recent revision of the Hungarian Constitution stands as a stark reminder of how not to do it. There, Fidesz, the Alliance of Young Democrats (sic), is the ruling party and has just enacted a raft of constitutional amendments that have left Hungary’s partners in the European Union aghast.

The new Constitution presents an affront to basic liberties. It hugely increases the powers of the ruling party, re-imposes state control over the central bank, limits the independence of the courts, politicises the judiciary, holds the Opposition criminally responsible for the former Communist Party’s misdeeds, gives a three-man government cabal the power to veto any budget and, most disgracefully, attempts to re-impose state regulation of religion by reducing the number of recognised churches, while denying any official place in society for Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu congregations unless they have operated in Hungary for 20 years.

The new Constitution underpins the nationalist, neo-conservative ideology that Fidesz now espouses. It insists, in an echo that may find resonance here, that God and Christianity hold the country together, states categorically that life begins at conception and that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Since these provisions are now enshrined in the Hungarian Constitution, no move towards same-sex marriage is likely to muster the two-thirds parliamentary majority needed to over-turn this imposition. Even the adoption of the euro is made more difficult, as the Constitution specifies the forint as legal tender. And this from a government which is seeking €20 billion in emergency EU help, as well as support from the IMF.

The US Secretary of State is one of several powerful voices in the West to have expressed alarm at the threats to democracy, especially the new restrictions on religion. For the past nine months since Parliament approved the Constitution, the European Union has warned Hungary not to re-impose state controls on the central bank as these contradict a prerequisite to any future euro membership. Even more ominously, the interference in the justice system, including the dismissal of the former chief justice, and a new state body to supervise it, return Hungary to the monopoly of power by the ruling party under which it suffered for more than 40 years when it formed a part of the Soviet Union. All of these things are incompatible with membership of the European Union.

The clear lesson from the Hungarian example is that we tamper with our Constitution at our peril. It is not a journey to be embarked upon lightly. We must beware always of the law of unintended consequences and, to draw on a rather obvious cliché, of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

What should guide such a review of the Maltese Constitution, which has served Malta relatively well for some 47 years? The prime and over-riding requirement should be that it should be conducted by people of probity, experience and vision and led by somebody who can stand above the political fray. In my judgement, the way to do this would be to establish a Commission of Inquiry under the President of the Republic, supported by the best and most experienced in the country, chosen above all for their objectivity and soundness of judgement.

Secondly, the Commission should be given clear terms of reference: To examine all aspects of the Constitution to gauge how well it has stood the test of time and how it might be improved to reflect modern conditions. The Commission should be charged with reporting to Parliament within 12 months.

What specifically might it examine? Here are a few aspects for consideration. How has the Constitution served the people of Malta in practice over the last almost five decades? Are there any glaring issues which are not addressed, or which have been overtaken by events? The neutrality clause, our electoral system, broadcasting, the clearer separation of Church and state, and the possible introduction of technocrats to Cabinet are obvious candidates for discussion here.

Should there be a fundamental change in our Constitution, for example to have an Executive President, rather than the present titular head of state? Is the current balance between the Executive and Parliament a healthy one? Should we introduce a Second Chamber, or some form of Council of State? If so, what shape should these take? Are there any elements of the present Constitution which are in need of revision, for example in respect of the Public Service Commission or the Commission on Justice? What has been the effect on our Constitution of joining the European Union? Does it need any revision to reflect that fundamental change?

This is not meant to be a comprehensive or exclusive list, but it hopefully hits the main targets. It will be vital for the Commission, under-pinned by a full-time secretariat, to take evidence from a wide body of expertise: Former Presidents of Malta, of whom three are still alive, former Prime Ministers, of whom three are still alive, experts in constitutional law both Maltese and foreign, and a wide range of historians and political opinion.

Drawing on the first-hand experience of those who have been in the front-line of dealing with the Constitution, either as former Presidents or Prime Ministers or constitutional lawyers, will make an invaluable contribution to our governance and democracy and the well-being of our country. This is a task which after almost half a century is ripe for serious consideration.