In a small country with an a electorate to match, and with the devotion with which such a high percentage of voters cast their ballots at every general election, undoubtedly one of the world’s highest, it is more than a crying shame that some are seeking to disenfranchise certain sections of the electorate.

In today’s issue we carry a story to the effect that the Labour Party is determined to forge ahead with its court action to have certain people struck from the electoral register. 

And in so doing, the party appears to care little about the possible public backlash such actions invite.

In the last 12 months, the Nationalist Party said this week, the Labour Party has filed no less than 187 court cases seeking to remove people living overseas from the ballot, people, it is claimed, who are mainly perceived as having Nationalist sympathies.

And while the Labour Party appears to be acting in line with the law governing elections, it has certainly taken the moral low ground on this one.  For although the party has said it was willing to discuss changes to the law, it is still pressing on with this disenfranchisement.

The party has said it “will continue to see that the electoral register is up-to-date and that every voter who has a right to vote can do so freely” but in so stating it is playing strictly by the book and it is using the system to weed out any potential opposition it can in the lead up to an election that could, in reality, be called any day now.

And although the stakes are high, with the Nationalist Party having won the 2008 election by 1,500-odd votes, it would do well to cease and desist from such court action immediately.

A rolling electoral register will be in place for the next election − meaning that people who turn 18 up to the day before an election will automatically be eligible to vote and, as such, no longer need to worry about whether their names have been included on the twice-yearly elector register, in April and October, in time for the election.

This is one very positive step in the right direction. The next is to change the laws governing overseas voting and who is eligible to do so.  In our opinion, anyone who holds Maltese citizenship should be eligible to vote in the country’s elections.

The next is to introduce a proper form of overseas voting that does not entail voters having to return to the county to cast their ballots. In this day and age, the concept is simply ridiculous.

This editorialist cast an early, overseas ballot in the US presidential elections this week and within a matter of two days from applying for an overseas ballot, the ballot sheet was emailed, filled out, returned to the Embassy and that vote was sent by courier to be filed with the rest. But if this editorialist were to move abroad tomorrow, voting in the next Maltese election would be another matter altogether. This year, as in every election in which a US absentee ballot had to be cast, the procedure couldn’t have been easier.

That is what democracy is all about, making it as easy as possible to vote for a country’s administration, and encouraging every citizen to take part in the country’s ultimate expression of its democracy, its election - and not making things as exceedingly difficult as possible.

One would think that in this country, with such a comparatively small electorate, that we could get things right once and for all.

A technocratic Cabinet – food for thought

The Malta Employers' Association has raised a good yet highly controversial point when it suggested recently that there should be a system in place through which technocrats could, when deemed necessary, be appointed to Cabinet. 

Although the suggestion has been met with outrage from some quarters, it does provide some very good food for thought, as does another suggestion that the country will at long last create a full-time Parliament.

In particular, the Forum of Maltese Unions took exception to the suggestion, noting that such a system was ‘dangerous’ because when technocrats were introduced to government elsewhere in Europe, austerity measures had soon followed.

But that, at least in part, is the point − a technocrat appointed by the governing party is not as interested in populist measures as an elected person is, as a technocrat aims to see the job done.

Last year, in the wake of a grossly misinterpreted statement in one of the famous WikiLeaks cables, the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) had clarified that, unlike in the United States where the President can nominate any citizen to such a post, the Prime Minister can only appoint ministers from among Members of Parliament. As such, the OPM had said that although certain people may be very competent to serve as ministers, they cannot be appointed...at least as matters currently stand.

But the issue does provide some good food for thought as to whether Malta should consider changes to its laws to allow for such appointments.

For example, how could any elected MP possibly be expected to be an immediate expert on the portfolio he or she is assigned, out of the talent pool available from the party’s just-elected representatives? There is undoubtedly always a learning curve when a minister or an MP is given a new ministerial portfolio. Wouldn’t it be better, at least in some cases, to assign perhaps certain portfolios to trusted experts who have been working in the relevant field for decades?

Those people would, of course, be answerable to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister is answerable to Parliament and, at the end of the day, to the people. The Prime Minister today has the sole discretion of appointing his Cabinet, and he is ultimately responsible for those choices, even if they are elected MPs.

If we are looking to really have the best talent to run the country, should we not be looking at as big a talent pool as possible when it comes to matching competencies with portfolios?