Apart from board and institutional appointments, the Honourable Marlene Pullicino’s withdrawal from voluntary assistance to the Health Minister and Franco Mercieca’s request to continue his private practice, notwithstanding the Code of Ethics, the talk about town in academic circles concerns the proposal to move towards constitutional reform.

This discussion was ignited by the Prime Minister’s observations that it may be time to move towards an overhaul of our Constitution, a second Republic and the Labour Party’s electoral pledge to do so.

There is no doubt that the present Constitution has, by and large, and apart from the perverse 1981 result, served our country well. Lest Joe Public has a short memory, this was the umpteenth Constitution with which our country was endowed, the first being given to Malta in 1921, and is the one that has survived the longest. Many of our previous Constitutions were withdrawn or suspended by the Governor-in-office for a multitude of reasons, usually because they were contributing to ferment anti-colonial sentiment.

Introduced on the attainment of Independence, after many discussions between the parties in Parliament, our present Constitution brought about the necessary amendments which, over time, had been considered necessary in order for the Republic to be strengthened. There have been various amendments, some of which may not have made it to the newspaper headlines if there was agreement between the parties in Parliament. The last major constitutional amendment was that of 1987, which introduced the long-awaited majority rule principle and which still, today – more than 25 years later – barring the most recent one, still determines the outcome of our elections.

The talk on constitutional reform should not form the basis of a popular discussion, as this will most certainly not produce what is best for the country but what is manipulated by the powers that be.

Personally, I do not agree with the statement by the President of Malta that a referendum should be held regarding the constitutional reforms proposed. I firmly believe that such a move is not in the best interests of the country. A popular vote will end up pursuing the direction given to the public at large by the major political parties. In this case, Winston Churchill’s description of a democracy will produce a perverse result and prove him once again right.

The way forward for constitutional reform is explanation, discussion and agreement. Proper discussion needs to be entertained following studies of where we should be in the next 40 years and which structures would be best suited to lead us to that final destination. Social partners and interest groups should be consulted on matters of interest to them, and opinions should be listened to, but the ultimate responsibility lies elsewhere.

Our local politicians, being well-versed in our democratic structures and the three-tier concept, should not even consider abdicating their legislative responsibility to introduce the reforms and if the required majority required by the Constitution cannot be obtained, then evidently there needs to be more discussion between our elected representatives and not a decision to find a shortcut. In this case, the end does not justify the means. Presenting such reforms to the public would be asking many of our citizens to vote on measures, the consequences of which they do not understand. This bypass should not even be considered, as it is ultimately unfair on the Maltese public.

I can understand that, given the appointment of a controversial person as a constitutional convention coordinator, the road ahead is rather bumpy. However, the convention as proposed does not replace the parliamentary functions and responsibilities and hence, one can always pursue that avenue to make progress on matters that have stalled. Any referenda, should the government decide to go down that path, are ultimately not binding on our parliamentarians but merely consultative, and taking this route would be trying to exert moral pressure on our parliamentarians, which in this situation is a non-starter. What should happen is for our parliamentarians to agree on the proposed amendments and for them then to come to us – the citizens – and ask for our assent. This is truly democracy at its best.

Another concern I have stems from certain comments that seem to allude to a degree of urgency to get these reforms through. The constitutional reforms, albeit important, are not reforms that affect our economic wellbeing; they are purely political in nature and hence this sense of urgency is lost on me. They need to be thought out properly as it is reasonable to expect that they are reforms that will form the basis of our democracy for another few decades. There is no room for getting them wrong.

While on this topic, another thought arises: who should pilot such proposals for amendment? The President’s office has taken a major role in this area, but considering that the office in theory may have a problem with a number of the proposed amendments – as they may concern that very same office – there is a need to proceed with caution in order to avoid harming this very important part of our Constitution.