Moving towards a Presidential system of government would merely serve to “create personality cults and distort institutional structures” without improving democratic processes or governance, a comprehensive review of the Constitution of Malta has concluded.

The report by the Today Public Policy Institute – its full name is “A review of the Constitution of Malta at fifty: rectification or redesign?” – does note that there are benefits to a clearer separation between the Legislature and the Executive, but points out that there would also be costs.

A presidential system which is not reined in by proper checks and balances, it argues, would only perpetuate and possibly exacerbate the feeling of an over-mighty executive, sever the current close relationship between voters and ministers, and even add to the risk of gridlock, particularly if the party the President belongs to does not enjoy a parliamentary majority.

TPPI therefore suggests that a middle-of-the-road approach should be adopted, one which would retain the current Cabinet system but improve it through greater checks and balances. This could itself see more powers granted to the President of Malta, as well as strengthen the autonomy of Parliament and introducing more rights of supervision by citizens over the state.

Another constitutional change which is considered – and discarded – by the TPPI is a move towards a bicameral parliament, with an upper body akin to the US Senate or the British House of Lords. Malta also had a bicameral parliament between 1921 and 1933, with a 32-seat Legislative Assembly and a 17-seat Senate.

TPPI notes that a second chamber would broaden and deepen the process of legislative deliberation and arguably lead to better laws. An appointed upper chamber would also possibly be less partisan, and permit the involvement in government of technocratic experts.

However, TPPI also observes that an unelected chamber would lack electoral legitimacy, while an elected chamber would add to an electoral and political overload that already exists, and possibly cause political tension or gridlock. On balance, therefore, it states that a second chamber would not provide cost-effective benefits.

On the other hand, the think-tank recommends the establishment of a Council of State, which would be made up of members appointed by the President and which would serve as a senior consultative body, with no legislative powers. It would focus on specific and limited areas of governance where it could act as a “guardian over the guardians,” according to TPPI.

Full-time MPs, lower thresholds for third parties recommended

One of the suggestions TPPI makes on the strengthening of parliament is having a parliament made up of full-time MPs, although this would require a considerable increase in salary to help attract prospective candidates.

On the other hand, it notes that many changes which would strengthen parliament would simply require amendments to its budget and Standing Orders, rather than Constitutional amendments.

TPPI also states that a limited number of technocratic ministers – who are selected from outside parliament and who would thus be unable to vote on parliamentary business – could be considered.

The report also goes into electoral reform, arguing in favour of a system that makes it easier for third parties to be represented in parliament, and thus challenge the longstanding “two-party hegemony.”

Among its suggestions, TPPI states that the present thirteen electoral districts could be replaced by a single nationwide district, although it points out that a careful appraisal should be carried out as every system had its shortcomings. 

The think-tank is also critical of how general elections – and the preceding campaign period – can leave Malta without a parliament for up to three months, particularly in light of Malta’s EU membership. It offers various suggestions, including enabling the Foreign Affairs Committee to continue functioning and limiting the maximum period to six weeks.

Malta’s five national days are deemed excessive: TPPI argues that having a single national day is best, but suggests that these could at least be reduced to two: Independence Day and Republic Day.

The institute also deems the neutrality clause added to the Constitution in 1987 to be anachronistic and outdated: at the very least, it argues, the clause should be amended to reflect present realities.

While the report is the eleventh to be published by the TPPI, it was actually brought up in its very first meeting in July 2007, by founding member Peter Serracino Inglott.

Fr Serracino Inglott had undertaken to lead this project, but did not manage to complete it before his death in 2012. The report’s lead authors are TPPI directors Martin Scicluna and former minister and Speaker Michael Frendo, and it is dedicated to the late priest and philosopher.