The institution of Parliament is designed to serve and protect the democracy that is lived in the streets by the people, and not to become a perfect system that does not reflect the people’s voice or is hijacked, as it is today, by the Executive. A wise and educated government recognises the developmental needs of its society, sustains the public good, serves all freedom-loving citizens and is free from injustice.

Now and again, to camouflage the government’s ill doings, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat champions a particular concept of gender equity, diversity and inclusivity in his political agenda so that, in the eyes of the public, he appears to be speaking on behalf of the oppressed. The recent call for the Opposition to nominate two members on to a committee to increase gender equality under the disguise of a ‘democracy committee’ is nothing more than a ploy.

Equality is a hallmark of modern society, but the introduction of gender quotas in Parliament by positive affirmation or affirmative action is not the right way to address the issue of inequality. I have spoken both within and outside Parliament against the introduction of such a measure since I was Government Whip and having listened and reflected at length, my opinion has not changed.

If we truly wish to resolve the historical parliamentary deficit, we must seek to do so by empowering women so that both genders start from the same privileged position. Few such measures have been implemented by government to influence this way forward.

We must also ensure that women in Malta take the initiative in finding a solution for their non-representative situation in Parliament and we (men) should honour, facilitate and support that. In this context we have been repeatedly successful in the European elections, so what is holding us back in our local and national elections?

If corrective measures are introduced so that the election process addresses a demographic under-representation of the female gender – and, for that matter, say, ethnic minorities – by positive affirmation, are we not interfering with the very principles of democracy, when it was the people’s free choice to vote for their representative Members of Parliament? If this is so, are we not admitting that parliamentarians are not fulfilling their responsibilities and obligations to represent, support and empower different sections of society? My answer to both questions is a clear ‘yes’.

In order to have a gender-sensitive – that is, a more diverse – Parliament we should:

a) not restrict the electors’ freedom of choice when casting their vote and

b) not enforce a special privilege to ensure equity, by changing an election regulatory clause or making a political party selectively recruit candidates through a process of positive discrimination which, nonetheless, is in itself discriminatory.

If we do so believe that we need to rejuvenate our Parliament, let us:

* be committed  to having the political will that addresses gender and minority ethnic-sensitive policies when it comes to budgeting, employment, education, health and social policy and

* further unlock the potential of these groups by educating the electorate and positively empowering such candidates so that they are elected to Parliament on their own credentials.

If our political system is failing, let us transform words into action without tarnishing our democratic electoral system. After all, why should we have MPs who are regarded as being less able MPs because they were elected by positive discrimination? Is this the dignity we wish to bestow on fellow colleagues?

I am certainly not in favour of interfering with democratic free voting when the electorate chooses preferential inclusion on merit. There are other ways of achieving one’s goals. Taking a fast-track forward does not necessarily mean that the optimum benefits are reached more quickly. There are indirect repercussions too. One of them is a call to have an ethnic-sensitive Parliament.

Dr Farrugia is the Leader of Partit Demokratiku