The recent Constitutional crisis shed light on the mechanisms and workings of the office of Leader of the Opposition. I will not go into the merits or lack thereof of how the Constitution was interpreted during this crisis; on the contrary, I am coming at it from an entirely different angle. I do not think Malta should have a Leader of the Opposition at all.

Malta inherited most of its institutions from British colonial rule. It is thanks to the framework left behind, and the practical experience of self-government to varying degrees since the 1921 Constitution, that Malta was well placed to begin integrating into the list of Western democracies after Independence. However, most conversation around Constitutional reform now rightly points out how Malta is in drastic need of an update. What served us well in the past no longer does so. Malta's Parliamentary democracy is modelled after the Westminster system like many former colonies. This means we have one single Leader of the Opposition.

In practice, what this means in Malta is the office acts as fuel to the fire of our national cults of personality. Local politics is reduced to a battle of charismatic leaders between two tribal and partisan titans. The problem with having a single Leader of the Opposition claiming to speak on behalf of all who disagree with government goes much farther than a question of role models and symbolism, however.

In our Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition is able to fill in certain offices in supposedly independent institutions. He is also able to isolate and weaken third party MPs in Parliament. Partit Demokratiku, with the first third party MPs since Independence, gained unique insight into the weaknesses of our parliamentary democracy. It took a ruling from the Speaker to protect the right of PD MPs to have speaking time. The Speaker recognised PD MPs as representing PD.

However, despite authoring various Private Members' Bills and motions, it is the Leader of the Opposition who controls the content put to debate on behalf of the Opposition. Therefore, not even a vote of no confidence against Konrad Mizzi by PD was allowed to go through, simply because the Leader of the Opposition did not want PD to get any media attention or allow it any victories, symbolic or otherwise.

When the Leader of the Opposition had left the Opposition seat on the Permanent Commission Against Corruption vacant, the PD had nominated Philip Micallef. The press attention on the matter made PN scramble to fill the role with its own latecoming nominee, but as always, only the Leader of the Opposition had actual power in the end.

We must therefore question why we still cling to having the destructive office of Leader of the Opposition, in a democracy where independent and third party voices are already marginalized. It is merely a tool to feed cults of personality and silence critics. It is an outdated office in a democracy in need of renovation. Other mainstream European democracies do not have Leaders of the Opposition. They have more clearly separated Parliamentary groups with different parties and their leaders. It is long overdue that we move past tribal politics.