Co-options have always been a part of our electoral system.
Parties co-opt MPs when they are replacing others who resign after the latter were elected via casual elections. Or else when casual elections organised by the Electoral Commission are shunned by eligible candidates.
But this procedure is now under scrutiny after the latest political manoeuvrings which have led to questions about the weaknesses of our democracy.
Over the past days controversy erupted after Gavin Gulia, elected via a casual election to replace Edward Scicluna, was sworn-in as an MP but resigned immediately afterwards, paving the way for the co-option of Oliver Scicluna, hand-picked by Prime Minister Robert Abela.
Minutes after winning the casual election, Gulia told journalists he was pleased to be making a return to Parliament after eight years and would be giving up his position as chairman of the Malta Tourism Authority.
But something changed overnight and just 24 hours later, Gulia said he was reversing his decision and staying on as MTA chairman because the PM wanted him there at this crucial moment in history for our tourism industry, and was as such giving up his parliamentary seat at the behest of PM Abela, who preferred someone else.
In a nutshell, Abela did not want Gulia as an MP; he wanted Oliver Scicluna, and ultimately this is what took place. No reason has been given why a democratically-elected candidate was told to relinquish the post he had won to someone who, until it happened, would never be described as a politician.
Past co-options
Let’s take a step back.
Over many decades, political parties have used co-options several times to replace MPs who resigned.
There were occasions when party leaders made it to Parliament through this process, without previously ever contesting an election.
It happened, in the Labour Party, with Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici nearly 40 years ago and Joseph Muscat in 2008; it happened twice in this legislature for the Nationalist Party, first with Adrian Delia in 2017 and last October with Bernard Grech.
So we had one prime minister and three opposition leaders making it to Parliament without having previously obtained a single vote in an election.
Democracy has its flaws, and this is one of them.
Mifsud Bonnici was co-opted to Parliament by the Labour Party in 1982 after the resignation of Paul Xuereb, who had made it to the House in a casual election. Chosen by then Labour leader Dom Mintoff as his successor, Mifsud Bonnici later also became Prime Minister.
Muscat took his seat as then Opposition Leader in 2008 after Joseph Cuschieri had been persuaded to resign. Cuschieri had also made it through via a casual election. Until then, Muscat had not contested a general election.
When the Gulia-Scicluna charade was taking place, the PN accused the government of making a mockery of the electoral system and of Parliament. But the PN had put in place the same manoeuvrings earlier on in this term.
When Delia won the leadership election against Chris Said, the PN needed to place its new leader in Parliament. Delia had not been elected in 2017, simply because he had not contested. What the PN did was have one of its MPs – Jean Pierre Debono – resign. A casual election was held, and it was won by Peter Micallef. But, as happened with Gulia, Micallef took the oath of office as an MP but immediately resigned, allowing for Delia’s co-option. If Gulia’s few minutes as an MP were a farce, then so was this.
The difference between what Peter Micallef did and the Gulia situation is that the PN’s plans were known beforehand. In Gulia’s case, this was not so. After he won the casual election, Gulia said he was happy to return to Parliament, but then was coerced into changing his mind by the PM. The irony is that, since he relinquished his post as Malta Tourism Authority chairman to be able to take his seat in Parliament for a few minutes, Gulia now has to face parliamentary scrutiny before being re-appointed to head the MTA. He will make it back to the MTA, no doubt, but what a hassle to do so.
The PN had to go through a second co-option of a new leader last October. When Bernard Grech beat Delia in another PN leadership election – yes, we all know how eventful this legislature has been – a more straight-forward solution was identified with the resignation of Ivan J. Bartolo, who had himself won a casual election, to enable Grech to take the Opposition Leader’s seat in Parliament.
The PN co-opted a third MP in this term, apart from its two leaders. He is Kevin Cutajar, a Gozitan candidate who replaced David Stellini in 2019. Stellini had resigned his seat to return to a job in Brussels and, since he had made it to Parliament via a casual election, a co-option was necessary.
Even here, the co-option came with days of polemic. An internal battle took place within the PN, with supporters of then leader Adrian Delia pushing for the return of Jean Pierre Debono, who had resigned his seat to make way for Delia, while the anti-Delia faction wanted Stellini to be replaced by a Gozitan candidate, given that Stellini had been elected on the 13th district.
Eventually, and after weeks of bickering which only helped to increase the already-high tension between the two opposing factions in the PN, it was Cutajar who made it to the House of Representatives after Debono pulled out of the race, and has since moved away from politics.
Robert Abela
The Prime Minister now seems to want to give a new meaning to the concept of co-options.
What happened with Gavin Gulia is the perfect example of the limitations of our democracy. We boast that our parliament is representative of the people’s selections but, in this particular case, Robert Abela threw everything down the drain and forced a democratically elected politician to move aside for Abela to select the person he wanted.
If this is allowed, and if this is the way forward, then why continue to hold elections?
We were told that Abela put forward the person of his choice before the Labour Party parliamentary group and later the party executive committee “for approval”. But we know how these things happen. Once the leader puts forward a name, it means that a decision has already been made, and the parliamentary group and executive committee are used to just rubber-stamp that particular choice.
The same thing had happened when Abela had decided to kick Konrad Mizzi out of the PL. Mizzi had been defended by the parliamentary group and executive committee for years when Joseph Muscat was leader, but it took one afternoon for Abela to present his proposal to the group and committee, and Mizzi was dismissed in the blink of an eye with a near-unanimous vote.
This criticism is not about Oliver Scicluna. The same things would have been said and written if someone else had been handpicked by the Prime Minister. Scicluna has proved his qualities in our society, and we are sure that he will be a valid MP. The reproach is directed at the Prime Minister, who did not show any respect to our democratic system and discarded the opinion of thousands of voters because, in his mind, he knows better.
Again, what’s the point of urging people to vote, if it is then the Prime Minister who chooses MPs?
Caruana and Dalli
This is not the first time that Abela has gone down this road.
It happened last October too when not one, but two MPs were co-opted to Parliament without having contested the general election. As Oliver Scicluna did this past week, Clyde Caruana and Miriam Dalli obtained their seat in the House – and were later also appointed ministers – simply because Robert Abela wanted them there.
They replaced Joseph Muscat and Etienne Grech, both of whom had resigned. But, whereas in Grech’s case a co-option was necessary because Grech had made it to Parliament via a casual election, Muscat could have been substituted in a casual election on the second district, which he vacated. However, the two eligible candidates stayed away from the process, so that Abela could cherry-pick the two MPs he wanted.
Again, their qualities are not in dispute.
It’s the imperatorial way that Robert Abela operated that is under the microscope.
Charles Azzopardi
We probably would have lived a different story if it had been Charles Azzopardi who won the casual election. The former Rabat mayor had contested the 2017 election with the Labour Party, but has since been discarded by the PL. There were reports about efforts made to convince Azzopardi not to contest the casual election – had he accepted, we probably would have had Labour convincing Gulia and the other eligible candidate, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, not to throw in their hat. There would have then been the direct co-option of Oliver Scicluna without having to go through the Gulia charade. It would have been a situation similar to what happened with Muscat in October.
But Azzopardi refused to give in, although his chances were limited.
If he had won, it could have led to some embarrassment for Labour. Given the fall-out he had with the PL, it is possible that he could have taken a seat on the Opposition benches. PN leader Grech hinted as much when he said Azzopardi would be welcomed with open arms, drawing Abela’s wrath as he described this as the “most anti-democratic move” one could come up with.
It was rich for Abela to speak of democracy, given that what he did with Scicluna’s co-option was throw out the democratic election of one of his party’s own candidates in favour of another who had not been on the ballot sheet.
But perhaps his interpretation is different from ours.