When he was Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat had suggested that any head of government should serve for a maximum of two terms while MPs should not be allowed to retain their parliamentary seat for more than four legislatures.

In other words, his suggestion was that a PM must not last longer than 10 years – that Muscat served for less than seven years for reasons known to everyone is another story – and an MP should not remain in the House of Representatives for more than 20 years.

His reasoning was that a politician’s life should have a limit and the idea that that one is “stuck to the parliamentary seat” should be eliminated.

Muscat’s idea could have sparked some thinking in the Nationalist Party which, for different reasons to those promulgated by the former PM, is now looking into the possibility of requesting – or perhaps even demanding – that veteran MPs make way for younger blood.

In the PN’s case, no four-term limitation is being proposed, and so the situation appears to be very flexible. But it is clear that the PN is considering the move in a bid to appear fresh in the eyes of the electorate when the time comes to vote.

Both Muscat’s proposal and the PN’s line of thinking have been a subject of discussion, more so now that the election is approaching and the PN seems close to making up its mind, given the way its leader Bernard Grech has spoken of “tough decisions” in the making.

The present situation

With no limits – constitutional or otherwise – in place, MPs in Malta can serve for a lifetime.

Their only hurdle is getting themselves elected. It must be admitted that this is not an easy feat, as MPs have to work hard to retain their voter-base, given that demographical changes as well as the advent of new voters (while others are lost because of death) are challenges MPs have to face every time.

But it is also known that MPs have some advantage over other candidates. Being an MP gives them more public exposure, the possibility to field parliamentary questions on subjects that are dear to their constituents and a better possibility to be influential in decisions made. Many people in Malta regard politicians as some kind of superior being and this grows exponentially once a politician makes it to Parliament, with MPs then using their power of incumbency to project themselves as on a higher step in the social hierarchy.

As can be seen in the tables alongside this article, there are two MPs who have been in the House since 1987, with another three elected for the first time in 1992. Another seven made it to the House before the turn of the century, and we are now already in the third decade of the 2000s.

If Muscat’s proposal were to come to be, MPs who were elected for the first time in 2003 or before would not be allowed to contest the next election. Eighteen of the current crop of 67 MPs would therefore be squeezed out of Parliament.

Limited parliamentary life

But would it be right to limit a politician’s contribution in the House to a given number of years? If this system had been in place, politicians like Dom Mintoff and Eddie Fenech Adami, just to give two examples from either side, would have had a much shorter career.

Let us take the age factor first. Many politicians, for example, make it to parliament in their early 30s, perhaps even managing to oust party heavyweights by obtaining more votes through hard work and dedication. They then build their career, maybe first on the backbench and then moving up to parliamentary secretary and later minister if their party is in government; or first being given a small shadow portfolio and then moving on to become main spokesman if the party is in opposition.

If Muscat’s proposal were to be taken on board, this would mean that their political participation would come to an end in the early 50s, at a time when they would neither be young but nor old, and would have gained great experience and reached political maturity.

Would these politicians be put aside simply because they were good and popular enough to make it to parliament at a young age?

Then again, let’s say the first three legislatures of a particular politician are spent on the opposition benches. Remember, the PN was elected to government for three times in a row between 1998 and 2008 and Labour, after winning in 2013 and 2017, is heading towards a third consecutive victory.

On the fourth attempt, the party represented by this politician is elected to government and he or she is made minister, and does very well in the role. But, given that the four terms are up, he or she would not be able to contest the following election.

Would that be fair on the individual? Wouldn’t Malta then be deprived of his or her sterling services because of the four-term rule?

The PN’s predicament

What the Nationalist Party is thinking of doing is more complicated.

The idea that is being discussed internally is for veteran politicians to step aside and make way for fresh faces.

But, here, no time limit has been suggested. This begs the question – where will one be drawing the line? Will politicians who were, say, elected in 2003 be told not to contest? Or will some be allowed to do so while others are barred? Will it just be MPs who have already served in a PN Cabinet? Or will it be a clean sweep? Who will be making this decision? And on what grounds will this be made? What are the criteria?

No final decision has been made yet, in spite of the fact that the election is getting closer. There is great resistance from several MPs who, although they have been in the House at least since the Lawrence Gonzi leadership, consider themselves still in a position to be able to contribute, given that they are in their 50s.

One has to see whether the party will have the courage to force them out. While the idea to regenerate the PN’s line-up is seen as one of the ways in which the party could become more attractive to voters, others argue that by doing this the PN will be losing experienced and popular politicians. They also contend that, unless there are disciplinary issues, it should not be the party which decides who becomes an MP, but the voters.

Heading to an election with just young faces is also not ideal for the PN to be seen as an alternative government, and this would lead to a risk of an ever heavier defeat. On the other hand, the backers of this idea say that the PN remains unelectable anyway with its current team.

The voters

Both the Muscat and PN proposals are, in their own different way, an attempt to tinker with democracy.

For decades, Malta has been proud to elect its representatives through elections held every five years. The people have always been enthusiastic in their participation. Since Independence in 1964, there was only one occasion in which voter turnout was below 90 per cent – and that was the first election, held in 1966, with 89.7 per cent of eligible voters casting their preference.

The voters have always been free to choose the MPs they would like to have in Parliament. Our system allows for voters to select from a list presented by the political parties, along with a few individuals who contest as independent candidates. The ideas on the table (Muscat’s and the PN’s) would deprive voters of this possibility.

There would be many who would not like the fact that either constitutional rules or party decisions prohibit them from choosing the MP of their choice. This is particularly so for the older voters, who would be more inclined to vote for established politicians – those with whom they grew up and who were probably their choice in previous elections – than to give their preference to up-and-coming politicians.

Limiting the voters’ choice via constitutional arrangements or party decisions would undermine the people’s voting power and possibly push people away from exercising their right to pick their representatives.