Only seven referenda have ever been conducted in Malta: one of them in the nineteenth century, three in the twentieth century, and another two in the twenty-first century, with the most controversial being the 1956 Maltese United Kingdom integration referendum, the 2003 Maltese European Union membership referendum, the 2011 Maltese divorce referendum and the 2015 Maltese spring hunting referendum.

The referendum is a direct democracy procedure that provides for a vote by the electorate on an issue of public policy and includes the citizen in decision-making.

It is a valuable political process, as it provides an invitation to the people to vote and to decide important issues. This participation can create a sense of belonging and can assist in the process of integration.

In designing and implementing the legal and operational framework of a referendum, many issues must be considered. A country must decide everything, from who has the authority to call a referendum to how they go about doing this, who writes the ballot question, who hears appeals on this question, and what the legal effect of the referendum result is.

These questions are both procedural and substantive and must all be dealt with by clear laws within the legal framework for the referendum to be considered legitimate.

As things stand, Malta's law is found in Chapter 237, the 1973 Referenda Act.

Saving the case where a referendum is merely consultative and at the discretion of the government of the day, in which voters are asked to express their opinion on issues which still have to be ratified by parliament, ours is an abrogative referendum type of law that remotely can, subject to specific, strict conditions, repeal any law, excluding any enactment concerning the Constitution, the European Convention Act, the General Elections Act, any fiscal legislation, or any legislation giving effect to any treaty obligation undertaken by Malta.

Any number of persons registered as voters for the election of members of the House of Representatives, being not less than ten per cent of the total number of persons registered as voters as appear in the last revised Electoral Register, may, by signing a declaration, demand that the question of whether one or more provisions of an enactment shall not continue in force.

Where the majority of voters voting in a referendum approve the proposal regarding the provision of the enactment, the repeal of which is requested, the said provision shall no longer have effect, and the President of Malta shall issue a Proclamation accordingly: provided that such proposal shall be deemed not to have been approved if less than fifty per cent of those entitled to vote in the referendum plus one will have cast their vote.

At a time when public trust in our political and constitutional system is probably lower than ever in living memory, referenda could help restore faith in Maltese democracy. They could help to counteract the sense of cynicism and powerlessness amongst voters.

It could be legitimately argued that referenda could provide the government of the day with a mandate to undertake change and could provide parliament with an indication of public opinion on a given issue.

The current Labour administration purports to adhere to and practise democratic socialism, but it is simply totalitarianism that allows you the illusion of a voice in the matter.

Malta's institution of the abrogative referendum presents two categories of problems that hamper its practical implementation. The first is the cumbersome nature of the legal regime governing the referendum initiative. The second is the various ways of neutralising the referendum initiative and its results.

The first is to be found at the beginning of the referendum procedure and consists of the cumbersome nature of the legal regime governing the popular initiative whereby citizens may request an abrogative referendum. The second is specific to the more advanced stages of the process, consisting of the various forms of neutralisation employed by the main political parties to deprive a repeal of any useful effect.

These problems relate to two specific phases of the referendum process, one upstream and the other downstream of an intermediate phase, which is the admissibility review carried out by the Constitutional Court.

If we agree that the Maltese Republic is a representative democracy and should be classified as a liberal parliamentary system, our constitutional system nevertheless has several features that are difficult to encapsulate in this general definition.

Take Malta's constitutional convention process, for example. It was announced way back in 2019 and was intended to address concerns regarding the appointment of constitutional bodies and Parliament's role, but it remains on hold without a clear timeline. The process was envisioned as a way to analyse and examine collected material on constitutional reform, including public suggestions and expert opinions.

In all probability, though, if and when a holistic constitutional reform is ever finally concluded, it will not be subjected to a popular referendum, with the plebiscite thus remaining without a voice in the matter.

Undoubtedly, shortcomings of our referenda legislative framework and the lack of political will to reform it are direct blows to the expression of popular sovereignty.

Perhaps it's time to have a referendum law in a reformed written constitution along the lines of Ireland, Lithuania and Switzerland.

Such a bold move would mean an invitation to the people to get involved, to join the decision-making process and to take ownership of shaping their country's future.