Malta's constitutional gender corrective mechanism was introduced in 2021 with a simple aim: if, after a general election, one gender holds less than 40% of the seats in Parliament, up to 12 additional seats are allocated to candidates from the under‑represented sex to narrow the gap. The seats go to the highest‑performing unelected candidates from that gender. The measure applies post‑election and, crucially, was designed as a time‑limited boost rather than a permanent redesign of our electoral system.
My wish to serve the country was spurred by this mechanism. In reality I did not make use of it as the first woman in history to be elected by means of a by-election on the 4th district. Twelve of my fellow parliamentary members entered Parliament through this mechanism, pushing female representation to levels Malta had not previously reached. Supporters called it a pragmatic correction to a stubborn imbalance; critics called it an inelegant fix that papers over deeper structural barriers. Both points of view may be somewhat true.
The most obvious is visibility. Politics are aspirational: People consider careers they can see themselves in. The 2022 "top‑up" created a cohort of women who quickly took on legislative, committee and constituency roles. In a country where women's parliamentary representation has long languished among the lowest in the EU, that mattered. It also mattered that these were not hand‑picked appointees through a co-option; they were candidates who had already earned significant first‑count and transfer support but fell short under the Single Transferable Vote. The mechanism recognised electoral merit that would otherwise have been lost more than a co-option would have ever done.
Another criticism is symbolic: the fear of "tokenism." Some women who are fiercely committed to contesting and winning on first preferences, such as myself, bristle at the idea of a corrective route, even if they support it for newcomers. This is not unique to Malta; quota debates everywhere surface a similar discomfort between principle and tactic. The antidote is performance. Once in the House, MPs - however elected - are judged on scrutiny, law‑making, integrity and service. Malta's experience should be assessed on whether additional members shaped better policy and oversight, not on how they entered.
There is also the "parliamentary bloat" complaint: adding up to 12 seats raises costs and complicates committee work. That is real, but it is also transitional. The mechanism is time‑bound, intended to build momentum until parties and voters internalise a more balanced norm. It should be assessed over its full life, with data on retention, re‑election on merit, and whether gender balance persists without the top‑up.
So what next? Three practical steps would strengthen legitimacy and outcomes.
First, measure what matters. Publish clear, regular statistics on candidate pipelines, campaign financing by gender, media exposure, committee assignments, bill sponsorship, and re‑election rates of MPs who entered through the mechanism. International experience shows transparency counteracts the "quota stigma".
Second, fix the pipeline - not only the numbers. Parties can adopt internal rules that complement the constitutional fix: targeted recruitment, mentorship, family‑friendly meeting times, childcare support during campaigns, and zero tolerance for online harassment. These are inexpensive, culture‑shaping moves that make politics survivable for caregivers of any gender. EU guidance on gender mainstreaming and equal participation points in the same direction.
Third, show politics as a legitimate career route for women. Assertiveness, strength and positions of power are still very much associated to the male gender. We need to break stereotypes starting from a younger age where females are encouraged to debate and to speak up even in our schools.
The mechanism was never a silver bullet. It was a nudge - an explicit statement that half the country should not be a political minority. Its legitimacy will rest less on the constitutional clause and more on whether, a decade from now, balanced representation feels ordinary. If parties build stronger pipelines, if Parliament modernises its working culture, and if voters reward competence, Malta can retire the mechanism on schedule-with gratitude that it helped us cross a threshold we should never have struggled to reach. In the meantime, making the mechanism redundant needs collective effort.
What is the part you will play?
Dr Katya De Giovanni is a warranted Organisational Psychologist and Member of Parliament