The gender corrective mechanism was introduced with good intentions. Few would dispute that Malta needed to address the chronic underrepresentation of women in Parliament, a problem that persisted for decades despite repeated promises of reform.

The reform has had an impact. More women now sit in Parliament than before the mechanism was introduced, and this election saw a stronger performance by female candidates than the previous one.

Yet the debate surrounding this year's election has exposed a question that Malta has not been fully answered; who exactly is the gender corrective mechanism intended to benefit?

This is not a new debate. When the reform was debated in 2021, concerns were raised about the fact that the mechanism would apply only to parties already represented in Parliament. The legislation was nevertheless approved, and attention shifted to its implementation rather than its limitations.

While the reform sought to correct one imbalance, it risked creating another. The past general election has brought those concerns back into focus.

The immediate controversy centres on ADPD chairperson Sandra Gauci, which also includes fellow candidate Melissa Bagley.

Both were excluded from consideration under the mechanism, despite obtaining stronger results than some candidates who are expected to enter Parliament through it.

The reason is simple: the mechanism only considers candidates from parties that have already secured seats in Parliament, namely the Labour Party or the Nationalist Party.

If the objective is simply to increase the number of women in Parliament, many voters will reasonably ask why some female candidates are automatically excluded from the exercise before the calculation even begins.

That raises another question; If the aim is genuinely to improve female representation, should a woman's chances of benefiting from the mechanism depend on the party she contests on?

There is also the question of voter choice. Elections exist to reflect the wishes of the electorate, yet the current mechanism can create situations where candidates who secured stronger support from voters are excluded from consideration altogether, while others remain eligible simply because they contested under a different political banner.

The gender corrective mechanism has now become an accepted part of Malta's electoral landscape. Perhaps too accepted.

It was introduced as a corrective measure, yet after two general elections there is little indication that it is becoming any less necessary. On the contrary, Parliament continues to require a correction after every election.

That raises a legitimate question. Is the mechanism solving the problem, or merely managing it?

A successful corrective measure should ideally become less necessary over time.

Instead, Malta appears to have accepted a system in which additional seats are expected as a matter of course after every election.

The focus has increasingly shifted to calculating who will enter Parliament through the mechanism rather than asking why many women need it in the first place.

Sandra Gauci's exclusion is unlikely to be the last controversy generated by the gender corrective mechanism. As long as the system continues to distinguish between candidates based on the party they represent, questions about fairness will continue to surface.

That does not mean the objective behind the reform is wrong. It means that after two elections, Parliament should be mature enough to ask whether the mechanism is functioning as intended or whether it can be improved.

More women in Parliament is unquestionably a positive development. Ensuring that the system used to achieve that goal commands public confidence is equally important.