While it is conceded that, formally speaking, there are two political parties represented in the House of Representatives, together with a bunch of insignificantly power wise extra-parliamentary political parties, the reality is that Malta is, and has always been since independence, governed as a one-party State.
This is primarily because of the principle of constitutional law that the Civil Court, First Hall, expounded in one of its judgments, namely that in Maltese politics the winner takes it all. This means that all the rest - the opposition, the extra-parliamentary political parties, civil society, NGOs, the media, and others are worthless from the point of view of state power capture. This necessarily implies that Malta boasts of a huge democratic deficit that none of the two political parties in the House have attempted to address post-independence; nor are they inclined to redress now or any time in the near or distant future. It simply does not suit their power mongering interests.
What is noteworthy, historically speaking, is that under colonial self-government constitutions there were more than two political parties represented in the Legislative Assembly and at times even coalition governments were formed. Since independence, in this respect, we have regressed democratically not progressed as coalitions have been relegated to the historical dustbin and the two main political parties enjoy a complete monopoly of power amongst themselves.
How does this one-party State and democratic deficit manifest concretely in Maltese law and politics?
Very simply put, both law and parliamentary procedures render government accountability very weak and parliamentary supervision of government next to none. Lately, we have read on PM question time. But we know that this is wishful utopian thinking and will not be introduced in Malta. We also see that abroad the electorate have the right to remove an MP who is not serving them well at any time during a legislature. But in Malta, we enjoy no such privilege to remove incompetent parliamentary politicians.
With barely few controls imposed upon the executive of the day, government rules supreme. The courts also have their own problems with controlling government especially when the Constitutional Court abdicates its constitutional duty to enforce the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. When this court comes up with the worst concocted type of pretexts to give an undue advantage to government over the citizen, then one understands the miserable predicament that the citizen is. The latter has no judicial authority from whom to seek redress and, in the case of the independent offices of state that can presumably or ideally give such remedy, the law usually imposes several shackles thereupon their operation to the extent that they end up neutered. In this landscape, government continues to reign supreme and governmental unaccountability is another myth that we all dream of.
With a weak opposition, a bought out Constitutional Court, and powerless independent offices or bodies of State, the end result is that government is too powerfully to control.
That Malta is a one-party State is also confirmed by the fact how the political party in government controls the executive both in the House of Representatives through the parliamentary group and the office of the whip, as well as government ministries that are infiltrated by party apparatchiks through the unconstitutional office of persons or trust or unmeritorious appointments. The recent musical chairs announced in the newspapers between shifting of party officials to government posts and vice-versa is indicative of the democratic deficit we are in. There is no sense of constitutional decency with government. Now it is no longer the case that calls for applications are issued for senior government positions. Instead, they are hand picked by government and planted within the public administration.
Take the case of Norma Saliba. Originally a government directorship was specifically and illegally created to accommodate her even in breach of the law. But at one point in time, she moved from government to take up a position with the Labour Party. Now, from her office in the Labour Party she is being moved back to government. One asks: where is the distinction between government and party? One further asks where does meritocracy fit into the equation? The answer is obvious: nowhere. When Norma Saliba was handpicked as Director of the Centre for the Maltese Language, no call for applications was issued. She was not even qualified for the job. Meritocracy was thrown overboard.
Edward Montebello, the outgoing head of communications at the Office of the Prime Minister, who served in that capacity for four years as a person of trust, according to a Labour Party announcement, has been appointed chairman of One and head of party communications. Prior to his government appointment, Montebello performed duties for 13 years at the One newsroom where he also served as its deputy head. Montebello, like Saliba, is spring boarding from party office to government office and vice-versa as though they enjoy some inherent privilege to occupy a government position.
A report in the local newspaper reads as follows: 'At the Labour Party, Montebello is succeeding outgoing head of communications Norma Saliba - who has moved to Transport Malta, now led by former Labour Party CEO Leonid McKay - and outgoing ONE chair Silvio Scerri, who has also been the chief executive of government agency Xjenza Malta since 2023'.
These are only a handful of examples and multiple others can be quoted under both a Labour and Nationalist administrations.
The same happens when a new government is appointed. All the employees in the political party's broadcasting stations/digital newspapers are employed in government. There is a complete exodus from party to government. Communication ministries tend to be populated from One TV or Net TV depending which political party has secured government. Then the same procedure applies to party officers who are either employed directly with government or else are given a chairmanship or an executive position in the public administration. Now if these persons are selected following an objective meritorious procedure, I would have no difficulty here. But the problem is that these persons are handpicked and unmeritorious for the position they have been appointed to.
In the not too distant past, when the judiciary was appointed by government who was appointed to the bench? In large measure they used to be former ministers and parliamentary secretaries, members of parliament who were unelected and, therefore, as a consolation prize were appointed to the judiciary, former party officials, former anchor-persons on the political party's media, etc. Their legal competence was determined through political affiliation. At times, not even a reasonable cooling off period was allowed between political partisan office and the assumption of judicial office. Now this is not to say that, once appointed, these persons did not serve the country well, but their method of appointment simply stank. No public competition, no call for applications, no meritorious candidate chosen.
Democracy is Malta is delusionary for the democratic deficit that we relish is to such massive extent that democracy in a one-party state is a chimeric illusion, a fallacious hallucination, and a grave misconception.
Kevin Aquilina is Professor of Law at the Faculty of Laws, University of Malta