A question of merit or tokenism in government

Public debate continues to focus on the gender corrective mechanism. Unfortunately, much of this discussion has also turned into criticism—and at times outright insult—towards the women elected through this system and the way they entered parliament. Some argue that the mechanism allows for the election of incompetent women who do not deserve a parliamentary seat. Strikingly, such criticism does not come only from men but also from women themselves.

Before rushing to judgement, however, it is important to reflect on what has actually taken place and to ask why women were not elected in greater numbers through the traditional electoral process. We must examine who was chosen during the initial counts and who secured seats without the need for corrective intervention.

The pattern is evident—the vast majority of candidates elected in the first counts were men. For example, within the Labour Party, most of those elected directly were men, with only a small number of women reaching parliament at that stage. This reflects a broader reality—voters tend to place their trust in candidates who already occupy positions of authority and visibility, particularly ministers and parliamentary secretaries. These individuals benefit from sustained exposure, established political profiles, and the opportunity to demonstrate their performance in office.

While both men and women were elected through casual elections, six women ultimately entered parliament through the gender corrective mechanism. Yet when one examines the composition of the Maltese Cabinet, the picture remains largely unchanged. The same established ministers continue to hold key positions, alongside a limited number of highly visible women. This raises a legitimate question: Does this represent meaningful gender equality, or does it amount to a continued form of tokenism?

The issue becomes even more complex when considering candidates who receive fewer votes. Does a lower vote count automatically imply a lack of competence or suitability for parliamentary work? The voting process itself must be scrutinised. Voters often support candidates who have already demonstrated their abilities in public office. Others gain support through intensive campaigning, close engagement with constituents, and responsiveness to local needs. In some cases, electoral success is also shaped by personal networks and exchanges of favours.

But does obtaining the highest number of votes necessarily make a candidate the most competent? And is a system that rewards popularity, visibility, and patronage the most effective way to choose those who will legislate on behalf of the country? In a society where both men and women are reaching high levels of education and professional expertise, parliamentary representation should be grounded in competence, knowledge, and leadership, rather than popularity alone.

Electoral districts further reinforce existing inequalities. Candidates competing in districts dominated by established political figures face a significant disadvantage, as votes tend to concentrate around well-known ministers. As a result, capable newcomers often struggle to gain visibility and support, regardless of their abilities.

In this context, newcomers—regardless of gender—should be supported through positive measures that enhance their visibility and allow for fairer competition. Fresh perspectives and new ideas are essential in parliament, and the potential of first-time candidates should not be underestimated.

Ultimately, there is a strong argument for strengthening party-based voting rather than focusing excessively on individual candidates. Cabinet formation should be based on competence, while also ensuring genuine inclusivity and diversity. Diversity, however, must be understood in broader terms—not only gender, but also sexual orientation, age representation, and the inclusion of persons with disabilities, many of whom continue to face structural barriers in accessing voters and competing on equal terms.

If parliament is to truly reflect Maltese society, the debate must move beyond simplistic assumptions about who is or is not deserving of office. Instead, it should focus on building a political system that values competence, fairness, inclusivity, and equal opportunity for all—without reducing representation to tokenism.