A referendum for a Second Republic?

As a parliamentary democracy, Malta's laws are made through simple majorities in the House of Representatives.

But when it comes to changing the Constitution which sets the common rules governing our democracy, a two-thirds majority is required. This principle ensures that no government can ride roughshod on the Opposition in setting the rules of the game.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has referred to the possibility of enacting constutional changes approved in a convention, through a referendum, and this has been reiterated by President George Abela.

While everyone agrees that constitutional changes should be sealed through a referendum, it remains unclear whether any such referendum should take place before or after approval by parliament.

It would be highly improper if the referendum is simply used to pressure MPs into enacting changes over which no widespread consensus exists.

A 51% or even 55% majority in a referendum is simply no substitute for a 66% majority in parliament. Otherwise we would have set a precedent through which our Constitution, which belongs to us all, can be changed through a simple majority. 

Even the most fundamental principles would become the subject of the whims of the electorate, setting a precedent for any future government intent on changing the Constitution to employ plebiscites, and for all kinds of lobbyists to promote constitutional changes and entrenchments through referendums.

While in the case of divorce our MPs were morally bound to follow the will of the majority, they should not be put in the same position when it comes to changing the common rules governing our democracy.

Neither does it make sense to present the electorate with dozens of constitutional amendments expecting a simple yes or a simple no. 

Therefore before any talk on Second Republics, the government is duty bound to issue a roadmap for its reforms in a way that it guarantees the fundamental principle that the rules of the game will be changed through consensus.

Unfortunately the appointment of Franco Debono as coordinator of this convention has fallen short of the need to seek consensus.

Widening the process to include civil society would be a positive step, but ultimately in a parliamentary democracy the Opposition is also a vital component.   

Added caution should be paid to parlance: is it justified to talk of a second republic when our country has neither been through war, revolution or a judicial wipeout of its political class - epochal events - to signify the passage from one republic to the next? Why give much-needed and long delayed reforms in our democratic structures the semblance of an epochal earthquake simply because the country has seen a change in government?

What the country needs is a fairer electoral system which can be achieved through a simple constitutional amendment, and a reform of the system of political appointments through which officials in public authorities are accountable to parliament or the president instead of the government of the day.

All it takes is for the two parties represented in parliament to amend the Constitution to apply the principle of proportionality of seats, to a proportionality to all parties contesting an election, instead of restricting this principle to the two parties elected in parliament.

The only argument I can see on this is whether one should have a threshold to ensure a minimum amount of parliamentary representation and what amount should be established as a threshold.

My worst fear is that this much-needed reform which would inject a breath of fresh air in our democracy by widening representation, could once again end up sacrificed on the altar of divisive political brinkmanship which risks bogging down the new constitutional convention.