I have submitted the following to the President of Malta - You can do the same via this link:
Malta’s constitutional reform should ensure that institutions
are well-equipped to curtail excesses by governments. The reform process
should be transparent, evidence-based and characterised by deliberation.
When the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (the Venice Commission) gave its recent
verdict on Malta’s
constitutional arrangements, separation of powers and
judiciary, it made some very important observations which should
be followed up in Malta’s constitutional reform process. For example, whilst the Prime Minister
has considerable power,
our part-time Parliament is too weak to
exercise enough control over the executive branch of power.
Besides, crucial checks and balances are missing, and Malta’s independent media
and civil society are relatively weak.
Consequently, the Venice Commission made several recommendations to the
Government of Malta which were principally intended to check the extensive
powers of the Prime Minister. These cover
judicial vacancies and dismissals; separation of powers; the need to strengthen
the role of President, and the need to strengthen parliament by making it more
professional, accountable and evidence based. The Venice Commission also
mentioned the need to limit the Prime Minister’s appointing powers and the need
to limit appointments to positions of trust in the public service.
It is interesting to note that the Venice Commission recognised the
challenges of having governance models in a small state like Malta. It
emphasised that there is no uniform constitutional model for good governance.
Hence, there may be different variants of liberal
democracy. Small states like Malta have characteristics which must be taken
into account in scholarly, grounded analyses
and policy recommendations. These include the proximity of politicians to
electors, and the personalisation of politics.
It is imperative that the methodology of the
consultative
process for Constitutional Reform facilitates meaningful dialogue
and deliberation. Qualified experts
from respective fields should have proper space,
time and ambience to deliberate alongside citizens, civil society,
constituted bodies, minorities and political party representatives.
Some areas which I believe should be on the agenda
of constitutional reform include accountable governance, institutional autonomy, finance of
political parties and candidates (both income and expenditure),
professionalization of parliament, individual rights, checks and balances,
press freedom, political education,
structured and evidence-based policy making, the role of civil society and the
mainstreaming of sustainable policy.
I also recommend that the
Constitutional Reform Committee carries out an expert review of
possible models of consultation. It should ensure
transparency about its methods of analysis of public feedback. Peer review can
assist this process: Here, the consultation process and committee
recommendations will be further subjected to evaluation by qualified reviewers.
Besides, impact assessments should be carried out on proposals that are
followed through.
The consultation process should have proper time
frames, but it should not act as a speedy springboard for quick-fix solutions
which can have unintended consequences.
