Constitutional reform process ‘could be a front for political parties’
Rule of law NGO Repubblika has expressed its appreciation for the remarks made by President George Vella a few days ago to the effect that the process of constitutional reform must not be limited to the interests of the two main political parties, but must include broad participation, including that of civil society. It said, however, that it was concerned that “the first steps in the process do not appear to meet this objective.”
While the public has been invited to submit ‘suggestions’ on how the Constitution of Malta should change, this appears to be extremely limited in scope, Repubblika has said, observing that submissions are to be made on an individual basis with not insight into what others have submitted.
“As far as we can tell, political parties will then filter these submissions, retaining those that serve their interests and discarding the rest.
“We reiterate that the constitution is intended to limit the power of governors and, therefore, the governors themselves are completely unsuitable to decide on how their own powers should be restricted.”
Repubblika also reiterated that “we find no comfort in the participation in this process of the President.
“In spite of his undoubted good intentions, such participation amounts to exceeding the limits of his powers and responsibilities within the constitutional bounds that define his role today. That is hardly an encouraging start to a process that is supposed to redefine those limits.”
The NGO also warned that irrespective of whatever moral authority President George Vella might have, “the government has repeatedly demonstrated its determination to use its unhindered control of Parliament to implement constitutional changes that serve its own interests.”
It points to the fact that the government is recruiting a state attorney, who will be appointed at the exclusive discretion of the prime minister as a result of constitutional changes that were not discussed with anyone outside Parliament. This “indicates that the process launched by President Vella could very well be a front behind which political parties implement the changes that best suit their interests.”
Repubblika said that its members, like anyone else concerned about the proper administration of the country, “have strong views about how the constitution may be improved. However, while there is a risk of revisions happening under the control of political parties, our specific preferences on the details remain secondary.”
The NGO also expressed concern that its detailed submission on the process of constitutional review and reform, handed to former President Marie Louise Coleiro Preca last March on her own request and that of the steering committees of the two main political parties, had not even been acknowledged. “Nor have we been given any sort of acknowledgment by President George Vella since his appointment.
Repubblika insists that it “does not presume to have some right to determine the process of constitutional change. “But we have the responsibility to inform the public of our concerns that behind-closed-doors constitutional reforms have, in universal historical experience, led to compromised democracy, restraint on human rights and the exculpation of tyranny under the guise of high-sounding but unenforceable principles.
“The least we would expect is for the decision-making process to be determined at the outset and to be made publicly known so that politicians would not be in a position to decide what to debate and approve in Parliament without first having made public commitments on how they would ensure public awareness of, and support for, the changes they introduce.”
Repubblika yesterday re-submitted its recommendations for a ‘transparent, genuinely inclusive and participatory’ constitutional reform process as part of the formal call for suggestions launched by President George Vella a few days ago.
“We also reiterate that failing proper public participation, and notwithstanding our wishes for a genuine improvement to our constitutional framework, our stand is firmly against any changes to the constitution.
“We would much rather continue to enjoy the protections given by our current, albeit imperfect, constitution than trust our fate to a future, re-written constitution designed to protect the whims of the political parties who currently abuse those safeguards.”