The sovereign prince

Robert Abela said the choice of the new President to replace George Vella must respect the sovereignty of the majority. In simple words the next President must be Labour like their predecessor. Why did he need to say it? Is he not the prime minister? He needed to say it because he knows he’s wrong.

With two exceptions, we’ve had presidents from political parties for as long as we’ve had presidents. Labour chose Anton Buttigieg, Agatha Barbara, Marie Louise Coleiro Preca, and George Vella. The Nationalists chose Ċensu Tabone, Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, Guido de Marco, and Eddie Fenech Adami.

The exceptions were the first president Sir Anthony Mamo a non-partisan jurist, and George Abela, the current prime minister’s father. There’s the irony that after his father’s nomination by the opposing party, Robert Abela is now saying the President should hail from the ruling party. That’s not what I want to talk about today.

When Malta became a republic fifty years ago, the law said a simple majority in Parliament would choose the President. That means the ruling party would choose the President whether the Opposition liked it or not. That means the prime minister would get out of bed, call his comrade, and tell him he’d be President from April.

Four years ago, in 2020, Parliament changed the Constitution. Instead of a simple majority, the President now needs the support of two-thirds of Parliament. Since we only have two parties in Parliament this means that as of the choice of the next President the prime minister cannot decide alone. He needs the Opposition’s agreement. And while they wait to get a deal, the old President stays in office.

Why did they make the change? Because 2020 followed 2018 when we had a report by a European commission on how the law can protect democracy – called the Venice Commission – that gave us a list of recommendations on how to make Malta more democratic.

Why did we get that report in 2018? Because in 2017 in Malta a journalist was killed: Daphne Caruana Galizia. And the central cause of her murder was that Malta had prime ministers with infinite powers and we had a prime minister – Joseph Muscat – that used those powers to allow his criminal friends to do as they please.

The Venice Commission said the powers of Malta’s prime minister are exaggerated and disproportionate for a normal and modern democracy. That wasn’t an accident. Sixty years ago, we were still a British colony. The British allowed us the fancy of a Parliament, ministers, and judges of our own, but ultimately, they wrote laws that ensured that when the British needed to bring us to heel, they could do so without restriction.

Those exaggerated and disproportionate powers of a colonial regime were left in legacy to the Maltese government. They used to say we held the reins of the country’s carriage. The reins were held by our governments.

The Venice Commission told us that to have a functioning democracy, some powers of the prime minister needed to be removed so that we’d have others who, if needed, could hold prime ministers to account. For example, it was not acceptable for prime ministers to continue to choose who became a magistrate and which magistrates would make judge. The government didn’t want this change. Repubblika dragged the government to the European Court and the government gave in. Judges are no longer picked by the prime minister. Judges nominate new judges, and the final choice is made by the President.

It’s in this context that the two-thirds rule for choosing a new President came in. A President is not quite as powerful as a judge. They can’t stop the government. And so it should be, because after all the government wins elections and represents the majority. But when things are not done right the President has the right and the duty to send for the prime minister, serve them tea, and tell them what’s worrying them.

For example, the prime minister is in a vein of threatening the judiciary because he’s annoyed they’re investigating Joseph Muscat. Judges should be independent and free of anybody’s interference, especially the prime minister’s. The President should be pulling the prime minister aside and telling him ‘Hey, cool it, you’re going overboard.’

Robert Abela doesn’t even want that. He wants the resident of the Palace to be his puppet. He wants someone so partisan to Labour that they would be fine with anything a Labour government does.

That’s why Robert Abela is saying the majority is sovereign and the President should belong to the majority. These are not big technical words. This declaration by the prime minister is wrong and incredibly dangerous.

What does it mean to be sovereign? The meaning of the word changed with time. It used to mean that the king is sovereign. The word is still used for the British monarch: the sovereign. The word also means full autonomy. No one interferes with the king’s will for he is the sovereign. No one is above him except God. No bishop, no pope, no aristocracy, no masses can interfere with the king, because he is the sovereign anointed by God.

That’s why after the revolts and the wars in Britain between Parliament and king, we get the British notion that Parliament is sovereign. Every year the British King goes to Parliament to give a speech pretending to command Parliamentarians what they must do during the rest of the year. But the speech is written for him by Parliament. The king is but a symbol. Parliament is sovereign.

That is why in the British tradition no one is above Parliament. What Parliament does is law.

On the Continent there’s a slightly different tradition, a legacy of eighteenth century American and French thinking. On the eve of the French Revolution, the king reminded the people’s representatives that he was the sovereign. The Revolution happened when the people’s representatives replied ‘No! The nation is sovereign. The king is but a servant of the nation.’

The nation is sovereign. Parliament is sovereign. Not the majority. The majority is trusted for a few years to take administrative decisions for the country. It’s there because the second fairest thing to unanimous agreement, is majority rule.

But if the Nation is sovereign laws apply equally for all. That is why we have human rights. Even a minority of one is endowed with rights. The smallest one among us has rights. Even someone serving a lifetime in prison has rights.

The majority takes administrative decisions, but sovereignty belongs to all people.

I push back on Robert Abela’s notion that the majority is sovereign. Fascists think like that: the mighty rule and those who resist can be swept away.

If the Constitution now says the President cannot be picked by the majority alone but only with the backing of the Opposition, why does Robert Abela want everything to stay as it was before and he gets to make the choice alone?

Why is it that while the Constitution creates the obligation to seek the Opposition’s agreement, they must still abide by the prime minister’s choice, or we’re stuck with George Vella for ever?

See how ironic all this is: George Vella was picked with the old system. If he stays on beyond April it will really be a case of having changed the Constitution for nothing.

After all the Constitution can say what it pleases. If the people who must apply it do as they please because they think like the kings of old, that they’re sovereign and no one’s above them, the Constitution is no more than hollow words.

We should have decent leaders who understand there are limits to their power, that they must suffer the views of people who disagree with them, that winning elections does not make them princes, that just because prime ministers chose presidents in the past, doesn’t mean things cannot change.

We should have prime ministers who understand that all power has limits and the keys to Castille are not handed down by divine right. That the Nation is sovereign, and their duty is to serve the Nation, not just that part of it that voted for them. We should have prime ministers that understand they are no gods. That though little more than a symbol, the President sits above them, endowed with extremely limited powers, but that they must drink the President’s tea as they draw their attention to their errors.

And we should have prime ministers who look ahead, not try to reverse time. That we shouldn’t merely refrain from frustrating the changes introduced four years ago, but that we should be discussing more changes for a more democratic Constitution.
Most European countries with a ceremonial president choose their head of state by direct election and universal suffrage. Many times, voters chose a government from a party and a president from another because it makes sense that different powers in a country are occupied by people guarding each other, rather than dancing to each other’s tune. After all people in power are no kings. They are servants of the nation.

The Nation is sovereign.

MANUEL QAL, Season 1 Episode 6

Written by Manuel Delia
Video Production: Michael Kaden / NEWZ.mt