When we decided to change the logo of SDM (the Christian Democrat Student organisation) in the mid-1990s we had decided to include a motto within a design that was meant to portray citizen participation and inclusion. The slogan, taken from Caldera’s tome describing the Christian Democrat principles translated as such “the ideal democratic palace is made up of the whole people”. We were very much into the notion of participatory democracy at the time and it was an interesting formative period of my life.
One crucial question I have been asking myself recently, particularly after the discussions at the Vilnius closing conference of the European Year of Citizens, is “how far do citizens really want to participate”? Is not an ideal democracy one where citizens are duly represented and where such representatives go about with the business of managing the demos as entrusted unto them? Should a citizen be “active” on a daily basis or should his interventions be limited to the two instances of (1) electing those to be entrusted with the res publica and (2) intervening in moments of crises (taking to the streets)/extraordinary intervention by referendum.
The referendum – a method of public consultation is by now a familiar concept in Maltese politics. European Union membership and divorce have served to speed up the learning curve in this field and we know have a petition for a new referendum this time in the hope of abolishing Spring Hunting for good. It would seem that the representatives of our hunting community are suddenly alarmed that this petition for a referendum might be successful and they have kicked off a counter move – this time the move is a petition by the hunters to amend the very act that gives rise to Referenda. In the hunters’ opinion, such an act should never be used to stifle minorities.
It would seem therefore that the learning curve has hit a huge obstacle. The hunters’ move betrays a lack of understanding of the basic tenets of democratic action and participation. An act such as the referendum act is written in such a way so as to ensure that it does not become a tool for minorities to be ‘stifled’. Given the size of our population, it is already a gargantuan task to obtain a number of signatures that is sufficient to get a referendum going. Then, once the referendum does take place, one should also remember that it requires a majority vote – very much like a national election where similar issues are (supposedly) put on the plate in the form of electoral manifestos. That is why this blog (and a few others) have often insisted for more clarity from political parties during election time as to their commitments for their period in government.
That is also why the vague propositions found in manifestos are often more of an affront to representative democracy than the very clear aims of a referendum proposition. One should also not forget that a law that is a direct result of a referendum could also be challenged in the courts of law – especially if a citizen could claim that his fundamental rights are being infringed. I seriously doubt that a hunter’s right to shoot at will in Spring time falls within the ambit of the fundamental rights of humankind and I only mention this check in order to paint a clear picture that goes beyond the PR-oriented assessment of rule of law and politics that is very much encouraged by our political classes today.
As it stands, the hunters are firmly entrenched outside the palace. They are not alone. Our political class have diluted all forms of accountability that would normally allow a democratic system based on rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances to work. When you have a government that first enacts a law, then rethinks it, then admits it was wrong, then admits it failed to consult stakeholders, then also remembers that there was no mention of this law in its political manifesto – and all the while such a government acts as though this was the most natural way of things and actually tries to get brownie points from its whole u-turn by claiming that it is “listening”… well then, something is rotten in Malta’s democratic palace.
“We are accounted poor citizens, the patricians good.
What authority surfeits on would relieve us: if they
would yield us but the superfluity, while it were
wholesome, we might guess they relieved us humanely;
but they think we are too dear: the leanness that
afflicts us, the object of our misery, is as an
inventory to particularise their abundance; our
sufferance is a gain to them Let us revenge this with
our pikes, ere we become rakes: for the gods know I
speak this in hunger for bread, not in thirst for revenge.”
(from Coriolanus, William Shakespeare).
