Tag: constitution

Categories
Long & Short

Long & Short 1 – Delia Leader of the Opposition no more

The Delia is no longer Leader of the Opposition de facto post.

1. FACT: Delia no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of opposition MPs in parliament.
2. FACT: Delia himself made this information public right after the vote in his press conference.
3. FACT: President George Vella knows of the two facts above, so much so he has declared himself to be on “standby”.
4. FACT: Under the Constitution with these facts in hand the President is OBLIGED to revoke the appointment of Adrian Delia to the Office of Leader of the Opposition.
5. FACT: The revocation can occur without any person replacing Delia immediately. The Office of the Leader of the Opposition could be vacant until when a new one is appointed.
6. FACT: A law abiding and constitution respecting Delia would have gone HIMSELF to the President to inform him of the fact that he no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority.
7. FACT: The Office of the Leader of the Opposition in the House and the position of Party Leader are mutually exclusive.
8. FACT: The ‘rebel’ MPs can agree on one among them who can replace Delia as Leader of the Opposition in the House. Then and only then should they present themselves to the Office of the President with such a new nomination.
9. OPINION: the shambles we are in continues to confirm the blatant disregard that our traditionally strong political parties have for the constitution. They have hitherto only used it as a means to their end. It will be hard to shift from this mentality.

Categories
Constitutional Development

The Constitutional Matters (I)

As Malta braces itself for an invasion of constitutional experts I thought it would be opportune to throw my hat in the ring with a short series of Constitutional posts related directly or indirectly to what is happening at the moment.

The matter of who is the de iure and de facto Leader of the Opposition is the current hot potato just as the hapless Delia has lost a vote of confidence among the nationalist MPs. That vote confirmed that Delia no longer ‘commands the support of the largest single group of members of the House in opposition to the Government who are prepared to support one leader’. The words in quote are taken from article 90(2)(b) of the Constitution and as we shall see they are part of a conundrum relating to the appointment, tenure and removal of the Leader of the Opposition under our Constitution.

I say conundrum with intent. The whole of article 90 presents us with a series of alternative situations that should they occur would lead to the appointment or removal of a Leader of the Opposition.

Appointment

Unlike in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister, political parties are mentioned when it comes to the choice of Leader of Opposition. Article 80 concerning the appointment of the Prime Minister in fact refers to the member ‘best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House’. Article 90 on the other hand is the only article in the constitution to refer to the leader of a political party.

So, insofar as the appointment of the leader of the opposition is concerned, the first option for the President (article 90(2)(a)) is triggered if there is one opposition party whose numerical strength is greater than any other opposition party (in our case PN is larger than PD). In such a case the President will appoint the leader of that party as Leader of the Opposition.

In the hypothetical situation that no one opposition party is larger than the other (equal number of MPs) or there is no opposition party (all MPs are independent in opposition) then the President has to look for the person who commands the support of the largest group of members in the opposition. In this case no reference is made to party leadership. (article 90 (2)(b)).

Vacancy

Article 90(3) gives us all the options when the office of the Leader of the Opposition becomes vacant. The obvious reasons are when there has just been an election (dissolution of parliament) or if the leader of the opposition has ceased to be a member of the House. There is a final option which is covered by Article 90(4) which covers revocation of his appointment,

Revocation

If , in the judgment of the President, a member of the House of Representatives other than the Leader of the Opposition, has become the Leader in the House of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength in the House or, as the case may be, the Leader of the Opposition has ceased to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition to the Government, the President shall revoke the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition.

Article 90(4), Constitution of Malta

This sub-article really provides two alternatives. First of all we have the situation where the Leader of the Opposition is replaced as leader of his own party. Presumably this would mean that there has been a move within the party and the Leader was voted out with a new one voted in. That automatically triggers a change in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

The second, more delicate, alternative occurs where the Leader of the Opposition ceases to command the support of the largest single group of members in opposition. No more talk of political parties here. The measure is clear – if the Leader of the Opposition no longer enjoys the confidence of a majority among the opposition members then the President must revoke his appointment.

Now the vote of confidence taken at PN HQ is clear. Of the 30 PN MPs 19 voted against Delia (17 of these are MPs, 2 (Metsola and Casa) are MEPs). 10 voted in his favour (and Delia himself). We do not even need to factor in the two other Opposition MPs from the third party (PD) because that still leaves Delia in a minority. There should be no way out constitutionally for Delia.

The Presidents’ prerogative is qualified with the words “in his judgment” though I doubt if George Vella can come up with a plausible reason to deny all evidence pointing to the obvious. Delia no longer commands the confidence of a majority of opposition MPs. His appointment to Leader of Opposition should be revoked.

Political Party Leadership

Delia is pandering to the harridans and populists with his calls to respect the vote of the tesserati. He is using that excuse to cling to his position as Leader of the Opposition. As we have seen though the two posts are not linked directly. Rather, that vote of confidence has effectively ended Delia’s tenure as Leader of the Opposition both de iure and de facto. What remains to be done is for George Vella to snap out of “standby” mode and revoke his appointment.

For the time being Delia can cling to the leadership of the party with desperate claws. It would not be the first time that he prioritises his own aims over the needs of a nation and of his own party. Meanwhile the ‘rebel MPs’ need to get going. There is a constitutional role that needs filling. Finding one among them to fulfill the duties of leader of Opposition should not take too long. Also, if the President drags his feet any longer on the revocation they might need to up their ante by walking up to his door and presenting their chosen candidate.

And the UK

Interestingly enough our former colonial overlords who bequeathed upon us a particular form of parliamentary democracy have a peculiar way of identifying the Leader of the Opposition. It is not the Queen (in lieu of our President) who determines the leader but the Speaker of the House – and this only in case of dispute. The accepted choice is normally, as in Malta, the Leader of the largest party in Opposition. However under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (1975), we find the following provision:


(1) In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; and “Chief Opposition Whip” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, the person for the time being nominated as such by the Leader of the Opposition in that House; and “Assistant Opposition Whip”, in relation to the House of Commons, means a person for the time being nominated as such, and to be paid as such, by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.

(2) If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.

Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (1975), Article 2

Categories
Articles

Seize the moment

This article first appeared on The Shift News on 10.12.2019.

Sunday afternoon turned out to be quite surreal. As the sun began to set on The Eternal City, I stood at the top of the Spanish steps looking down on a huge crowd of people gathered to follow the Pope’s Immacolata procession.

At that precise moment, some 650km away (as the ravenflies) another crowd was beginning to assemble. Unlike the papal crowd, the crowd at Castille Square was calling for justice and accountability. They wanted the man who obstinately clings to the seat of power to let go immediately.

Only the previous day, that man had brazenly been to visit the Pope. Undoubtedly, this was part of his ‘business as usual’ charade: the same charade that would continue on Sunday with his ‘farewell tour’ surrounded by those after his sullied throne.

Since the precipitation of events (to put it mildly) drew Castille’s occupants into circle upon circle of Dantesque damnation, the government’s effort to ‘minimise the fuss’ has multiplied. There has yet to be responsibility assumed for the mess.

Sure, we have seen resignations. They are not the kind of submission to authority that you would expect, though. Rather, those resigning are fêted as heroes. Chiefs of Staff “move on“, Ministers reaffirm their dedication to the cause and the project — and we must be the only country where a Prime Minister mired in corruption and abuse of power is on the road to beatification.

The way the government and backbenchers have rallied behind Muscat can only be described as the thickness of thieves. Each day of denial rendered every one of them complicit in the institutional abuse and cover-up.

Yet, the growing wave of discontent is now clear for all to see. Beyond the Potemkin village meetings that Muscat and friends can orchestrate among the flag-waving diehards lies a brave new world that is gathering momentum and courage. It is a disparate agglomeration of individuals still in search of a leading voice.

Theirs has been an uphill struggle. First came the ‘early adopters’ who, from the start, realised that something was rotten in the state of Denmark.

Then came the angry crowd who had understood that this was not a government for the people by the people, and they had a reason to complain that it was not right.

Last came the doubting Thomas’ who could only be swayed with the ever so deceptive ‘proof’. For the first time in the history of this young nation, a political movement of strange bedfellows was born out of the realisation that the Old Republic was no longer a servant of the people.

Yes, as part of the learning curve in civil action, at every step we had to stress that this was not a political movement (political with a small p as in ‘partisan’). Yes, we had to overcome the mutual diffidence and suspicions of underlying agendas. The remarkable nature of the moment lies in the fact that the overwhelming consensus within the movement of change is that change must come without the political (with a small p) parties. It must happen despite them.

We are a few steps away from understanding that this could be a defining moment constitutionally for our republic. At this stage, the eyes of people from different ideological backgrounds are open. They understand (for different reasons) that our Constitution, and hence our State, is paralysed by conflicting interests.

For some, it is ‘the businessmen’. For others, it is the parties that abuse their power. For others still, it is the lack of certainty. The next step is for all the forces contributing to this wave of anger at the establishment that has let us down to accept that it is the whole system that needs a reboot – beyond the different ideologies.

Prepare the ground for a constitutional reform within which the different ideologies and projects for the country’s future may find fertile ground to debate and grow. A project that returns politics to the normal, boring politics — but one with a capital ‘P’.

Those who expect this change to come from within one of our stagnant parties have still not read the writing on the wall. They will try to operate within the same constitutional constraints that the parties have abused since the birth of the republic.

The latest surveys show that the Labour Party still leads the PN at the polls, but it has not gained in popularity. Rather, it seems to be losing support. The PN has practically not budged in a situation where it should have been benefiting from the anger as the Party in opposition. I do not read these signs negatively. The loss of the two-Party support is our nation’s gain.

The country needs real leaders. Individuals who can guide this movement through this bumpy phase. It must not, and will not, stop at justice for the corrupt. It must also proceed to lay the foundations for the new republic.

Seize the moment.

Categories
Constitutional Development

The part I don’t take

The list of speakers for tomorrow’s Civil Society Demonstration has been published and readers by now will have noticed that I am one of them. I have seen comments directed at me both on the Times and Independent articles on the event. According to one commentator I was an obvious choice because I wrote “against the PL” prior to 2013. Another commentator was convinced that my time served as president of the university student’s union was served in the capacity of a PN representative.

To be fair, that was just about it. Not much fodder it seems. Which probably means that I am sufficiently of an unknown factor to pass the grade of most suspicious observers. I could answer both the comments stating firstly that I have written “against the PL” both before and after 2013. My track record is such that my writings took me “against the PN” often too – especially when the PN deserved more scrutiny as the party in government. Luckily I have 12 years of blogging to back my claims.

As for my time in KSU – the allegation is risible to say the least. My time spent both in SDM and in KSU was at the service of students and the student community. I proudly state that together with my colleagues of the time I was responsible for a (albeit temporary) rift between the SDM and the Nationalist Party. The reason is simple – I did not take kindly to being dictated how to do politics for a party’s sake.

This is not an apologia for my past or for my credentials to address tomorrow’s crowd. This is more of a look at why I believe that the kind of activism that is developing in and around the current crisis is perforce a non-partisan one. The wider aims and goals of the civil society that has begun to stir go beyond the immediate demands made by the Civil Society Network. The fundamental aim is constitutional reform. Constitutional reform that is radical and has to be so.

Such Constitutional Reform must be party-free. Understand this. Party-free not party neutral. The thinking outside the box begins at that point. We have had a constitutional system that developed around and at the service of two parties. I have repeated this notion ad nauseam. The reason for the institutional rot is also because there is a limit to how much you can bend and twist the rules to serve two masters. The reason for institutional rot is not to be placed at the foot of one party or another. There is no measure that can blame one party more than the other. The reason must be placed squarely at the feet of both parties. Yes. The PLPN.

So think outside the box we must. The movement must become a constitutional movement. The proposals of what a new Malta should look like will be manifold. Already there are disagreements among proponents as to which system will be better however there is one crucial matter that must be remembered: the discourse has been brought to the forefront of the national agenda.

Before the election I founded the Advocates for the Rule of Law together with some colleagues of mine. Our aim was to highlight the deficit of rule of law that was becoming increasingly obvious. Yes, it became increasingly obvious under Labour’s watch but be careful, the problem was rooted much much earlier. Here is a snippet from a blog post (and from my Independent on Sunday column at the time) in March 2010: what many would call less suspicious times:

“All three branches of the state are currently under heavy attack and the levels of trust that “the people” seem to have in the administrative, executive and the judiciary appear to be alarmingly low. This is not healthy for our democracy – it’s a rot that is setting in. The rot must be exposed, not in a partisan, self-interested kind of way but rather in an objective attempt at rediscovering what we want for the future of our nation.”

I reread my posts over the years since 2005 and to me it sounds like a broken record. Not – as an observer on Daphne’s blog observed tauntingly very recently – the broken clock that is right twice a day. No, this was a constant consistent message. Over the years I and other like-minded individuals explored possibilities for constitutional change. We believed that the change should start from the house of representatives. Transforming it into a truly representative institution would mean proportional representation and having a clear cut separation from the executive. It did not make sense to have a third of parliament sitting in the cabinet.

The discourse of reform needed a crisis to be kicked off. Sadly the crisis took the ugliest form that one would never have wished for – the death of a vociferous journalist. The agenda of reform that had been hinted at mildly during Panamagate and its aftermath was now catapulted to the forefront. The Advocates for the Rule of Law (AFTROL) had managed to put the words on the nations mouth: Rule of Law. The discussion had remained at a technical level and the election had pummelled a people into silence.

The new crisis has brought the discussion back with a vengeance. What needs to be understood is that this is not about asking Joseph Muscat to resign. It is not about advocating or pushing for the usual alternation. It is much deeper than that. The nation desperately needs the reform for its own good. Citizens need to understand that so long as they pin their hopes on the partisan assessment of politics then all hope is lost. The two political parties will always be in survival mode. It is parallel to their need to be in power to make the system work to their advantage. The rules  must stay the same – even if they will pay lip service to constitutional reform.

Now more than ever it is imperative that we are not partisan. The part I don’t take is the part in part-isan. It is imperative that we begin to understand that the Civil Society Movement must establish itself with even higher standards than the temporary ones that are being  asked for right now. Constitutional reform must come from the heart of the nation. From its sovereign. We the people.

I am not partisan. I don’t need to be and cannot be. My duty as a civil activist is to fight for constitutional change that brings about the proper reforms. That brings about the rule of law.

We are servants of the law so that we may be free.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Leader of the Opposition

Adrian Delia is frantically fighting a race against time. It has become increasingly evident that his gamble for leadership of the nationalist party did not include the foresight or plan that would account for the fact that he needs to find a way to get into parliament. This lack of foresight does not bode well for the nationalist party – that it is lead by someone unable to make the most simple of calculations is not exactly a bright light for the future. If my sources are right, plan B for Delia and his entourage seems to be the harassing of a number of MPs that are judged as most likely to want (or to be forced) to give up their seat and make way for the half-heartedly anointed one. It is a clumsy and roundabout way of doing things that jars conspicuously with the declared marketing of TeamDelia of wanting to unite the party behind Adrian as quickly as possible.

Unwitting supporters have even been asked to turn their guns onto the PD as though the damned coalition meant that the Democratic Party owed the Nationalist Party anything other than collaboration in parliament against the forces of corruption. Kudos to Marlene Farrugia who has strongly retorted that she will not be turned in this respect and that the PD will jump at any chance to take the place of any MP who chooses to call it quits and force a by-election. Of course Delia and his team will choose to take this opportunity to ride roughshod over the concept of coalition and collaboration – hatred of anything the coalition was about is after all one of the hallmarks of Delia’s New Way. So much for a deeper understanding of the changes that are necessary in the way politics is made.

But what about the Holy Grail position of the Leader of the Opposition? Well, constitutionally we are in a bit of a conundrum. First of all, none of the conditions that create a vacancy of the position of Leader of Opposition (Article 90(3) of the Constitution) has been fulfilled so technically since Simon Busuttil is still a member of the House of Representatives and consequently has not vacated the position. Let us assume that by informing the President of his intention to no longer lead the nationalist party, Simon Busuttil has de facto given up his place as Leader of the Opposition that he occupied under the terms of 90(2)(a) of the Constitution. In that case, until Delia manages to find a way into Parliament we can try to see who can legitimately fill that constitutional role come the 1st of October. Whichever scenario you take, whether it is under article 90(2)(a) (the MP who leads the opposition party with the largest number of members) or under article 90(4) (If, in the judgment of the President, a member of the House of Representatives other than the Leader of the Opposition, has become the Leader in the House of the opposition party having the greatest numerical strength in the House) – in both cases the Leader of the Opposition is (a) a member of the house and (b) commands/leads the largest number of opposition members. In the absence of the party leader (Adrian Delia) the obvious constitutional choice until the dilemma is solved is to nominate the Deputy Leader for Parliamentary matters (Mario DeMarco) as the Leader of the Opposition.

Sure, it can be a strange situation where the Leader of the Party is not the same person as the Leader of the Opposition but this does not mean that it cannot and will not work. As I said, Delia should have foreseen this situation before he decided to throw in his name as a leadership candidate. It’s not like he was not asked the question as from the start of his campaign. Even a minimum of constitutional knowledge would have told him that no MP on any side of the house owes any party anything. The seats are not theirs to give – they have been elected by their constituents and owe them the duty of representation. Giving up that seat for a man who only three months ago was unwilling to represent any part of the nation would be a betrayal of their constituents of the highest order.

I am quite sure that in the end one MP will be found who will give in to the heavy handed tactics of TeamDelia. It does not bode well at all though. It is one thing to elbow your way into the leadership of a party, it is another altogether to bulldoze your way into a constitutional position without the least bit of deference to the constitutional principles that underlie a constitutional democracy.

 

 

Categories
Constitutional Development

Il Triangolo No

triangolo_akkuza

 

I. Stability is a partisan word

Third parties, third ways. An online poll conducted by the paper Illum showed, among other things, that 14% of respondents would vote for a new party since they have no more faith in either the PN or the PL. Talk about a possible third way being a panacea for our political representation problems has belatedly gathered momentum on the island. Muscat’s government is on rapid implosion mode while the general feeling is that the PN alternative would generate more of the same style of politics – one that is deeply enmeshed in corruption and deceit to the detriment of the citizen. Marlene Farrugia’s rumblings as a dissenting politician within parliament are much stronger and coherent than those we have heard until now during the last months of the Gonzi executive. Add to that the fact that scandal after scandal the tempo of public discontent does not seem to subside and a few “public personae” are prepared to throw their weight into the ring and you have the recipe of what is being touted as the panacea for all this evil feeling: a third party.

Regular readers if this blog may well recall that the “Third Way” solution has long been advocated over the whole stretch of our blogging history. Often the election of a third party’s representatives in parliament has been described here as “driving a wedge in the bipartisan hegemony”. I still believe that a third party (and fourth and fifth) can have positive effects on our political system. The problem however lies elsewhere since the third party is not a solution in itself but it is actually a possible result of the solution that is necessary in order to definitely improve the state of our politics and consequently the health of our nation.

What do I mean? Let’s take a look at the PLPN reaction to the very public rumblings of a possible third party. Their rare chorus of unanimous disapproval was to be expected. More parties in parliament would cause “instability” they claimed. Worse still they could not envisage having to share the burden of government with some coalition party – anathema.

The PN might be investing in the concept of good governance but the philosophy behind the driving forces of this rekindling of values stops short of contemplating an utter reform of our representative system that might not be two-party-centric. Of course we can have good governance they will tell you, but applied to our system of alternation – and not beyond. In other words the current set of rules should be good enough for Busuttil’s new party philosophy – we only have to ensure that the tenets of good governance are properly applied therein and all will be fine. I beg to differ.

II. Self-preservation is a natural instinct

Let us use a coding metaphor. The structure of our constitutional system has been built using a language that reasons in bi-partisan terms. A bi-party rationale is written directly into the building blocks of our political system – both legally and politically. Since 1964 the constitutional and electoral elements of our political system have been consolidated in such a manner as to only make sense when two parties are contemplated – one as government and one as the opposition.

We are wired to think of this as being a situation of normality. The two political parties are constructed around such a system – we have repeated this over the last ten years in this blog – and this results in the infamous “race to mediocrity” because standards are progressively lowered when all you have to do is simply be more attractive than the alternative. The effect of this system is an erosion of what political parties is all about.

The political parties operating within this system are destined to become intellectually lazy and a vacuum of value. The intricate structure of networks and dependencies required to sustain the system negates any possibility of objective creation of value-driven politics with the latter being replaced by interest-driven mechanisms gravitating around the alternating power structure. Within the parties armies of clone “politicians” are generated repeating the same nonsense that originates at the party source. Meaningless drivel replaces debate and this is endorsed by party faithfuls with a superficial nod towards “issues”.

The whole structure is geared for parties to operate that way. Once in parliament the constitutional division of labour comes into play – posts are filled according to party requirements and even the most independent of authorities is tainted by this power struggle of sorts. Muscat’s team promised Meritocracy and we all saw what that resulted in once the votes were counted. In a way it was inevitable that this would happen because many promises needed to be fulfilled – promises that are a direct result of how the system works. With all the goodwill in the world Busuttil’s team promising Good Governance will be placed in the same position with the same rules as Muscat’s and Gonzi’s before them.

The point is that the system needs to be rebooted. Even a third party elected under these parameters would do little to shake the system at its foundations. What needs to be targeted are the laws and structures that have developed into an intricate network of power-mongering and twisted all sense of representative politics. A third party might be the result of that change of system but what is needed right now is that one (or both) of the two parties enjoying the uncanny and undemocratic advantages of their home-made rules is forced to accepting a program of constitutional change.

III – Restoring the supremacy of parliament

Malta’s constitution owes much to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Constitutionally political parties did not count for much. When forming a government the Head of State was invited to choose from among the members of parliament that member who enjoyed the support of the majority of members elected. No mention of parties. It is only through a series of shenanigans and legal changes to electoral laws that the parties became the be-all and end-all of the electoral process. Laws were changed to ensure majorities, seats in parliament and quotas – all in relation to the bi-partisan system. It led us to the infamous wasted vote.

The problem was not so much the theoretical guarantee of stability afforded by a bi-partisan system. No, the problem lay in how the guarantees afforded by alternation gradually became a threat to the “political” nature of the parties themselves. Instead they were replaced by careerist powermongers eager to climb up the ladder of our home-grown system of power-broking: from candidate to backbench MP to Secretary to Minister. Fiefdoms developed and by taking advantage of a system that guaranteed their presence on authorities, boards and watchdogs the constitution would play second-fiddle to the needs of the party in power while the opposition barked and whinged waiting their turn for a piece of the action.

How does this change? it changes by changing the whole system starting from its building blocks. Parliament has to be strengthened and revalued as the supreme guardian of constitutional representation. The new system should ensure that politicians elected to parliament fulfil their role of representatives of the people by acting as proper legislators and competent watchdogs on the operation of the executive that must remain subservient to their will. In order to obtain this we must wean parliamentarians away from the ladder of power as currently perceived while strengthening their role and function.

I have already put forward the four points that should be the groundwork for such a reform:

  1. The removal of districts from national elections.
  2. The introduction of party lists elected on the basis of proportional representation into parliament (with a minimum threshold of between 5% and 7%).
  3. The introduction of technical ministries with ministers chosen from outside parliament but accountable to parliament.
  4. (A corollary of 3) MP’s who become ministers should resign their place in parliament.

As I said in an earlier post this would remove the idea of careerist politicians. By clearly differentiating between the roles of the executive and the legislative/representative aspects we would ensure that parties are rewired to become effective in both. A technical executive with a proper plan and project will be one side of the coin while a strong representative body acting on behalf of the people monitoring and endorsing the work of the executive would be the other. Such parliaments could afford to have a hundred Marlene Farrugia’s who do not bow to a party whip for the party’s sake but use their vote in the best interests of those who elected them to parliament.

Conclusion

Electing a third party for the sake of electing a third party and simply out of spite to the two main parties is not a solution as things stand. This blog would advocate for stronger pressure on the party that is most willing to take up this programme of groundbreaking constitutional reform with the express understanding that should it get elected this would be its top priority. That mandate would end once the reform is achieved and new elections based on the new parameters would be held. What Malta needs is a Reform Movement that picks on the current momentum that is not endemic to Malta. What it certainly does not need is more parties playing from the same score as we have till now.