Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1098850
25 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 31 MARCH 2019 OPINION have won the 2008 election… just as Mintoff had technically won in 1981. In other words, the 1986 Constitutional amendment is a dud. Its celebrated mechanism doesn't work. And this for two reasons: one, it was the brain- child of two politicians who were (whatever their other qualities) hugely old-fashioned, and no- where near foresighted enough to envisage that the duopoly of the 1980s would not last forever. Two, because the underlying dis- trict system that gives rise to the anomaly in the first place – i.e., that a party can win a majority of seats, but a minority of votes – has never been resolved. To do that, we would probably have to scrap the current '13 district' system altogether, and replace it with something else: most likely, a 'one district sys- tem', of the kind that is already in place for MEP elections. But that, on its own, would still not address any of the other flaws. It would have no effect on 'wasted votes'. It would not allow for the formation of coalitions, etc. Ok, at this point you might be asking: but what has this got to do with the 'gender balance' proposals recently put forward? Well, the short answer is… these 'proposals' are designed around the same systemic flaws in their current form: without taking into account that we are in the process of revising the Constitu- tion, partly with a view to chang- ing how our electoral system actually works. For instance: by far the most striking proposal is the one to enlarge Parliament by 'up to 12 seats'… awarded, just like the earlier mistake, by a 'Constitu- tional mechanism'. Excuse me for asking, but… how did a remit to increase gender equality in parliamentary representation, suddenly be- come a remit to actually increase the number of people elected to parliament? Or, to be more specific… how did we manage to simply overlook the tiny detail that, to occupy a seat in parlia- ment, you actually have to get elected: a process which involves reaching a pre-determined quota in your district? Mess with that principle, and you risk debasing and de-valuing the entire concept of parlia- mentary representation. And oh look: it turns out that, when applied to the last (2017) elec- tion, the system being proposed would have resulted in the elec- tion of a female candidate who only got 20 first-count votes in her district. Naturally, I am not an MP, and have absolutely no aspiration to ever become one. If I was (or did), however… for one thing, I would certainly not accept any seat awarded to me by any Constitutional mechanism, if I only got 20 flipping votes in an election (I stand to be corrected, but I think Tal-Ajkla got more than that in 2017). For another: if I got into Parliament fair and square, and someone else got there under those circumstanc- es… I would resign my seat in protest on the spot. But that's just a personal reaction to what I consider the most dangerous aspect of these proposals. Ultimately, the un- derlying problem is another: all we ever seem capable of doing is tinkering with the same old, flawed system… all along mak- ing it more, and more, and more complicated, until it eventually just becomes totally unworkable in practice. What happens, for instance, if we get another election result like 1981 or 2008? When I asked this question to one of the authors of this report, I was told that: "The gender corrective mechanism is integrated in the present electoral system. In PR- STV the first count votes elect the Party that obtains the major- ity of the votes. Then candidates are elected. In the third phase, casual elections are held that are followed by the majority cor- rective mechanism (introduced after the situation that arose in 1981). The gender mechanism comes at the very end of the process." Do you need me to translate that for you? It means that: first, we will have one Constitutional mechanism to award as many seats as it takes for the relative minority party to form a govern- ment; then, there'll be another Constitutional mechanism, dish- ing out even more parliamentary seats – up to 12, if you please – to make up for any gender imbalance. In a nutshell, we could end up with as many as 20 or more extra seats… only this time, some of those seats will be 'representing' fewer people than you'd meet on any evening down at the local pub. Come on… it's just not seri- ous. Getting more women into Parliament is one thing; but al- lowing parliament to be overrun with the female equivalents of Spiridione Sant and Tal-Farfett is something else entirely. Besides: this approach also perpetuates the bizarre view that our 'Constitution' is nothing but a glorified box of electoral tricks, to be dipped into any time a problem arises with our electoral system – which means all the time, as our system is highly problematic – and, hey presto! Like a magician pulls out a rab- bit from a hat, we conjure up instant, magical Parliamentary seats to make up for any 'imbal- ance'… Ah, but then, one of the main selling points of this proposed system is that, in the case of 'unelected candidates of the under-represented sex' – and ONLY in that case – we will finally be counting votes that would otherwise be wasted. What, are we supposed to actually applaud that? We all know there's a serious problem with the system, that results in literally thousands of votes never actually going to their intended candidates… and we propose a solution which only affects candidates who are: a) either male-only or female-only, depending on which gender is under-represented, and; b) didn't actually reach their quota, on the basis of all the votes that were, in fact, counted? Erm… wouldn't it make slightly more sense to fix the system for ALL candidates equally? After all, if we reform the electoral system so that 'every vote really does count'… a lot of candi- dates who would usually not get elected, might succeed without the aid of any quotas or Consti- tutional mechanisms. And who knows? That might include a lot of women… without the need to concoct 12 whole new bogus seats, and expand our House of Parliaments to infinity, and beyond. And this, to me, is the biggest disappointment by far. Instead of undertaking a root and branch reform of the entire system… we are doing what we have always done in the past, by just patching it up piecemeal here and there. It never worked in the past, did it? So what reason is there to suppose that it might suddenly start working now? Getting more women into Parliament is one thing; but allowing parliament to be overrun with the female equivalents of Spiridione Sant and Tal-Farfett is something else entirely