|
One of the more riveting propositions made by Premier Lawrence Gonzi was his indication that he would like to see electoral reform return to the discussion table. There have been indications that the Marsascala lawyer would also like to see the financing of political parties settled in one way or another.
Dr Gonzi need not look far to rekindle the debate on electoral reform. When he was Speaker of the House he was the chairman of a Commission known by his name – the Gonzi Commission – to study electoral reform.
Composed of nominated officials from the three political parties and a technical expert, the Commission had some degree of success and came to a conclusion as to where to go next.
If the Gonzi findings had gone ahead, we could have very well found ourselves in a different political landscape today. Apart from improving representation, the Commission had proposed a national electoral threshold of five percent – meaning any political party that obtained five percent of the vote on a national level would be represented in Parliament.
This would have clearly advantaged the third political formation, Alternattiva Demokratika. Perhaps more importantly, it would have guaranteed a fairer democratic representation.
Unluckily for AD, within the party in government, electoral reform today does not enjoy the same enthusiasm of former PN secretary general Austin Gatt, who had pushed the idea forward. Now, however, Dr Lawrence Gonzi has a great opportunity to put into action some political altruism.
One would hope that the new Premier has a keen interest in encouraging a healthier democracy and a more representative electoral system would be a major step forward.
Of late Dr Gonzi has indulged himself in campaigning for the European elections. When the June elections are over the Prime Minister will need to find constructive ways of implementing electoral reform within the spirit of the Constitution which clearly calls for a just representation of all the democratic forces in the country.
Mediocre beginnings
The celebrations for 1 May are unique in that the organising consortium is charging fee for anyone who wishes to view the spectacle from a boat moored in the Grand Harbour, whilst access to public gardens overlooking the harbour has been restricted to paying sponsors, who in turn retain the right to grant access to their invitees.
This silly state of affairs was brought about by the shortfall in government-provided funds for the organisers.
One can understand that the organisers should not lose out financially, but surely if the government believed from the very start that this was such a grand occasion, then it should have avoided such a mediocre beginning to Malta in the EU, and instead forked out the cash.
It is hardly a good omen for our first day as EU members that to watch a fireworks and light display we must pay a fee, however small.
Questioned about the fee Tourism Minister Francis Zammit Dimech told this newspaper that he was not aware of what fees had been decided upon by the organisers. His reply says more about a detached administration than profit-motivated organisers.
This is a nation which is not alien to mass celebrations provided gratis to the general public. In summer alone, dozens of villages and towns put on beautiful displays of fireworks and brass band music. All provided for free.
There is nothing wrong in celebrating 1 May, but the administration has an obligation to its citizens to cater for a national event. Participation in national events of this nature should never be charged on a fee.
|
