Veteran politician Michael Frendo is very much the garrulous and sociable type. But as newly appointed Speaker of the House, that doesn’t mean he always gives a straight answer to a straight question
James Debono
An eerie silence reigns in parliament on Thursday during the afternoon lull in the marathon debate on the Delimara contract.
My interview takes place before Michael Frendo received his baptism of fire, when the Opposition walked out of Parliament in the chaos which ensued after Nationalist MP Mario Galea’s ‘lapsus’ and Frendo’s own decision to called for a re-vote.
Following the Opposition’s subsequent decision to withdraw its deputy speaker and representatives on the committee for democratic reforms, Frendo’s vision of a parliamentary reform based on ‘consensus’ may well sound Utopian. But before the fracas, Frendo was upbeat about the prospects of making parliament more accessible to the people, the media and civil society.
He also seems to have recovered from the big upset of his political life; that of being relegated to the backbench, after losing his seat in the general election, and regaining it only in a by-election.
Having made it to Parliament in every election since 1987, and serving in all Nationalist cabinets since 1992, his experience in 2008 “was a bit of let down after having worked so hard.”
Frendo believes that he paid the price for being Foreign Affairs Minister, which entails a lot of time spent travelling abroad.
“Foreign ministers cannot stay locked in their offices. They have to travel. In the end one starts losing contact with constituents, and than one has to recover them in a short space of time… that’s the way of the world… politics comes with ups and down.”
He also understands the feeling of backbenchers who feel excluded.
“Whenever you are a backbencher… you feel a little bit out of it and you need to feel a bit more in it.”
But as a former cabinet member he also sees things from the government’s perspective.
“When you are governing, the pace is so fast that it is almost impossible to keep briefing everybody all the time.”
Does he consider being elected Speaker of the House as the peak of his political career... or simply a consolation prize for not being reappointed to the Cabinet?
“Neither one nor the other. I was asked take on this role, and I have to say that I had never seen myself in it before. But it is something I am now doing with enthusiasm.”
Certainly he does not consider this the end of his political life. Asked whether he will contest the next election, he replies that he is open to any option.
“I reply by saying that I am open to life. But while I am Speaker I will be totally loyal to the institution.”
Surely it feels “strange” sitting in the Speaker’s chair rather than on the same bench as fellow Nationalist MPs. But rising above the partisan divide should not be so difficult, for someone who claims he always had respect for the Opposition even before his appointment.
“In this role I have to ensure that all the views are aired, that everyone has a fair chance, and that everything is done in a respectful way.”
He also sees the role of Speaker as that of a “facilitator who asks for focus and tries to use his influence to build consensus.”
Frendo also insists that there is more to the role than merely chairing debates.
“This is not a procedural role. It is a leadership role in which I can also set the agenda. But one should do this without assuming the role of a protagonist...”
Frendo has already left his mark in the first sitting he chaired, by proposing that parliamentary questions are read and not written.
He notes that at present when people listen to question time on the radio they do not even know what question is being asked because the standing order states that one should only read the question number.
“I think question time is already the liveliest aspect of a parliamentary debate, especially when supplementary questions are asked. Therefore we should change this procedure.”
He is also open to the idea of a ‘question time’ similar to what happens in the UK’s House of Commons every Wednesday, when the Prime Minister spends a half hour answering questions from Members of Parliament.
However, he makes it clear that this development can only be introduced through agreement between the parties represented in parliament.
“But I would encourage any development which adds to the public debate and keeps parliament at the centre of attention.”
Frendo takes pride in the fact that his appointment comes “at an important time” when parliament is restructuring itself as an institution to meet the challenges of the Lisbon treaty. Furthermore he will also be chairing a committee dealing with reforms to the electoral system and party financing – although Labour has since withdrawn its representatives in protest against Thursday’s vote.
“There is a greater consciousness on the need to build parliament as an institution. We have a government, we have an opposition, we have a concept of elections and the idea of majority rule. Now we need to realise that parliament is an institution on its own.”
Frendo considers it his priority to make parliament accessible to the people.
“We should not expect the people to make the effort. It should be the duty of the institution to reach out to as many people as we can.”
He also wants parliament to be more attuned to the media and civil society, with which he wants “to engage in an ordered way.”
To this end, Frendo has already proposed the creation of a press area at the entrance of parliament.
“This is what happens in other institutions like the European Council. It is up to the MPs to choose whether to reply to questions by journalists or not when they enter parliament. What is important is that this takes place in an orderly fashion”.
One major shortcoming is that parliament lacks its own press officer who could feed the media with information and what’s happening.
“We can’t complain about the media. We have to complain about our ability to communicate with the media. Complaining about the media is like a sailor complaining about the weather. The media is our partner.”
Shouldn’t important debates such as the opposition’s motion on the Delimara power station contract be televised?
Frendo insists that he has no say on this matter, which is up to the parties in the house business committee to decide. But he thinks that a more general debate on whether all debates should be televised should take place.
One possible risk is that televised debates could have a dumbing down effect as parliamentarians resort to rabble rousing. But Frendo is sceptical.
“We have to recognize that television is the medium of today even if radio remains an important medium. There should be a discussion in the house not only on televising one motion but on whether all these debates should be available on some digital channel.”
Should MPs become full-timers?
“There are always pros and cons to this… the part-time concept allows parliamentarians to keep in touch with what is happening in society and ensures that MPs are not secluded in their parliamentary life.”
But Frendo acknowledges that EU membership has increased the load of work.
“It would be fair to say that although parliamentarians are part-timers, in the past years they have been dedicating more hours, not necessarily to the plenary, but to committee work.”
Frendo also believes that parliament has yet to catch up with government and industry, which have restructured themselves to meet the challenges of EU membership.
“Although I was foreign minister of a small country I still had the same load of paperwork dealt with by Foreign Ministers of other European Union countries. What is happening now through the Lisbon treaty is that parliamentarians will have to deal with the same amount of paperwork as parliamentarians in other EU countries.”
Some people have been irked by the idea of shifting parliament from its current location to Freedom Square at the very entrance of the city, as this perpetuates the idea that politicians are the Alpha and Omega of public life.
Frendo concedes that such an attitude reflects the low esteem some people have towards parliament as a centre for democracy.
“Parliament embodies democracy and in many countries parliament is much more of an important building than government ministries because of the concept of democracy… This concept is less deeply rooted in Malta. We have to become more mature and understand that the house of the people is the house of parliament, where different views in the country are represented.”
The speaker also chairs the parliamentary committee discussing the strengthening of democracy. What are Frendo’s views on Malta’s electoral system?
“If we compare it the ‘first past the post’ system in the UK, ours is closer to the will of the people. But of course nothing is perfect.”
But so far all that has been done is patchwork changes to Malta’s Single Transferable Vote system: first to ensure that the party with 50% plus one gets the necessary seats to govern; then to ensure that the party with a relative majority gets the necessary seats to govern; and finally to ensure that in that, case the number of seats corresponds to the actual difference in Number One votes between the two parties represented in parliament.
Is it not time to consider proportionality based on a national threshold which would open the prospect of third party representation?
Frendo disagrees with the term ‘patchwork’ to describe the Constitutional amendments enacted in 1987, 1996 and 2007.
“What you call patchwork is a result of the country’s Constitutional development. I know that these changes were not necessarily made in a systematic way. But these are a result of the country’s political development.”
As regards the introduction of a national threshold he does not take a position, insisting that the committee is open to all ideas and that parties not represented in parliament have already held meetings with his predecessor, Louis Galea.
He also expresses his willingness to listen to civil society on this issue.
Recently, Greco – the Council of Europe’s watchdog on corruption – issued a report calling on Maltese political parties to declare donations above certain amounts and also state the identity of donors. It also called for a ban on donations from unknown sources and for the auditing of political parties’ accounts. What is the select committee doing on this issue?
“This is an issue on which a lot of work has already been done by my predecessor and which I intend to address as soon as possible.”
But considering that this issue has been dragging for such a long time, does he intend to set timeframes?
“The chairman has to lead the discussion towards a focus. I have a responsibility to lead the committee towards a concrete result.”
But is it not surreal that MPs have taken oath declaring that they have spent more than the €1,400 allowed by law when even the Council of Europe notes that the returns on campaign expenses made by candidates “do not reflect the reality.” What does this say about the integrity of our MPs?
“It is not for me to query what people declare… There are other avenues for this.”
But does this not show the urgency of reform?
Frendo promises that in the next weeks he will reconvene the committee and to work “in an assiduous manner to steer the committee towards concrete results”.
But he insists that his role is limited to “facilitating” an agreement.
Political parties receive €100,000 from parliament. Is this funding justified considering that the rest of party financing is unregulated?
Frendo points out that this funding is dedicated for research purposes. “Parties have a lot of need for research and this also applies to parliamentarians”
But shouldn’t parties give an account on how this money is spent?
“I think that this is something the committee will have to look at.”
Surely, then, the committee has a long agenda ahead of it, and Frendo will ultimately depend on the willingness of government and opposition to move forward.
Back in his youth, Frendo coined one of the most effective political slogans in recent political history: Drittijiet, mhux pjaciri (‘Rights, not favours’). But has meritocracy prevailed more than 20 years after the slogan was coined?
Frendo argues that citizens are more aware of their rights.
“People are so aware of their rights that sometimes I think they should be more aware of their responsibilities. But that could be a sign that I am getting older because when you are young you tend to think more about rights than responsibilities. Ultimately we need a balance between the two.”
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
