Why revisiting the neutrality clause makes sense

The neutrality clause in the Constitution was introduced in January 1987 as part of a quid pro quo arrangement between the Labour government and the Nationalist Opposition. 

With months away from a general election deadline, the government had proposed amendments to the electoral system to avoid a repeat of the 1981 election result. That election saw the PN win an absolute majority of votes but a minority of parliamentary seats, which meant the PL was elected to government on the strength of its parliamentary majority. Five years of political and social turmoil followed with the PN insisting on the need for changes to the electoral system. 

Without the constitutional amendment, the May 1987 election would have been a repeat of the 1981 result because the PN had once again won fewer seats than the PL despite having an absolute majority of votes. The amendment meant that the PN was awarded extra parliamentary seats to end up with a majority if one seat and thus be in government. 

But in proposing the electoral amendment, the Labour government also threw in the hat the neutrality clause that had long been a pet subject for former Labour prime minister Dom Mintoff. 

This context is important to understand why certain aspects of the neutrality clause remained unchanged despite misgivings at the time over some of the wording used. In parliament, the Opposition had warned that references to “two superpowers” could become obsolete – prophetic words that anticipated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War by two years. 

Nonetheless, there was no time and political will to engage on the wording of the neutrality clause because the more immediate and legitimate concern just a few months before a general election was getting the electoral amendments through. 

Since 1987, the international landscape has changed radically. The Soviet Union no longer exists and most of the countries that formed part of the Communist bloc joined the European Union in 2004. Malta also joined the EU, creating a complex interplay between the Constitution and the State’s new obligations within a supranational institution. 

And yet, the neutrality clause has remained unchanged with parts of it fossilised in a bipolar world that no longer exists. 

This does not mean that the neutrality clause should be removed. There appears to be cross-party consensus in favour of neutrality. There also seems to be widespread public support for neutrality and within the context of a small island state it continues to make sense even today. 

But while certain wording no longer makes any sense, certain aspects require clarity to avoid restrictive interpretations that are borne more out of ideological inclinations than proper legal reading of the Constitution. 

The neutrality clause defines Malta as a neutral state “actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations”. And while it bars Malta’s participation in any military alliance it says nothing about participation in military operations, whether of a defensive or offensive nature, that may be sanctioned by the UN or the EU. 

Successive administrations have been given legal advice that participation in UN peacekeeping missions such as those in Lebanon and Georgia do not fall foul of the Constitution. Similar advice had been given when the Armed Forces of Malta joined the EU’s anti-piracy naval mission off Somalia, the Red Sea operation to offer commercial ships protection from Houthi rebel attacks and the military training mission for Ukrainian soldiers. 

Rather than different administrations having to rely time and time again on legal advice, shouldn’t the Constitution be clear enough that participation in UN-sanctioned missions and others undertaken by the EU of a security and defensive nature is permissible? 

The Constitution does not prevent the government from investing in lethal weapons despite recent statements made by Prime Minister Robert Abela. Indeed, the Constitution as it stands today, even allows the government of the day to seek foreign military assistance if the country is facing a threat or has come under attack. The logic behind this part of the neutrality clause is that a country has a legitimate right to defend itself. 

Within this context, shouldn’t the Constitution be worded in such a way as to make it clear that participation in EU-wide military cooperation programmes when it comes to research and development, procurement of weapons, interoperability of systems, intelligence sharing and defensive mechanisms is, ok? 

This is not an appeal to abandon neutrality but a call for sincere and open dialogue on a constitutional clause that has defined Malta’s foreign policy for the past 38 years. 

There is no need for a wholesale overhaul but there is scope for a mature debate on amending the neutrality clause to reflect modern-day realities, including Malta’s membership of the EU.