Should voters have power to recall MPs?

They say power belongs to the citizens in a democracy, and that it’s voters who are provided with the tools for direct participation in the political process.

But Aaron Farrugia, the chairperson of the Labour Party think tank IDEAT, says that giving voters the possibility of petitioning for the holding of an abrogative referendum – as is the case in Malta – is simply not enough.

Farrugia is suggesting the enactment of an Initiative, Referendum and Recall Act, a formidable instrument of direct democracy that gives voters some real power.

The only initiative instrument available in Malta is the citizen-demanded abrogative referendum. “The initiative, the referendum and the recall are a must in a democratic state, especially in a two-party system such as Malta where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections at every level of government,” the chairman of the PL’s think tank said.

Farrugia, formerly the secretary for Labour’s electoral manifesto in 2013, said the system must be rigid to avoid “abusive and anarchical methods” that attack minority rights.

But he makes no secret of the fact that such a procedure is “expensive”.

“I will campaign for an initiative, referenda and recall act any day and IDEAT will delve into this topic in the coming months,” he said.
The agenda initiative gives citizens the power to propose a legislative measure, a law, or a constitutional or legal amendment by filing a petition bearing a required number of valid citizen signatures.

In a referendum, the electorate is asked to only approve or reject proposed or existing law or statute. Some Constitutions require referenda while in others, the legislature may decide to refer a measure to the voters.

Through the recall, voters can remove or discharge an elected official from office by filing a petition bearing a specified number of valid signatures demanding a vote on the official’s continue tenure in office. Recall procedures typically require that the petition be signed by approximately 25% of those who voted in the last election, after which an election is almost always required.

Since it is purely political, and not a judicial or semi-judicial process, recall is not an impeachment.

The only initiative instrument available in Malta is the abrogative referendum, allowable through the 1973 Malta Referenda Act. In fact, the most important amendment made to the Act was in 1996 – coming into force in September 1998 – enabling the citizens to vote on repealing existing provisions of the law.

16 years later, and for the first time ever, over 35,000 signatures were collected and presented to the Electoral Commissioner calling for an abrogative referendum in a bid to abolish spring hunting.

Farrugia explained that under Article 13, some laws, including any fiscal legislations, are exempt from such a challenge altogether. In fact, because the controversial Individual Investor Programme is considered to be a fiscal measure, the citizenship-by-investment programme could not be subject to any abrogative referendum.

“The recent local political controversy led Alternattiva Demokratika to consider calling the abrogative referendum to repeal the law on the acquisition of Maltese citizenship,” Farrugia said.

“But because it has been included in the Appropriation Bill, it became a fiscal law once it was approved by the House of Representatives.”
He added that the abrogative referendum was also available at the local level, included in Chapter 363 of the Local Councils Act. This right has however never been exercised.

Malta already has important safeguards against abrogative referenda being used to deny people their human rights. Evangelical pastor Gordon-John Manché has claimed he can get the 10% of the electorate’s signatures to hold an abrogative referendum to repeal gay couples’ right to adopt children. This may yet face a dead end: it is now unconstitutional to discriminate against an individual based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.