Reforms- Has the Political Ping Pong Game Started?

On Thursday the Leader of the Opposition's reply to the Chief Minister on the subject of democratic reforms was made public. The reply is inconclusive and unspecific as to the Oppositions ambition on reforms. On these grounds, my initial reaction has to be one of some disappointment but there are grounds for some optimism in the reply. However, I have some insight into the thinking of Fabian Picardo on this subject from conversations he has had with me over an extended period of time, the outline of which I will reveal below. This insight leads me to be more hopeful than I would be if I were to base my reaction solely on his reply to the Chief Minister.

The Leader of the Opposition's letter emphasises something that has been a continuing theme in this blog, that "... there are serious problems with the way democracy is working." That is a major admission that must lead to a little optimism. We now have both the GSD Government and the GSLP/Liberal Opposition convinced that reforms to Parliament are necessary but neither have said anything about electoral reforms. The PDP have  acknowledged the need for electoral reforms and parliamentary reforms, although the latter do not go far enough, nor do those of the GSD go far enough. The GSLP/Lib Alliance still have to formally announce theirs, so the jury is out on them.

The acknowledgments by all the parties that democratic reforms are needed are significant as they are important. They together amount to a common admission that the system of government in Gibraltar, since a degree of self-government was first achieved in 1969, have fallen short of requirements of democracy. That is a massive admission to have obtained from the very "culprits" who have taken advantage of this democratic deficit. I refer to the very politicians who are in power. It is this that allows me to retain some optimism for the future. The issue of reform is now high on the political agenda. Failure to deliver by existing politicians on this front or to adequately reform the system will leave open a huge political void that can be filled by individuals like me, not at this coming election but at the next following election.

The second disappointment in Fabian Picardo's reply is precisely that, delay. He wants the issue to be brought back to the Select Committees and to be fully and properly considered following a full and detailed public consultation. In fairness this is what was promised by the Government, who have failed to deliver to date. It is also clear that the matter is far too important to be rushed. If, and it is a big if still, reforms are to be delivered during the term of the next parliament, then it is best to get them right. There will not be a second bite at the cherry. Delay, if used constructively, is not a bad thing but let politicians not forget their solemn promises to the electorate, already made, on the issue of reforms. I believe that if the void that I refer to earlier is left over, it will be filled by the next but one election. I will certainly work towards ensuring that it is filled. My recent decision is not to stand for election at this forthcoming election. It does not extend beyond that.

It is salutary to see in his reply to the Chief Minister the extent of Fabian's commitment to democratic reforms. He confirms that there has been no change of policy by the Opposition. He reiterates the need to reform Parliament. He confirms the need to open up Parliament to the people in a manner that improves the quality of democracy. He agrees that the people must have the ability to hold Government to account. These are important and powerful commitments but it is rhetoric at this stage. One will only be able to assess whether these heady objectives can be achieved when the actual proposals are published.

From my discussions with Fabian, I am hopeful that progress will be made. Will his proposals be enough? The devil is in the detail. I will hold back on answering that question until he formally announces his proposals. In the meantime, I will limit myself to reporting what I know of the proposals to date.

I understand that Fabian does not agree with restrictions, proposed by the GSD Government, on  the number, time or subject matter on which Ministers can be questioned in Parliament. I agree with him.

He believes that much time could be saved if statistics, on which questions are asked regularly and repeatedly, were to be published. I agree with him, so should the GSD Government who have always promised "open and transparent" government.

He proposes the appointment of a Deputy Speaker, to help deal with more frequent meetings and some additional parliamentary staff. Although I agree with this suggestion for purely practical reasons, it is a purely housekeeping matter that does not enhance democracy.

He agrees with GBC broadcasting Parliament but suggests online broadcasting also. Again a minor point that opens up Parliament to public scrutiny. It is hardly earth shattering in the delivery of greater democracy. The same goes for suggestions to speed up the deliver of Hansard and making past and future Hansards available online.

The important issue is the issue that I have emphasised over and over again, the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. My suggestion has always been a combination of electoral reform and an increase in the size of Parliament  such as would allow for and deliver backbench MPs. Fabian does not agree on the valid ground that he does not believe that this will deliver the required scrutiny, transparency and accountability of the executive. He may or may not be right on this argument. It all depends on his actual suggestion as to how the separation of powers will be achieved.

My view is that without some separation of powers, sufficient parliamentary scrutiny, accountability and transparency of the executive will not exist. In his conversations with me he continually alludes to the possibility of achieving an "independent" voice in Parliament by other means. He has not been specific in his proposals on this issue. If this aspect of the democratic deficit is not resolved satisfactorily, nothing will have been achieved by giving effect to his other proposals. The exercise would have been a complete waste of time. The void that I allude to will be created and I believe that there are people who will step into that void, possibly by a negotiated joining of forces with the PDP, who are more receptive to the democratisation agenda.

All in all, following the recent announcements by the GSD Government and the GSLP/Lib Opposition, on the subject of parliamentary reform, there is room for measured optimism. The fight to achieve more democracy has only just begun. I am taken a little aback at the progress made in such a short period of time, the main one is having got the issue on the political agenda and the main parties to accept the need for reform. The fight will not be over until, first, the politicians announce what they propose in detail, secondly until and if they heed the public in the suggested public consultation and lastly until acceptable and sufficient reforms are enacted. Until then we must remain vigilant and prepared to fill any political void left by any failure of the GSD and/or the GSLP/Lib alliance to deliver proper and adequate reforms.