Small States and Autocracy – A Look at Government in Malta

John Stanton

John Stanton is an Associate Professor at the City Law School, City St George’s, University of London, and Affiliate Associate Professor of Law at the University of Malta.

Malta has a rich and diverse history, due in part to the range of powers that have colonised and occupied the Mediterranean archipelago over the past 7,000 years. Over the centuries, Malta has been controlled by the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Spanish, the Knights of the Order of St John, the French, and the British, to name a few. Malta’s position in the centre of the Mediterranean Sea made it a useful stopping point on the trade routes connecting Europe, Africa, and Asia, whilst its small size and archipelagic nature made it easily accessible for invading forces. With a wealth of world powers imposing their ways of life on the inhabitants of Malta, it stands to reason that the systems through which the islands have been ruled and governed have been mixed and varied. From being ruled by the Governor of the Kingdom of Sicily during the Roman period, to being subject to the authority of the Grand Masters of the Order of St John of Jerusalem from 1530 to 1798, each colonising power brought its own system of government to the Maltese archipelago. This post, and the book chapter that it seeks to summarise, is concerned with the systems of government introduced during Malta’s time as a British colony (1813 to 1964), as well as that which has prevailed since independence (achieved on 21 September 1964).

Malta as a British colony

In June 1798, whilst en route to Egypt, Napoleon Bonaparte and his French officers came ashore in Malta. Encountering weak resistance, they soon took control over the islands from the Order of St John. Within a few months, the French began depredating Maltese churches and palaces, selling the valuable possessions they found to fund their Egyptian campaign. The Maltese rebelled and, with the assistance of the British, ultimately defeated the French in September 1800. Malta became a British protectorate at that time and then a British colony in 1813.

During its time as a colony, Malta was given 11 constitutions by the British; the twelfth was granted upon independence. Whilst the first Constitution, granted in 1813, established a gubernatorial autocracy on the islands with a British-appointed Governor at the helm, the instruments that followed over the course of the next hundred years or so saw a gradual emergence of semi-local rule through the work of a Council of Government. Initially this was an entirely appointed institution. As the 19th century progressed, a democratic element was introduced and by the late 19th century locally elected representatives made up the majority of this Council alongside a minority of appointed British officials.

The most significant pre-independence Constitution was granted in 1921. This established self-government on the islands through the creation of a diarchic system: there was a local Maltese government, responsible for local affairs and accountable to a partially elected legislature, and a second Imperial Government, led by the Governor, that was responsible for matters reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the British. This initial attempt at self-government lasted only 12 years, however, and between the early 1920s and the early 1960s, a further five constitutions were introduced. These saw Malta alternating between an elected Council of Government and further attempts at self-government.

One of the key trends in Malta during the colonial period, though, is the ebb and flow of autocratic tendencies. The period started with Malta governed as a gubernatorial autocracy, with the Governor as sole leader. Even during the years when the Council of Government operated, this generally served to assist and guide the Governor in his role, and he could veto its decisions. Even following the creation of the Council, therefore, autocratic elements continued to feature in the UK’s governance of Malta.

Independent Malta

In the years after the end of World War Two, a broader trend of decolonisation across the British Empire inspired discussions in Malta as regards future relations with the UK. Despite the fact that plans to integrate with the UK were initially endorsed (and approved in a referendum), talk by the early 1960s turned to independence. Nationalist Prime Minister George Borg Olivier wrote to the Secretary of State in 1962 ‘[o]n behalf of … the island of Malta … to invoke … the right to be an independent State’. This permission was granted, and the Malta Independence Act 1964, along with the Malta Independence Order of the same year, gave effect to independence and granted to the Maltese islands a new constitution. The 1964 Constitution, though formally granted by the British, was drafted by Maltese Attorney General, JJ Cremona, and was approved by the local population in a referendum. The instrument established the Westminster model in Malta, under which the government is drawn from the political party that commands a majority in the unicameral Parliament. Its place within Parliament means that the Government is subject to political accountability through which backbenchers and the opposition party can question the government and work, on behalf of the people, to keep it in check.

Persistent autocracy

Maltese politics has, over the decades, become increasingly polarised. This is reflected in the opposing stances that the two largest parties have taken with regard to Malta’s post-independence development. As the chapter explains, Nationalist Governments were more neo-liberal and preferred to engage with the wider world, particularly the West. By contrast, Labour Governments were more isolationist, at times favouring closer ties with Gaddafi’s Libya, and, in the 1990s, attempted to stop the process of Maltese accession to the European Union. Against this backdrop, and despite the operation of the Westminster model in Malta, autocratic elements persisted – and arguably continue to persist – in Maltese governance. These manifest themselves in numerous ways, as the chapter makes clear, including by certain politicians circumventing due process, being dismissive of criticism and opposition, and being critical of international organisations. Two particular elements of autocracy on which I focus here, though, are cronyism and clientelism.

Clientelism refers to relations between political and non-political actors through which politicians receive some professional or personal benefit in exchange for making political decisions to the benefit of the non-political actors. Cronyism refers to politicians appointing friends, family, or other allies to certain political positions. Both of these practices reflect autocratic tendencies insofar as they permit leaders to concentrate power in themselves and those closest to them, using this for mutual benefit and advantage.

There are numerous examples of clientelism and cronyism in post-independence Malta, including, though not limited to: Prime Minister Dom Mintoff taking over the shares of the National Bank of Malta in 1971; the appointment in 2019 of a magistrate who was related to then Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat’s, personal lawyer; a Labour MP, Rosianne Cutajar, taking money from and having dealings with the businessman accused of orchestrating the 2017 assassination of investigative journalist, Daphne Caruana Galizia; and finally, early on in Muscat’s days in government, he ‘decapitated the public service, firing nearly all euphemistically called permanent secretaries and replaced them with people who owed their careers to him. Within weeks, all major and most middle-ranking positions of influence in Malta’s administration were filled by hand-picked cronies, sycophants and hangers on’.

These, and many other, practices reflect a persistent tendency towards autocracy that is more fully unpacked in the book chapter. To finish, though, it is worth noting that there is a relationship between state size and autocracy. There is plenty of empirical evidence that shows that ‘[s]mall states … can look formally liberal-democratic [from the outside] but might be rather illiberal in their actual workings’. Malta is a case in point. At just 316km2, it is the smallest Member State of the European Union. And whilst its system of government ostensibly appears liberal-democratic, particularly with the operation of the Westminster model, the more informal aspects of governance in Malta, including the activities and behaviours of those in power, betray more autocratic tendencies. The link between these two factors is explained by Veenendaal: in small systems, politicians and citizens are more likely to know and interact with one another. This can blur professional and private relationships, leading to politicians potentially favouring their personal relations, and the people potentially exerting pressures on the politicians to grant them certain charity. To put this in simple terms, small states, and the proximity that leaders have with their constituents can provide the perfect opportunity for clientelism and cronyism, as the example of Malta demonstrates.

This post, therefore, has briefly summarised the points and arguments made in the chapter contained in Small State Constitutionalism, focusing in particular on the prevalence of cronyism and clientelism in Malta. Evaluation, here, has identified a continued tendency toward autocracy, which continues to undermine democracy and government across the Maltese archipelago.

This blog post is part of the IACL Blog symposium Small State Constitutionalism, which presents some of the key arguments made in chapters of the newly-published edited collection: Elisabeth Perham, Maartje De Visser and Rosalind Dixon (eds) Small State Constitutionalism (Hart Publishing, 2026).

John Stanton is an Associate Professor at the City Law School, City St George’s, University of London, and Affiliate Associate Professor of Law at the University of Malta.

Suggested Citation: John Stanton, 'Small States and Autocracy – A Look at Government in Malta’ IACL-AIDC Blog (10 February 2026) Small States and Autocracy – A Look at Government in Malta — IACL-IADC Blog