Now that the election fever has abated, a young university student and

first-time voter sits down to scribble his thoughts

Starting off from the idea of walking inside the polling booth to put the necessary numbers on the paper, one can already appreciate that as much as we may grumble about our political system, we should realise that we enjoy a democracy. We are not one of those unfortunate countries where we are shot at by the military government, nor do we have a false electoral system with thugs roaming around as you “express” who you think should be representing you in Parliament.

And the election campaign kicked off – Gonzi-centred blues on one side and MLP’s “New Beginning” on the other. At first, PN focused on Gonzi’s successes and his excellent public speaking and communication skills, trying to fade out the fact that certain people had been hanging around for too long. On the other hand, we had the Labour Party depicting itself as some sort of saviour to take us out of this sick world and of obscure stagnation. Indeed, it is obvious that we have people who are not as comfortably off as others and we do have people who have been hurt in some way or another by the PN, as the party had spent a substantial time in government. However, this scenario would have been inevitable anyway had it been the reds, the greens or anyone else, since it is natural that this would occur with any particular party leading the country for such a long time.

Nonetheless, as a first-time voter, I did not feel I had the luxury of choice as much as I would have liked. There were those mistakes the Nationalists had made, yet I find it hard to believe that the majority would say that this country has not leaped forward and people’s minds are not at rest. Malta’s economic improvement, the financial zone boost, the closing down of Maghtab, MCAST, the “scandalous” Mater Dei, are the first few that come to mind when I balance out successes against failures for our island.

On the other end there was “The New Beginning”. It sounds appealing the first time you hear it, but when you start hearing too much about it, it tends to become worrying. A party with a manifesto that had a problem caused by “computer malfunctions”, believe it or not. It is true that people like change, but it is also true that people do not like insecurity. One can easily recall the twisting and turning of the reception year and the tax-cuts on overtime, which were both never thoroughly explained in the eyes of the people. The Valletta rejuvenation plans appeared ambiguously unplanned. The fuel surcharge was another problem – never was the opportunity cost of this measure revealed. Last but not least, the mention of EU negotiations by someone who had fought against EU membership so strongly, created a lot of question marks in people’s minds, not only in mine.

Moving on with the campaigns, each and everyday you’d end up talking about or listening to politics. Gonzi, wounded by various losses such as MEPs and local councils, started his climb by giving his optimistic vision for Malta. Surprisingly or not, Labour started revealing their personal profile-based campaign, running down the list of their counterparts and trying to expose as many sins as they could. Notwithstanding, I must admit that I personally trust someone more when showing me what he offers rather than telling me how bad the adversary is.

The election campaign started heating up – the media became more aggressive, the attacks more bold, the challenges harder, the statements deeper and the clock ticked faster. The “New Beginning” party managed to cause uproar among its people with statements such as “the others, have something wrong with their DNA”, “we will be a government for our own”, and “the others are not a part of our family”. Pity they failed to realise that these fell on the floater’s ears and made him cautious about his choice, as at the same time Gonzi was saying that he would lead a government for all.

The media was in fact doing all it could. It was easy to see how the university debate had been turned into a debacle, calling the students intolerant, rude, stupid, fascist and what not simply because they had their say. I disapprove of booing, but you cannot expect too much when one particular leader failed to answer questions about the stipends he had slashed (breaking his pre-election promise) and avoided the referendum issue, right in the face of so many politically enthusiastic first-time voters. This same leader turned to the crowd to ask them who was being hard-headed – no wonder the clatter. I was present at this debate and watching it on the news that same evening made me think I had attended a different meeting.

Even though Sant avoided the dark 1996-1998 age and treated it as history not to be spoken of (then why is he “The New Beginning”?) and pointing out all the corruption they could, Labour was managing to water the seeds of doubt inside the electorate’s head. Come to think of it, where there is power, it is hard for corruption in every sense not to exist. Gonzi was saying how well he was doing, but all his ministers were being accused of some alleged misdeed.

And in fact, the bubble burst with the Pullicino-Orlando case. Had Sant been hiding anything? He was avoiding Pullicino-Orlando to give out the news of the case, wasn’t he? I do not think I am the right person to dwell on the merits of the case, other than stating my personal opinion. As I start sticking the pieces together I start realising that something does not smell right. I have to admit that I have always admired Pullicino-Orlando and considered him a good prospect. I also understand that the way things were going at the end of the election campaign, it was rather obvious that his election to Parliament was at risk. Moreover, I admire the courage with which he challenged the one making the accusations against him. And that day, it may be true that Pullicino-Orlando should not have been in that studio, but his strong confrontation declared him elected – and Sant’s departure may have confirmed a couple of worried voters as to which party they should give their vote.

I can’t say what I would have done if I were Alfred Sant that day, but I can say what I think should have happened. Had Sant sat down that morning, he would have led the press conference and when it was Jeffrey’s turn he would have answered his questions, even if the latter had acted arrogantly. At that point, Sant would have politely presented his argument, which at the end of the day, was constantly on the Labour media. Sant might have felt that Jeffrey was using airtime dedicated to the MLP, yet it was Sant who was advantaged, as Jeffrey was giving him a golden opportunity to rub salt in the open wound by clarifying further his accusations, with all Malta watching – always if the accusations were truly sound. The next day, the biggest issue, of the prospective Prime Minister fleeing an adversary (one can only imagine the worries of people as they say, “What if he’s at the Council of Europe and the other member States pin him down, will he collect his stuff and leave?”) would have no longer existed. All eyes would have turned on how Pullicino-Orlando was sitting in that studio. Labour could have used this episode to affirm their so-called “mud-slinging” – that the PN would do anything and breach any agreement disrespecting whoever it was, just to get their way. All the media would broadcast that the PN had disrespected the Broadcasting Authority and its regulations in an attempt to achieve its ends. And this is what put me off Pullicino-Orlando and my admiration for him, other than the case. It is natural that he would go to extremes and risk his all since he was aware that a couple of days before the election he was put in the hot sea. Yet I do not believe he had the right to jeopardise the PN’s election merely for these interests. He walked out a hero – but did anyone think of what would have happened had Sant actually sat down that day?

But that did not happen and now we have a new Nationalist government. It is what I believed was needed – a change – in certain elected faces not in party though. The country needs to consolidate its entry in the EU and the eurozone without taking risks. The result at the polls was a close call, a healthy result at this stage. I do believe the PN needs to look out for its people and this result gave those not doing so properly, a wake-up call. Never forget that the Prime Minister did manage to win an election against all odds and he must be given credit for this.

As expected, the Leader of the Opposition resigned. The Labour Party has to do some soul searching and see what caused the loss. They should not say PN won by as little as 1500 votes, but why they lost the third consecutive legislature. They have the time to iron out any problems in the inner circles and rejuvenate the party. It is time for them to answer their disappointed constituents and not arrogantly shut them up, beat around the bush, point out promising leader candidates (not from the in-crowd) as traitors and still try to find the defects of the government. They have the chance to remove stagnation and try their own “New Beginning” – I hope that in the interests of all they do not fail to do so, even though I have grave fears. Choosing the wrong leader may lead to lasting clashes and divisions in the MLP as its people are tired of being constantly let down. I strongly believe that a healthy democracy requires a solid opposition and a change in leadership (not in competence!) for a short time, even though it may not necessarily meet my own principles to keep democracy alive.

On a positive note: With a Prime Minister who is more than capable and seems to have kept a firm hand on ministerial appointments, I sincerely wish Malta the best of luck...