The Wikipedia picture of a cholera toxin is uncannily divided into two halves – a blue and a red one with patches of yellow. I thought it would be ideal as the main picture for my blog throughout the election campaign. Cholera is an acute infectious disease characterised by vomiting, diarrhoea and cramps; the origin of the word is the Middle English “choler” meaning irascibility, anger, wrath or irritability.
The medieval “doctors” identified choler with bile and it is unfortunately not difficult to see that once again an election campaign is being conducted on the wave of such bile as partisan politics. It is surprising that a campaign, which has picked up on the buzzword Change and its many facets, remains firmly rooted in the tribal politics of the past. This, I believe, is an issue that will once again be relegated to a non-priority by the pots and kettles being banged on each side.
The essential leitmotif of this campaign should have been the possibility of free choice. It was to be the first time that voters could exercise their inalienable right of selecting the party who they best believe could represent them. There was no longer the need for a new democratic start or the need to pursue EU membership. For the first time the political parties had been called upon to sell themselves as such – vehicles of different values, different projects and different ideas to take Malta into the 21st century.
In essence it would have been a move away from black or white, zero-sum politics to a more refined political sphere where the combined political forces could engage in a debate and subsequently plot a new plan of action for the islands for the future. Alas, they seem to have failed.
While the campaign goes on with the loud tribal reckonings we have long been accustomed to, a new victim of this process has been condemned prematurely. Condemned in the blogs, condemned in the media and condemned in the political adverts that are still spinning off the old mantra that has served (or disserved) our political arena since it became a battle of two giants intent on achieving power. Let’s find out who this victim is. First the background.
What change exactly?
The Labour party has tried to monopolise the debate for change. Its main document is a Plan for Change. What change is being advocated? It’s the change we have heard about over and over again. It is based on the simple formula: Bored of the PN? Dissatisfied? Why not try our latest transformed Labour Party? It’s not New Labour because it has been there once before for a short unhappy period but you know how it is... this is the government of the alter-nation – if you don’t like black give white a try... again. The formula usually works for the ‘ultras’, the hardcore voters who live for the day they can carcade and gloat about a tkaxkira. It works a bit less for the disgruntled who would just about have it in themselves to vote for another party to spite their own (yes, they still think in terms of mine and theirs).
The Nationalists took the cue and bit back with a vengeance. Witness the posters of an unchanged Labour formation – they say it all. Agree or disagree, the essential message is that there is not much change there. For their part, the Gonzi party has also sniffed the need for change in the air. There is no promise more telling than Prime Minister Gonzi’s guarantee that we will have a new Cabinet should the PN make it to government. Cosmetic? Maybe, probably not. You have been warned – choose rightly between your Nationalist candidates for it is among them that the Flimkien team will choose the anointed few. Truth remains that the promise for a Cabinet shuffle or change comes at election time... and we all know what is said about election promises and pinches of salt.
But the Nationalists have been alerted to the fact that there is a movement that wants a different change. They have noticed, with increasing alarum and concern, that the vehicle being touted for such change is the Green Party whom they have consistently and privately advised to stay put as a pressure group for it has no business as a political party. And there begins the interesting conundrum. The Nationalist attitude to the mechanisms of representative politics do not fit squarely with that of the previous incarnation of the Nationalists many people, including myself, banked so heavily on in the eighties and nineties. More of that later.
Let us just take a look at the Greens. They too saw that the time was ripe for change and took to the starting line full of enthusiasm. Harry raised the stakes and aimed for four MPs. The main plan is summed up in six points that should work for a coalition. Will the Coalition Strategy be the Trojan horse to break the bipolar system? I have my doubts. The Labour Party, recognising the fact that it has little to lose from an AD raid on intelligent votes, has stayed relatively mum on the issue. A quick survey of all the articles by PN spin doctors will see an incessant bombing of the coalition fort. It’s a mixture of logic and half-truths. I will not bore you with the convoluted details of chances and percentages – mainly because my argument goes beyond that.
In fact, the main underlying reason why the coalition is a remote possibility lies far from voting choices and percentages per se. It goes back to the various alterations we have had in the Constitution determining who and what gets elected to the House of Representatives and how the government is formed. The latest set of changes was masterminded last summer and the final nail in the coffin of proportional representation was hammered in by the electoral amendments. You can call the Nationalists what you like but they are definitely farsighted. They smelt the possibility of a massive leak of votes to a third party so in collaboration with the not so naïve Labourites they moved the goalposts... again... in favour of a bipartisan Parliament for ever.
Of course Harry sounds crazy when he promises four seats. Of course Ranier, Daphne and Borg Cardona will remind us that the possibilities of a coalition are remote. “Vote Harry, Get Sant” becomes the inevitable step in the Nationalist campaign. It’s the proverbial killing of two birds – the rewritten rules have guaranteed that with one fell swoop the possibility of voters choosing a new option is nipped in the bud while retaining the momentum of denigrating the obnoxious other. And let’s face it, Harry cannot do much about the Constitution and Sant seems to be determined to play into the hands of the PN propaganda by fulfilling his part of the eternally unelectable. Touché, and my compliments to the Nationalist election machine.
At what price?
I may sound crazy to discuss this kind of issue when I should be concerned about surcharge, income tax, reception classes, moats around Valletta and trees growing on Maghtab. The truth is that I believe that this problem is the basic problem our young democracy faces today. It is a turning point that in the long term will turn out to be more important than who will govern Malta over the next five years. I prefer to point out the issues of legitimacy, accountability and representation than the budget balance and national curriculum. I do so mainly because it determines who and how we will discuss the budget, social services, health care, civic rights, and education in the future.
Who to look to for a light for the future? Labour? They abdicated from being a responsible Opposition ages ago. I have tried to give a chance to their current campaign but all you find is a hastily assembled manifesto based on appeasing the disgruntled. The solutions to the perceived problems are either hazy or inconsistent. In the case of corruption I may be convinced that it exists but Labour’s attitude does not instil confidence that they have a solution.
The PN is another kettle of fish altogether. It is probable that in the short term they are probably the least harmful solution. I also believe that Harry’s coalition proposal would do them loads of good on the side of accountability, transparency and a real green policy for the country (as against a cosmetic pre-electoral show). Having said that there are huge cracks in the Nationalist machine that need mending before it is too late. The greatest fault is this false sense of confidence that once they are elected under the present system they represent all the ideas in this country.
There is a reason why people are unwilling to vote PN this time round. The reason is more profound than simple Woods style disgruntlement. It tells of PN’s inability to look back at the roots of its ideals and examine how they can be brought up to date with today’s society. Joe Saliba’s party has morphed into a machine that lacks the principled spine on which the PN of the eighties built its successes. Its treatment of electoral laws and its silencing of those who disagree are ill-conceived knee-jerk reactions. The latest assault on free choice – attacking potential voters of a third party (some even called them stupid) does not fall square with Christian democratic principles let alone modern democracy.
Progressive Labour has abandoned any semblance of progressive politics and the man who does not listen to referendum results prefers to say that he will ask the people about divorce and discuss it when the time is ripe. Which leaves us with AD – but, alas, AD is running a race with a metal ball tied to its feet.
So who is the victim?
The main victim is the free thinking voter – the liberals without a party. They are those who can see a future beyond confrontational politics, who believe that politicians are there to serve and as servants of the people never claim a monopoly on their vote. They believe that when a party fulfils an electoral promise like joining the EU it is because they fulfil a mandate of the people. They are those who would have liked their vote to be freed by a proper reform of the electoral laws that takes into account proportional representation on a national level.
They are those who will probably walk to the ballot booth this election with a nose peg as suggested by Montanelli – “turiamoci il naso e votiamo DC” (plug our noses and vote DC). They have long recognised that voting by default is not really a vote. They have recognised that a party like PN that is content with this strategy is very close to imploding and emulating its counterpart. They have had their vote hijacked by the lack of choice.
The answer? Nose pegs
But in the cholera and bile of an election campaign no one will listen. The sad thing is that there will be no ears to listen after either. What to do in the meantime? There are some options ahead. You can turn up with a clothes peg on your nose and vote for the safer of the two options imposed by our electoral laws. You can play along with the game, identify a weak PN/MLP candidate for your first preference and then go on for AD. Or you can call their bluff and vote Harry anyway... don’t let them tell you it’s your responsibility if it is wasted – who put the mechanism in place to ensure that that is just what happens? Vote Harry, Get Sant? That is one of the most shameful slogans we have had in 40 years of democracy. Thanks to our choleric parties we’re heading for more of the same...
... it’s the MLPN, stupid!
Jacques René Zammit blogs daily on http://jaccuse.wordpress.com You can leave your comments to this article on the blog.
