Democracy is all about government by the people for the people. Representative democracy rests on the principle that the free electorate decides how the nation’s business is to be administered, and by whom. Electoral sovereignty is the arch. Choice is the keystone.

Although conventional wisdom holds that comparisons are odious, a viable democracy needs discerning voters, capable of making sound choices. This implies assessment of personalities and some knowledge of their past records. Such assessment is not limited to what politicians say. Of equal importance is what they fail to say.

Assessment of personalities on this basis is poles apart from “voting without instruments”, entrusting your own and your country’s future into the hands of inexperienced or mischievous politicians.

Potential danger

This is a potential danger, particularly where political polarisation militates to raise the status of electoral campaigns to that of “presidential” elections. In such a climate, the sound bite tends to predominate over common sense, and quality of argument gives way to quantity of votes.

This, alas, is what is happening in Malta as we approach the run up to the next general election.

The core electoral issue is whether the government in office has delivered, or whether there is an alternative, good enough to warrant change. The current state of mind of the Maltese electorate, sorely tried as it is by relentless taxation and rising living costs on the one hand, and a stalling economy on the other, leaves no room for the imagination. There is resentment in the air and a yearning for relief.

On the government’s part, the spirit is willing, but EU constraints severely limit its freedom of action. Hence, there is a change of theme in the opening stages of the electoral campaign. The campaign gets personal and seething with denigration, and no holds are barred. It has happened before.

How much difference does leadership make in politics?

In the context of the erstwhile ding-dong tussle between PN leaders and Alfred Sant, this has become an inescapable question for the electorate. It calls for understanding and takes us back to the Fenech Adami years.

Eddie Fenech Adami

Dr Eddie Fenech Adami came to the forefront of the local political scene during the bleak Mintoffian era. He was elected party leader after the end of Dr George Borg Olivier’s 27-year political reign as PN leader.

Under Dr Fenech Adami, the Nationalist Party was reorganised and rejuvenated. Its new lease of life enabled it to resist, and subsequently to erode, Mr Dom Mintoff’s solid electoral support. While Dr Fenech Adami battled in the opposition trenches, Mr Mintoff sensed that the power flowing from electoral majority support had slipped from his hands and made way voluntarily for a brief interregnum presided over by Dr Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici.

Dr Fenech Adami’s finest moment was his l987 electoral victory, when the tables were turned and he took over the reins of office. In the years that immediately followed there was a climate change.

Alfred Sant

An unassuming young intellectual who, like Dr Fenech Adami, hailed from Birkirkara, and had graduated and risen from the ranks of the Malta Labour Party, took over from Dr Mifsud Bonnici. That man was Alfred Sant.

Dr Sant embarked on a feverish programme designed to reactivate and reorganise the MLP. The party moved to new premises at Hamrun, and went on the offensive in the broadcasting media. Its programme was rewritten. It was saturated with the promise of a “new vision of modern Malta”. New Labour had arrived.

In October l996, Labour won a stunning victory by a 7,600 vote majority, overturning a l3,000 vote majority held by the Nationalist Party since 1992.

It was a short-lived victory. Dr Sant’s one seat parliamentary majority was wiped out – not by the Nationalist Party or by the electorate, but by a stab in the back

Dr Fenech Adami won the subsequent election, after another decisive swing of the pendulum. It became immediately clear that the floating vote in these islands has emancipated itself and become a determining factor on the Maltese electoral scene.

It reasserted itself at the last general election, when the issue of EU accession overshadowed all other considerations. The issue of PN incompetence and economic mismanagement associated with rising taxation clearly impressed the electorate and has predominated in all four electoral consultations held since the last general election.

New reality

The emerging situation highlighted a new reality: the floating vote could no longer be taken for granted. It has the upper hand, and the political party machines have to trim their sails accordingly.

Now, more than ever, bread-and-butter issues, and not so much the stature of the political leadership, influence the temperature of the electorate.

The electorate is becoming increasingly sensitive about the persistent unsustainable deficit, accompanied by mounting national debt and galloping taxation, much of which was brought about by uncontrolled public spending, and a “money no problem” philosophy.

The performance of the PN administration since l998 has been lacklustre, and characterised by a curious inability to kick-start a number of major projects that have been in hand for years (Mater Dei, the Opera House project, the rehabilitation of the City Gate area, the Cirkewwa-Gozo Ferry Terminal, the White Rocks Project, etc.).

Lawrence Gonzi

Criticism and dissent from Nationalist sources began to intensify, and Dr Fenech Adami discreetly passed on the mantle of Prime Minister to Dr Lawrence Gonzi.

A comparative greenhorn in terms of ministerial responsibility, Dr Gonzi has emitted far more heat than light in his three years in office.

His biggest mistake was his failure to inject new blood into his tired Cabinet on taking over. Even more damaging to Malta and to his own party was his failure to take the bull by the horns and to start reducing the national debt.

He continued to overspend and to rely on borrowed money, raising the cost of debt servicing to an annual Lm77 million burden, which is draining away Malta’s scarce resources. His trademark in office is a back-breaking tax burden.

Electoral mood

Resentment is widespread and the reaction is growing in silent but manifest intensity

PN politicians struggle to distract the angry electorate, channeling the focus of discussion to bear on Dr Sant and his past record, real or conjured. It is not cutting very much ice.

Dr Sant has shown, in flashes, that beneath his composure and his declared pass-wara-pass approach there is a certain amount of grit and resilience. Some of his adversaries may have mistaken this for obstinacy. Sant has been demonised ever since he was elected MLP leader with the insidious slogan that he “could not be trusted”.

His party’s general conference did not buy this slogan. Dr Sant has prevailed to the point that the Nationalist Party in government is consuming more energy and resources than ever to assail and belittle the stature of this unassuming man.

Dr Sant has shown that he has the ability to bounce back. He believes in the power of the grassroots, and has proved to be capable of resisting the corrosive quality of political power.

Bottom line

The contrasting qualities of Lawrence Gonzi and Alfred Sant will come into the equation when it comes to mobilising political support in the upcoming electoral contest.

Equally important is the quality of organisation and of the human resources at their command when the critical hour approaches.

When all is said and done, the bottom line is this: as the next election approaches – it may come sooner than expected – it will be the sovereign electorate that will hold the trump card.

The political leaders at the head of their respective caravans will have to dance to the electorate’s tune.

The time when the electorate had to dance to the tune of politicians has passed, and passed for good.

It is worth stressing that each leader would be well advised not to play his cards above their face value.

[email protected]