The launch of another political party that joins the Nationalist Party, the Malta Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika in the race for power has once again led to a debate on the possibility of having a third force in Parliament and what effect this will have on the country’s administration if this comes to be.

Azzjoni Nazzjonali (AN), with former Nationalist MP Josie Muscat at the helm, was set up a few days ago promising a breath of fresh air for Maltese politics. But let us, for today, ignore the new movement’s line of thinking – on which there is so much to say – and concentrate on whether a Maltese Parliament with three or more sides would be better or worse for the country.

The Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party have shared the honours in the last 40 years, with the PN winning five of the nine elections held since Independence. The 1966 election, which was the first after Malta gained Independence, also heralded a new era in terms of politics, as only two parties were elected to Parliament that time. Since then, no third force ever managed to break the deadlock.

There were several attempts to set up new movements, but these either fizzled out quickly or failed to make a great impact. In fact, the strongest and most resistant of the lot, Alternattiva Demokratika, has never made it past the two per cent mark in the four elections it contested since 1992. And now we have AN calling for support too.

Alternattiva Demokratika has for long been calling for a need to have more than two parties represented in Parliament. Time and again, it has made suggestions as to how the electoral system should be changed to give smaller parties the chance to be elected.

But the changes that have been made allow too little space for third forces to make any headway, unless of course these gain enough support in one district to elect a candidate.

AN will also be calling for a system that gives small parties a bigger opportunity to get a parliamentary seat. AD and, presumably AN, think that by being elected, they will bring about a change that is so necessary for the country’s future. They believe that their presence in Parliament would be the best expression of democracy, and that they would be responsible enough not to take advantage of their position to transform a perceived instability into a real one. They say that their presence in Parliament would give minorities a voice and will stop the major parties from doing what they like.

On this particular factor, we are in no doubt that both the PN and the MLP will stand side by side, as they have always done, in order to keep the status quo.

The PN and the MLP have the same argument on this issue. They say that it is not beneficial for Malta to have a situation in which a smaller third party’s representation in Parliament could topple a government. This, they argue, would lead to great instability in terms of governance. The country would be balancing on the whims of a small minority which holds governments to ransom. The presence of a third or more parties in Parliament would take Malta into a scenario similar to that of Italy some years back – when governments collapsed on a regular basis, sometimes even before they were formed.

The major parties raise several questions. Is this what we want for Malta? Are we prepared to take this risk? Are we ready to lose what we have managed to build so far just for the sake of having a third force in Parliament? Will a country with an unstable government be able to move forward and attract the investment we need to continue being competitive? Will having a perpetual election-mode situation be healthy?

The electorate will soon decide.