Your editorial A third force (TMID, 20 June) could hardly be called an unbiased opinion and should not appear in a newspaper that calls itself “independent”. Admittedly, it was not blatantly partisan, but certainly considerably less than independent.

I read your newspaper because you are supposed to be independent. We live in a country where there is practically no independent public broadcasting service; where the TV stations and many newspapers are controlled by political parties; where the Church reigns supreme and even the two main political parties toe the line and where public bodies are not able to tolerate criticism, even when justified!

Need I say more to indicate that we live under a kind of dictatorship, though one far from the magnitude of the former USSR? So, having a supposedly independent newspaper less than subtly advocating that a third or a fourth force in Parliament would only weaken the established order of the two main parties, I find a bit much to stomach.

I happen to be one of your readers who feel that more parties in Parliament would improve electoral representation and could only encourage more consensus politics, which Malta completely lacks. Quoting Italy as a bad example of what Malta would become like in the event of wider representation of its people in Parliament after the next election, does not tell your readers that notwithstanding frequent elections in Italy, it is still a better country to live in than Malta.

You forget to mention that because of former frequent elections, their politicians have learned to accommodate each other and not ride roughshod over laws that they themselves have enacted. In a multi-party Parliament, the threat of having to go to the polls and not dictating for a whole five years, keeps the reigning parties in check and forces them to cooperate between themselves so as not to lose their position. If they cannot agree, they lose power, and no politician likes that. If in government there is more than one party, they are forced to share their power, and less power in politicians’ hands always spells more power in the hands of the electorate.

Did Malta have frequent elections when the PCP was in Parliament many years ago? Of course not, so to use instability as a tool to encourage voters to maintain the status quo is indeed a bit rich on your part.

Having more of the electorate represented would only reflect the truer mood of the people. Having another presence in there would quite probably lead to more open and more careful discussion of state affairs and better presentation of them to the people they represent. There would be less secrecy and more openness. To snidely insinuate that the smaller party would be so unprofessional and irresponsible as to hold the whole nation to ransom, thus risking national and financial instability, is very clearly trying to scare the electorate into not voting for another party other than the two main ones.

If your editorials continue in this biased tone, I shall save my money and stop buying your newspaper or read something of superior authorship. I am, of course, unsure whether you will ever print my letter. We shall see!

Alexander Cortis

Zabbar