Elections in Malta have always been a close-run affair.

Since Malta gained its independence in 1964, nine general elections have been held and, apart from the first one in 1966, all of them resulted in one party obtaining a majority of votes, that is 50 per cent plus one of the valid votes cast.

That time, in 1966, the Nationalist Party won 47.89 per cent of the votes to Labour’s 43.09 per cent, but the PN won a comfortable majority of seats (28-22). From the following election, held in 1971, onwards, the MLP and PN have traded majorities in terms of popular vote, but the end result was not always clear-cut.

The most famous, or infamous, result remains that of 1981, when the Nationalist Party won 50.92 per cent of the votes against Labour’s 49.07, but the MLP still won a majority of parliamentary seats that kept it in government till 1987, in what can be described as Malta’s worst crisis years in recent history.

Constitutional arrangements were agreed to in Parliament just before the 1987 election, allowing the party with the majority of votes to gain “bonus” seats to allow it a majority in Parliament. Twice since then, this arrangement needed to be implemented – in that same election, allowing the PN to take the government with four extra seats, and in 1996, this time in Labour’s favour, and again with four extra seats.

It is now clear that today the political parties are worried that the coming election will result in a situation similar to that of 1966 – that no party will obtain a majority of votes, in which case Malta could be facing yet another crisis unless another agreement is reached beforehand. The way the parties are talking about the subject makes it clear that such a state of affairs is more than a possibility: it is a probability.

The political parties are now trying to come to an agreement as to what should happen if this situation arises and, judging by their tit-for-tat in the media, it seems that so far their positions are still far apart. Every possible scenario is being mentioned, but it is still very unclear how the situation will be resolved so that the country does not have to face what could possibly be a serious constitutional crisis.

As always happens, the three political parties involved in the run-up are pulling their own rope, in the sense that they are looking after their own interests to gain the biggest advantage possible, whatever the outcome.

In so doing, they are also accusing each other of not giving importance to the national interest which, of course, should be the most important factor in their negotiations.

While the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party are at loggerheads over the so-called “possibilities” and each accuses the other of not making any concessions, Alternattiva Demokratika is also making its voice heard, largely because it believes it is in a position to determine the overall result, and therefore would like to play its part in resolving the issue.

Ultimately, the two parties represented in Parliament in the the current legislature will have to reach a compromise – as they will be the ones to vote when amendments are to be enacted – but, until that happens, AD will be doing its utmost to influence that accord in a manner that best suits it.

What the political parties must all keep in mind is that they should look, first and foremost, at the national interest, and not at what their party is likely to gain or lose.

Malta’s future is at stake here and it will be very unpleasant for the country if we all have to go through the difficult times that we had to face in the early 1980s.

And time is running out…

The Malta Labour Party’s spokesman on foreign affairs raised an important point when he addressed journalists at the presentation of the annual report of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Foreign and European Affairs last week.

Leo Brincat expressed the hope that if there is a change in government in a few months’ time, the same spirit of consensus that exists would continue to prevail “both at committee level and even more so at government level”.

He said that calls for the Nationalist Party to commit itself to this effect have so far remained unanswered, with Mr Brincat’s concern being that should the Labour Party win the election, the Nationalist Party – in opposition – would put spokes in the government’s wheels on matters of foreign policy.

It has happened in the past – that political parties in opposition do not toe the same line as the government on matters of foreign policy – and Mr Brincat is afraid that it will happen again if the PN is relegated to the opposition benches.

The Nationalist Party has so far remained silent on the issue, and one hopes that once the Christmas break is over – the PN has put a lid on all its political activities and statements for three weeks until 7 January – the party will reply to Mr Brincat’s claim.

That, of late, the two major political parties share common finalities with regard to Malta’s foreign policy was confirmed by committee chairman Jason Azzopardi, who, in the presentation of the committee’s annual report, said that “we never needed to take one vote”, and added that the workings of the committee show that the two sides have the national interest at heart.

With the European Union membership issue out of the way – a subject of so many years of political controversy that led to a referendum that “promoted” membership in March 2003 – the Nationalist Party and the MLP seem to have little to fight about in matters outside our shores.

Gone are the days also when the two major political parties used to accuse each other of putting Malta in bad light abroad to try to gain political mileage locally, and this is something that shows maturity and is greatly beneficial to Malta’s image in the international sphere. Malta stands to gain credibility and a better image abroad if there are no twists and turns in its foreign policy. It did not look good, for example, that the PN and the MLP had such a different view on European Union membership.

This present consensus on foreign policy should perhaps serve as an example for the two parties to show more willingness to find common ground on domestic affairs. Here, unfortunately, the two sides are miles apart and this does have a negative impact on the overall well-being of the country and its people.

During last week’s press conference, Mr Brincat raised another matter. He said he regretted that although there was an understanding that Malta’s Permanent Representative in the EU, Richard Cachia Caruana, would have regularly briefed the committee on matters pertaining to EU affairs, he had done so only once this year, last April.

If what Mr Brincat said is true – and we have no reason to believe otherwise – the government should check into the matter and see that it sticks to any arrangements that were made.

It is important that the two sides continue collaborating on matters pertaining to the country’s foreign policy. Stability in foreign affairs is one of the columns on which a country’s prosperity is built.