From Ms I. Mangion

When a newspaper that claims to be independent indulges in publishing articles – whether in the news or opinion sections – that are clearly partisan, propagandist and biased, its readers have the right, and one could argue the obligation, to express their concern. Indeed, the feeling I got as I waded through Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article on Sunday, 10 February (Coalitions and pipedreams) was that independent journalism and commentary writing had become a bit of a “pipedream” in Malta.

It is not the subject matter of Ms Caruana Galizia’s latest piece that is shocking in itself. The “wasted vote” argument and the presumed weaknesses of coalition governments are inevitably much rehashed as election fever builds up. Much could be said about these issues but I do not intend to take them up in the limited space I am allotted here. Suffice it to say that many would disagree with statements about America and England being the incarnation of the world’s “most highly evolved democracies”. Besides, if “the Scandinavian model” and examples of successful coalition governments can be so rashly dismissed with the stamp Not Applicable, then readers are entitled to ask who decides which model is applicable and which is not and on the basis of which arguments.

What I would like to address here is what I find so alarming about Ms Caruana Galizia’s article, ie its objective – that of convincing anyone planning to vote for Alternattiva Demokratika to vote for the Nationalist Party! This she divulges in no uncertain terms: “...the likelihood of divorce being introduced and rent laws reformed by a Nationalist government is statistically much higher than the likelihood of those changes being brought about by a party with one seat in Parliament...”, or “My family... rather like the Nationalist Party. We think it has done a super (sic) job of building Malta into what it is today, from the wreckage left behind by the Labour Party, and the fresh disasters created by the “new” Labour government of Alfred Sant”. Such statements could not naturally and randomly flow from the pen of a truly “independent” writer. They smack of propaganda. And the downside, of course, is that even the truest of arguments become murky and lose credibility in the face of the overt mud-slinging that ensues and which, regrettably, seems to have become Ms Caruana Galizia’s leitmotif in recent years.

Beyond the questionable “independence” of its author and the newspaper that published it, the article clearly attempts to make up for in speculation what it lacks in information. Apart from a number of sweeping statements such as “None of the Labour Party’s supporters are switching to Alternattiva.” (says which polling institution, may I ask?) or “...people like the system because, for all its shortcomings, it is efficient.” (really?), there is, more importantly, a flaw in the author’s analysis and argumentation.

“When we vote for a party, we know roughly what to expect when it is in government”. Well, I beg to differ. When was the Mater Dei hospital supposed to have opened, again? And was I wrong in believing that joining the EU would mean that my country would abide by EU legislation? No, we no longer know what to expect, except perhaps that blue or red does not make that big a difference anyway. Indeed, one of the problems of the two-party system is that the political spectrum tends to become ideologically monochromatic.

People in Malta traditionally vote for their party, ie the party for which their family has voted since time immemorial, not for political programmes and certainly not on the basis of the promises made or kept. Voting for Alternattiva Demokratika may well be a protest vote in some cases, but that does not mean that all AD voters will cast their votes without bothering to check for whom they are voting. If people are dissatisfied with the incumbent government and do not adhere to the opposition’s programme, then they have the right to vote for a third party if that party’s programme appeals to them. Whether their vote will enable this third party to be in government or not, whether a coalition government is a possibility or not, voting for a change of mentality, voting to break away from party politics, is not a wasted vote. It’s an informed decision. It’s democracy.

Besides, Ms Caruana Galizia and I obviously have not been talking to the same people. Unlike those who repeatedly vote Labour or Nationalist to keep up with family tradition, many people I spoke to said they would be voting for Alternattiva Demokratika because they wanted to vote for a party that put the environment high up on its agenda and defended the social values that mattered to them. In other words, many people will vote AD out of genuine conviction, as Ms Caruana Galizia herself states. And again, voting for a party that represents your values, whether this party stands a true chance or not, is not a wasted vote. There may well be people out there for whom democracy and elections stand for more than simply making sure the party they bet on wins the game. After all, this is a general election, not a horse race.

“...as with everything in life, take the road that can actually help you achieve your objective.” Thank you for the advice, but what if a person feels his or her objectives cannot be achieved by voting either blue or red? If the goal of politics and governance is that of striving for the common good, surely a responsible voter will vote for the party he or she believes can do the best job for the community as a whole. I certainly agree with Ms Caruana Galizia when it comes to realising that “...to make these changes, a political party has to gain the seat of government and not a seat in Parliament.” But I am also aware that change, progress and reform are lengthy processes. A seat in Parliament may very well be a good start.

Voting in a responsible, candid way does not mean voting for the status quo because we are afraid of change, nor does it mean voting for the lesser of two evils because we feel let down by a particular party. What I find irresponsible is attempting to intimidate the masses by patronising and ridiculing them for desiring or demanding change. What is irresponsible and harmful to society at large is nipping change in the bud before anyone gets to benefit from the environmental and social reform our country so badly needs.

Irene Mangion

SANTA LUCIA