From Mr J.R. Zammit
The next election will be the fourth time I have exercised my right to vote. It will also be the first time that my decision as to whom to vote for is not a foregone conclusion.
In 1987, Malta voted for democracy. A PN government delivered in no small measure. It also delivered economic growth. In 1992, we voted to sustain economic development. After 10 years of the same faces in government, in 1996 a vote for change was based on false hopes. In 1998 and the last election we voted for Europe that only the PN could deliver. The alternatives to PN have never been alternatives, to the extent that at the last general election, several AD supporters, and AD itself, sacrificed their aspirations for a zero choice between EU membership and Sant’s partnership fairytale. To date, the PN had been the party of vision – the party that carried the aspirations of generational change.
In all the above cases we were glad to make an inevitable choice. It was a plus point for a Nationalist Party wisely plotting the way ahead and a grave responsibility to be borne by an opposition that proved itself constantly unable to adapt to the winds of change. The choice approved PN’s grand vision for our country, but it would hardly be summed up as an approval of the method of governance and micro-policies.
Even as we saw policies that kowtowed to the developers, aspired to the concrete jungle and protectionism disguised as being in the general interest, we could not help sacrificing all this to the greater aim of European membership. Issues such as skewered parliamentary representation (a bastard son of the Eighties compromise) stood on the backburner while we patiently waited for membership and its benefits to materialise.
This time around, as the euro jingles in our pockets and the reality of EU membership and obligations seeps into the realm of governance, a minority among us has now placed the politics of governance as a major concern on their agenda. To us, the idea of change is not embodied in fancy pre-election talk of change for change’s sake. In the words of Ronald Reagan “We do not want anybody to tell us what the political ramifications of a decision to be taken are. We want to know whether it is good or bad for the people”.
Unfortunately, the feeling is that the political structure of both the MLP and the PN is such that political ramifications are foremost in their considerations: principles have given way to the importance of gaining power at all costs. I cannot help but cringe when I see that the ultimate principle on which both parties’ electoral campaign lies is that they are not the other party.
Which leaves us with AD. For the first time since the EP elections, a vote for AD is a credible alternative. Or so we would think, until we hear the PN and its merry band of columnists. The choir has rehearsed and the mantra is repeated – do not waste your vote on AD because it means a vote for Labour.
There you are. The party that guided Malta to democracy and pluralism (thanks to your vote) is now telling you in no uncertain terms that your vote can be wasted. And in a way they are right. They are all right. Sant is right when he says that the people are no longer content with the kind of governance the PN offers. Gonzi is right to worry about the incongruent Labour plan for their stay in government. And they would all be right when they say that a vote for AD is a vote that can potentially be wasted.
In a sadly amusing way, Gonzi’s party misses being the inevitable choice for the intelligent voter. Does it propose concrete change? Does it once again sense the needs of the people and lead a democratisation of our electoral process? Not really. That would have too many political ramifications. They prefer to add AD to their special list of wasted votes. Harry Vassallo is made to fall in right behind the father of wasted votes – the man who the 1996 posters said you could not trust.
Where has that taken them before? The EP elections threw a light on the achievements of PN’s electioneering. At that election there was a movement for change that is still palpable. Green voters voted Green. The PN’s instruction to voters to stop at the last PN candidate gave the MLP a third seat in the European Parliament, to the detriment of AD’s candidate.
Not having learnt from the EP experience, the PN prefers to instruct its voters not to give second preference votes to AD, a sure way to guarantee Labour satisfaction.
The Daphnes of this world choose to label as immature the free-thinking generation of voters. They will say that they have failed to grow up and face the Machiavellian reality of today, where a vote for Harry gets you Freddy. Worse, they will tell you that you do not respect the struggle for a better Malta that was fought by their generation when all in Malta was dark and bleak.
In other words, they tell you that they fought for the type of governance we have today – where you do have a right to vote – only they had no time to sort out a teeny weeny electoral glitch and so we have adapted the old adage: Waste not – on AD, Want (desire) not – any change. In other words, under this system, if you really want change, it is necessary that all things remain the same.
More of the same is simply no longer acceptable – even the Daphnes would agree to that. The choice is not easy, real choices never are. The process of change begun by an enterprising PN in the Eighties needs to be continued, and those who are not too weary from previous struggles must carry out this change for the good of the people and their children. It is up to the PN to prove itself capable, as it has before, of reading the signs on the wall and adapting to the will of the people. For if voting is not about the will of the people, then it is all gone to waste.
Jacques René Zammit