The temptation to “teach” a lesson to the government was too strong to resist for some people in the last European Parliament elections. In the current political system there is no other mechanism to demonstrate the dissatisfaction with the government’s performance in a concrete way. Several people were faced with a dilemma. Absenteeism has been a common phenomenon in EP elections, but this is not the case in Malta because of the polarisation that exists between the two main political parties.
In the absence of clear electoral agendas or programmes at European Parliament level, the majority of voters tend to decide to vote or not to vote on the basis of domestic issues. Very few people take the trouble to read the electoral manifestos of the local general elections, and much less the EP ones! In our case, the trend has worked in the opposite direction when it comes to voting left or right. While the power of socialist parties in Europe has diminished, in Malta the Labour Party has gained at the expense of the party in government.
One of the few correct political decisions taken by the government in the past year was the nomination of George Abela as President. No one can say with certainty what Saturday’s result would have been had Dr Abela been elected Labour Party leader. The chances are that the substantial margin between the two main parties would have been wider.
The government might be correct in claiming that it needed to take difficult decisions. The problem is that in some of these decisions the implementation was completely wrong. The government was aware that these European Parliament elections were scheduled for this June, so it should have been more careful about the sentiments of the electorate and acted accordingly.
The government now admits that it could have acted in a better way on certain decisions, such as the one concerning the energy tariffs. It should have known better from the start. It has in fact committed the same error of political judgement as the Labour Party did 11 years ago under Alfred Sant. An intelligent political party learns from the mistakes of others, and it does not have the luxury to repeat them. The present government should be thankful there is no backbencher that has the courage to bring it down.
The party in government used to criticise the former Labour leader of using the “calculator”, and Dom Mintoff had the courage to criticise his own successor for losing the “social compass”. Apparently, the present government has forgotten those lessons, and now the electorate’s verdict is loud and clear.
On the domestic front, the government has also bungled the Malta Shipyards issue. The shipyard workers do not arouse a lot of sympathy given their track record, and the fact that they allowed themselves to be used as a political pawn, mainly by their own trade union. But the economic results at the shipyards were not solely the workers’ doing. With better management and better marketing, they could have turned losses into margins of profit. We have wasted one of the highly skilled sectors in our economy.
If the government is in a position to negotiate with the European Union on the difficult issue of illegal migration, there was no reason why it could not have taken advantage of the international recession to re-open discussions on the shipyards. The government has never challenged former Labour Minister George Vella to elaborate on the documents, which, according to him, could be used to discuss Malta’s shipyards with the EU.
The far right parties have gained support in a number of European countries in these elections. It is useless for the government to label parties and candidates as “populist” if it does not have the means to influence the perception of the people in a different direction. To disarm such perceptions, it has to provide alternative solutions with which the electorate can associate itself. Is it not ironic, if not tragic, that an extreme right candidate without a political party machinery behind him to poll more first count votes than a more moderate candidate campaigning on the government side on the issue of illegal migration?
The Labour Party does not have a positive track record on EU issues, with the exception of its MEPs, including the current leader. It is incredible that if it were for the former Labour leader, these elections would not have taken place at all. Yet in two successive elections, the Labour Party succeeded in electing more candidates than the party in government.
Joseph Muscat has given us to understand that EU membership is no longer an issue. What he has not explained to us yet, unless I am mistaken, is his position on the “withdrawal” clause of the Lisbon Treaty. Dr Sant participated in person in the discussions on the “withdrawal” clause of the earlier Reform /Constitution Treaty. Can Dr Muscat tell us where he stands on this particular issue?
If we are to reap the full benefit of our meagre representation at the EP, we need to make full use of the EP Office in Valletta and create a “shadow” institution – either nationally or within the parties – to monitor what is on the agenda of the assembly, and to provide our representatives with the necessary support and data to make their presence felt.
Some of the candidates who have failed to be elected may wish to start focusing on what the European Parliament is doing, and how Malta could derive maximum benefit from its five or six representatives. In an assembly of 785, it is difficult for our representatives to make a real difference on certain issues because they could easily be outnumbered, but if they work as a team they might make a difference on issues that are of major importance to our country.
In the past, the party in government experienced similar situations, and it promised to take the appropriate action. Apparently it has forgotten those experiences and lessons. The government may need to review some of its own advisers and yes-men. Party allegiance might not necessarily translate itself into competence. If this result succeeds in reminding the government about past experiences, this electoral defeat might be a blessing in disguise.
Alfred A. Farrugia
MARYLAND, USA