Many are the terms used to describe the almost infinite shifts that political parties make when wooing their electorates. In opening up to the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems), Tory leader David Cameron called for a cooperative government. This represents a shift from parliamentary representation founded on a powerful and stable relationship with voters often based on class distinctions, to the present trend where more and more people change the way they vote from one election to the next, while, (at least in other countries), opinion surveys show an increase in the numbers of those who refuse to identify with any existing party.

The Leaders Debate on television in the UK has also underlined something that has, informally, existed in Malta at least from the days of Dom Mintoff but now seems to have become a manifested culture: this is the increasing importance being given to the personalisation of power. In countries with direct election of the chief executive, presidential elections tend to shape the whole of political life. In countries like Malta, where the chief executive is also the leader of the majority in Parliament, legislative campaigns and elections centre on the person of the leader. The last

election based on GonziPN demonstrated this in no uncertain fashion.

This may be a response to the new conditions under which elected officials exercise their power. Today, governments interfere in many areas, particularly the economic sphere where they have to confront decisions made by an ever-increasing number of actors; in Malta’s case this means the member states of the EU which in turn is itself reacting to global pressures.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for governments to foresee all the events to which they must respond. I believe that in Malta we are beginning to recognise this too. It takes time for a small island race to realise that, willy-nilly, it is now playing in the premier league though admittedly under tremendous constraints. In an uncertain world, where election programmes may have to give way to unforeseen events, the voter can only trust that the party he voted into office honours the promises it had made in its manifesto and during the election campaign. Again, our Prime Minister understands this very well when he asks people to judge him by what he does not by what is promised. Recent events may very well make him rue those words, but his recognition of the shift is there for all to see. At the same time, this points to the foolishness of making hundreds of promises, not all of which the party is then genuinely able to keep.

Retaining the social divide

Of course this does not give the party in office an open cheque to do as it pleases. There is also that very important element known as the party’s record both in office and out of it to guide the electorate. This goes a long to explaining Joseph Muscat’s need to distance himself from the old excesses as much as it explains the PN’s need to keep those excesses in front of the electorate. Divisions in society are always exploited by political parties because it gives them a visible target. Whether the particular division relating to the LP’s past still means anything to the younger generation is for the parties’ machinery to find out.

The shrinking of the MP

It has to be emphasised, as last week’s events in Parliament showed, that MPs have come to enjoy only a measure of autonomy. The reason is, of course, that we live in a party democracy. The late George Bonello du Puis emphasised almost with his last breath the need for party representatives to follow the official line in Parliament and in public. He, of course, never intended to limit discussion and debate to within the walls of party headquarters. Nevertheless, with the notable exception of the US Congress, parliaments are rarely the forum for public debate any more. Each party is grouped around its policy makers and votes in a disciplined manner in support of its leader. This is what poor Mario Galea head-butted last week. But if an MP cannot show his constituents that a policy is unacceptable to him, then he can hardly claim to truly represent them. If he doesn’t, then the electorate will have to accept that it is only the party and its leader that count: which takes me back to the days when there was a suggestion to base elections on the party badge rather than its district representatives. That suggestion has matured a lot in a very quiet and subtle way.

This brings us back to the quote that opened this article. In most countries, a growing segment of the electorate tends to vote according to the stakes and issues of each election. While an unstable electorate has always existed, in the past it was primarily composed of citizens who were poorly informed or had a low level of education. This is becoming less so. The existence of an informed and interested electorate, who may be swayed one way or the other, creates an incentive for politicians to put policy proposals directly to the public. This was Gordon Brown’s chief defence in the Leaders Debate. Discussion of specific issues is, however, no longer confined to Parliament. NGOs especially have seen to it that a lot of it takes place in the public arena. Thus the form of representative government that is emerging today is characterised by an insistence on public discussion and/or consultation, the rise of the floating voter (rather slow in Malta, but then we are always late getting there), and the impact of the communication media.

After all, representative government, as I explained in my article last week, was conceived in explicit opposition to government by the people and its central institutions have remained unchanged. These are:

Those who govern are appointed by election at regular intervals.

The decision-making of those who govern retains a degree of independence from the wishes of the electorate.

Those who are governed may give expression to their opinions and political wishes without being subject to the control of those who govern,

Public decisions undergo the trial of debate.

Thus, representative government remains what it has been since its foundation, namely a government of elites (not pejoratively) distinguished from the bulk of the citizenry by social standing, way of life and, generally speaking, education. That does not make it undemocratic, but it still retains oligarchic elements.

All parties in the UK election promised that voters would have the right to reject their MP in certain circumstances. This is not just the result of the besmirching of the political system in the UK. It is also an admission that voters are demanding a greater say in how their country is run beyond the traditional voting in of a representative to govern in their name for five years, and possibly voting him or her out at the end of that period.

In his ‘Social Contract’, Rousseau made a famous but rather extreme statement in relation to 18th century British parliamentary representation. He claimed that it constituted a form of slavery punctuated by moments of liberty. Not many go along with that view and time has not proved Rousseau right, but it is now obvious that a more educated and analytical electorate is becoming less happy with the idea that once a leader is elected he does what he thinks best unchecked for the duration of an administration’s term of office.

A final caution: “Politicians, if they want to govern without disorder, must find a way to reflect majority opinion” – Anthony Seldon, Tony Blair’s biographer.