It is not easy to pigeon-hole the ideology of political parties these days. Most, if not all, sway from left to right and the other way around, depending on the circumstances and on what suits them most at that moment in time.
Political parties no longer rigidly follow the ideals that the forefathers of the institution they now lead or represent had when the party was formed. Today, parties consist of people with contrasting beliefs and diverse principles, who converge together in an attempt to find the right balance.
Parties survive in peace when this balance is kept. But many times it is upset, and politicians in the same structure pull in different directions. The rope rarely breaks, but the strength of the drag often leads to confrontation. This may not happen in public, although news of friction often seeps out to the media, which is only too glad to splash it.
Some say it is healthy that parties are made up of individuals who confront each other with ideas and arguments, whereas the more nostalgic ones believe that political parties should be more consistent in their creed and policies.
In the majority of cases, even individuals – including politicians – often blend right and left-wing policies in their thoughts and expressions. It is only the extremists who go to the far left or right and do not budge, come what may. Thankfully, there are few of them these days, although they unfortunately make a big noise.
Maltese political parties are the perfect example of what I am saying. There was a time when the Nationalist Party was deemed to be centre-right, if not just right-wing, while the Labour Party loved to call itself Socialist and moved very close to the extreme left, which is communism.
Today, the roles seem to have been reversed, as the Nationalist Party has often moved to the left side of the political spectrum, while the Labour Party on occasions has given strong indications that it has swung towards the right.
But, as I said earlier, it is not easy to pigeon-hole political parties these days because one day they come up with an idea that is deeply rooted in the right wing of politics, and the next day they go the other way with a policy or decision that is linked to the left.
Many believe that this way of doing politics is the best because the “average” of the decisions taken is the centre.
To the more sceptical, however, it is mostly the politics of convenience.
Let’s go into the specifics. In recent months, the Nationalist Party has officially taken a stand against divorce, a position that is associated with right-wing politics, which favours social order and discipline. But a week ago it went the other way completely when it took a left-wing decision to financially compensate the poorer section of the population for the increase in the price of fuel.
It was a kind of social service, albeit a one-off, that reminded many of the Labour days when everything possible was done to lift those at the bottom of the social ladder through benefits paid for by the taxpayer. And yet the Labour Party, which prides itself as having been the party that introduced and upgraded social services, chose to criticise it.
How things change.
The irony of it all is that, two days after Finance Minister Tonio Fenech announced that 34,000 families would be getting a one-off compensation payment of a minimum of €75, Enemalta Corporation issued a press statement saying that the price of unleaded petrol was going up by another four cents per litre, while that of diesel was increasing by one cent per litre.
So what is going to happen now? Will we have another long discussion at the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development to come up with another “one-off” compensation package? The unions have already started to grumble about this.
The thing is that a decision such as the one taken by the government always raises more questions than it answers.
For one thing, the Nationalist Party repeatedly accuses Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat of trying to please one and all, of speaking in populist terms and of doing everything possible to attract more votes.
Well, the one-off compensation idea precisely hits these same three targets that the PN accuses Dr Muscat of aiming at.
The second issue that comes to mind is the staggering number of families whose income does not exceed €8,158 per year. I find it hard to believe that there are 34,000 families, or 62,000 individuals, who earn no more than this amount in this day and age and if it really is the case, then we should see more beggars on the streets.
I understand that there are people whose income is low, and who need social assistance to achieve a decent standard of living, if it can be called as such. It can be argued that these people deserve to be helped, although I think that many of them do little to improve their situation and rely on governmental support rather than try harder to get a better job or work more.
But I suspect that many of those who will be receiving this benefit have slipped through the net and earn much more than they declare.
Those who, in this case, will not be receiving the one-off compensation will be doubly discriminated against – they are already paying more taxes because they earn more (and, being employees, declare every cent), and now have to pay for this social service to people who probably earn more than they do, but who do not contribute their share in taxes.
This financial compensation for these low-income (declared) families is in addition to the other support these people are receiving – and again paid through taxpayers’ money.
What we’re doing now is paying for their fuel too, as well as for their babies’ nappies.
What the Nationalists have not realised is that they have gained nothing from this move; if anything, they have lost. The majority of the families that will be receiving this compensation traditionally vote Labour and €75 is not going to make them change their mind. Those who will not receive anything, but who will be paying this compensation through their taxes, are higher-income families who normally vote PN – and they are fed up to be always on the losing end.
[email protected]