A Nationalist Party candidate recently told me that, during one of the home visits he was making in the run-up to the general election, a lady told him that she will not be voting PN because a supermarket chain she cherishes did not open one of its complexes in the area in which she lives.
This woman told the PN candidate that she does not care that the economy is doing well, that her husband and two sons have a good job and that the government has invested heavily in the health and education sector. All she’s interested in is the convenience of having a supermarket of her liking close to home.
She thinks that the government has the power – or should have the power – to force a private company to open up supermarkets wherever the government deems fit. She does not realise – or does not want to realise – that a Labour Party victory would not mean that her wish will be granted.
I am saying this to give just one example of the selfish considerations people make before they vote. Now, this may be an extreme case, one of outright egoism and stupidity. But there are many people who choose the party they would like in government not on its previous successes or future plans, but on what they would be gaining on a personal level.
They do not see the overall picture. They do not give two hoots about the national situation. All they are interested in is having what they want. In the case of this woman, she is prepared to ignore all the other good things she admits the government has achieved just to be able to buy a can of peeled tomatoes or tuna fish without having to get into a car.
When politicians knock on doors to meet families and get to know what is being debated in kitchens – to use a phrase coined by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi earlier this year when he urged his party to move closer to the people – they come across many of these situations. And there are several occasions when they are genuinely surprised with the explanations given by the people they visit as to why they will vote this way or that way, or not at all.
For people who vote for one party or another, irrespective of what these parties do, or who vote after analysing past successes and failures and future plans of each party, this line of thinking is hard to understand and accept. People who vote with their heart or with their mind cannot grasp how other voters end up basing their decision at election time on selfish matters.
That is perhaps why then many diehard supporters – but not only them – are genuinely irked that people who do not vote end up in favourable positions such as getting jobs in a ministry or getting paid for other government part-time assignments – it would mean that the selfishness of these people paid off, and they have been rewarded for it.
I would not want to be in the shoes of the politician who comes across people who see only their pockets or their convenience. I can understand those who believe that Party A is better than Party B, or the other way round. But people who vote for one party, or choose not to vote at all, because they were given or refused a permit, or because the road they live in was tarmacked or left in a state of disrepair, rub me up the wrong way. I would be so angry with these voters’ short-sightedness that I would lose my temper and, rather than try to persuade them to change their mind, I would end up arguing with them – and losing their vote forever.
Perhaps that’s why I am a journalist and not a politician.
Yet the vote – or non-vote – of these self-centred people carries the same weight as that of the rest of us, and they cannot be ignored. We all know that, here in Malta, elections are won and lost by a few hundred votes – and thus every vote counts. And so people who base their decision on frivolous matters – the supermarket thing is just one case, but there are many others – must be taken into account as well.
Still, it would be completely wrong if politicians were to try and please one and all, and dish out promises that cannot be maintained. The politician who told me about the supermarket incident did not tell the woman in question that a PN victory would satisfy her request. It would have been highly irresponsible of him had he done so to earn her vote. Politicians who do make such promises may be trusted a first time, but their betrayal would prove costly.
I’m afraid, however, that there are politicians who do promise the impossible when they are in one-on-one situations. In the majority of cases, they do it when face to face with the more vulnerable members of our society, the uneducated, the uninformed and the gullible. It is unfortunate that these politicians resort to such a strategy just for the sake of obtaining a vote.
This argument can be extended on a macro level. Because, just as much as it is wrong for politicians to promise everything they are asked for during individual meetings, it is equally immoral for politicians to make contrasting promises depending on to whom they are talking. They cannot tell hunters that they will be allowed to practice their hobby indiscriminately and then tell environmentalists that hunting will be strictly curtailed, just to give one example. They cannot promise everything to everyone.
It is imprudent and unwise for them to do so. One day, their empty promises will come back to haunt them.
[email protected]