Oligarchy has once again found its way back into the Maltese political lexicon. This time around, however, the defecting MP raising the alarm against her own government’s methods comes from the other side of the political divide. As reported by The Malta Independent, the Honourable Marlene Farrugia lashed out at Labour, claiming that “the oligarchy remained, with different faces and less competence”.

She further fired the accusation that “Labour is no longer a Labour party, as a few businessmen are pulling the strings of government”. The charge echoes the plea of Anglu Farrugia, then deputy leader of the Labour Party, to save Labour from a takeover by the so-called ‘fourth-floor fat cats, whose support Joseph Muscat did not mind enjoying in his early days in Opposition.

The promise of inclusion: the wolf in sheep’s clothing

Irrespective of whether or not one agrees with the accusation that the previous administration was actually an oligarchy, in other words if, by that, one does not simply mean a very small Cabinet of Ministers that could not include one and all, the Taghna Lkoll Labour election victory was believed to have supposedly spelt the political death of that previous evil clique whilst simultaneously ushering in a new era of inclusive democratic politics.  

In my very first opinion piece post 2013 election, I myself argued that Labour had won the election because, amongst other things, the Malta Taghna Lkoll mantra had addressed the human need for recognition and the perceived lack of this given by the Nationalist administration due to its required focus on macro-issues. Interestingly enough, Professor Paul Bartolo subsequently published a detailed study on the very important role that recognition and inclusion had in the 2013 election and how Labour’s discourse addressed the issues. 

But, as one long-gone leftist scholar would have humbly suggested to the Labour Party, “the point is not to interpret the world but to change it”. And as former Labour MP Marlene Farrugia argues, people have simply been taken for a ride. If a pre-election study on discourse had pointed towards inclusion, a post-election one on action would undoubtedly point towards oligarchy.

Technocracy: strengthening the powerful elite and weakening democracy?

Joseph Muscat has lately expressed a favourable attitude towards changing the Constitution to allow the appointment of unelected technocrats to the Cabinet of Ministers. What happened to the self-proclaimed best Cabinet ever in Maltese history? Has losing so many ministers, following as many blunders, left the Prime Minister short of options rather than spoilt for choice, or is it simply a matter of control and a desire to concentrate power into fewer hands? 

Before delving deeper into such constitutional changes, one has to remember a number of factors. Firstly, the Labour Government has not supported calls for actual political party financing by the state and is thus leaving parties at the mercy of ‘fourth floor’ fat cat funding. Secondly Marlene Farrugia has stated publicly what others have been saying repeatedly behind closed doors: “The Labour party has destroyed its internal democracy making it difficult to convince the country that it can lead in a democratic way”. Thirdly, political campaigning has been steadily shifting towards presidential style campaigning where the leader’s image and persona is built at the expense of political ideology and policy.

But do we also need a presidential system of government? Is the Prime Minister saying that, in spite of all this talking about the widening of democratic participation, he is actually prepared to deprive the people of a say in the choice of Cabinet Ministers he is intending to make? Is the Prime Minister actually saying that the man in the street can no longer have a say, at least once every five years, about axing any of his ministers, no matter how insensitive to their needs that minister might be? Do we not have enough unaccountable and quasi invisible technocrats in positions of leadership in the country’s bureaucratic regime? Why would we want to dilute the power of the people and their representatives?

Of course, there is nothing wrong with discussing the benefits of different systems but there is no value in dismantling a system just for the sake of changing it or – worse – for some hidden purpose. We need honest, far-sighted, hard-working leaders, not power-hungry emperors.

When the people lose control of the system, the ruling elite will only get stronger. The clique will tighten its grip on both power and wealth and that can only result in more corruption scandals such as the Strada Zekka and the Café Premier, while the common man feeds on crumbles.

It is only through sound democratic practices that we can hope to have the government we deserve.