When Marlene Farrugia announced her plans for a new party, the main political groups came out stating that a third party is a threat to the economy. But is this a correct political analysis? The story goes that after the introduction of the 1921 Constitution, a deputy in the National Assembly used to twirl a key on the tip of his thumb and forefinger to indicate that he held the key for any member in the assembly to form a government.

This story was mentioned by a blogger who must have been referring to Canon Karm Bugelli of Cospicua. Bugelli was elected on the Unione Politica Maltese ticket – the future PN party - but crossed over to the Labour Party. Yet, he was not alone in those days to change sides. Nevertheless, the presence of a third and more parties remained a constant feature of Malta up till 1962. After that election, both main political parties agreed implicitly to destroy the prospects of a third party being present in Parliament.

The most important third party in the sixties was that of Herbert Ganado. Kurunato Attard (Giovanna Debono’s father) moved from Herbert Ganado’s party to the Nationalist Party of Borg Olivier. The official reason given was that Attard disagreed with Ganado on the independence issue. I am not sure if this is the true reason for such a defection. There were more complex issues at the time linked to the decision taken, back in the 1960s in the back corridors of the Curia, to dump Herbert Ganado in favour of Toni Pellegrini’s Christian Workers' Party. As a Gozitan, Attard must have been informed in time and saved his political career. Toni Pellegrini himself defected and crossed over to Mintoff, becoming one of his most staunch supporters and anti-Catholic to join Mintoff’s party. The fifty years’ duration of third and more parties came to an end.

Yet, what actually came to an end was their presence in Parliament. From time to time, there have been debates in Malta about the need for a third party. Michael Vella (Daphne Caruana Galizia’s father) and Lino Briguglio (the father of Michael Briguglio who led Alternattiva) set up their party on the eve of the 1987 election. After elections, problems within Labour led WenzuMintoff and Toni Abela to join Arnold Cassola (who till then was with the Nationalists) to form together with PeppiAzzopardi and Saviour Balzan and others, Alternattiva Demokratika. After some years, the first two returned back within the Labour fold. Saviour Balzan joined John Dalli and Peppi Azzopardi became the uomo di fiducia of both the Nationalist Party and Labour Party. The only one who persevered along the way was Arnold Cassola while new members joined up.    

Still new parties appeared including those of Norman Lowell, Josie Muscat and Anglu Xuereb. We are discussing here, once again, the option of a third party. While the main parties did not take Josie’s or Lowell’s parties seriously, the option that Marlene Farrugia is pursing worries the main parties because at the moment she is in Parliament and there could be other MPs from the Labour side who may wish to join her.

The only difference that exists today is that both parties stand for the same 'ideals'. This was not the case in 1987. In those days, there were a number of ideological and economic differences between the two main parties. Today, Labour is continuing where the NP left off in the economic sector. Ideologically, they both stand for the same liberal principles and both have dumped religion and Christian belief from their political manifestos. Their neo-liberal stand may appear beneficial to the economy. In reality, it is not. It will favour the established bigger and stronger one. However, those who are small or wish to set up a business will find the whole bureaucratic structure of the State against them. despite innumerableentities set to give assistance.

In this scenario, the creation of a third party or more is not a threat to the economy. On the contrary, this is something that our economy needs. Our economy needs another party, in particular, if one is in business and is not in the favour of the big parties. It is a fact that the big businessmen support the two main parties. Therefore a change of government would not make any difference to them. They will remain in government. There is no need to spell names but big businessmen, whom the Labour Opposition used to deride and accuse of being NP financiers, today have free access to Castile. 

In this scenario, the formation of a third or more parties is beneficial to the small businesses and economy. They are not a point of political instability. Should the third party elect representatives, the big parties can always unite now that they are all proud of their liberal stance. In ideology, they are all in favour of divorce, gay marriages and abortion. Therefore, with the two big parties sharing the same political and ideological stand, there should be no difficulty for them to unite and form one significant coalition.

The problem will be whether the small parties will succeed or not. In reality, we have more than one third party. The party that proves itself to be anti-establishment can make it in the next elections. This is what is happening in America. This is why Sanders and Trump have been having success. They may appear different to our eyes, but they have one common feature. Both are anti-establishment. They are not part of the American elite and the big American clans. The word Socialist was taboo in America until Obama’s political mess. Sanders turned that taboo into a reality. The same happened with Trump. He is discussing issues like migration and Islam that till now were never openly mentioned in American politics.

For a third party to make it in the next election to be held in Malta, it needs to fuse Trump’s and Sanders’ ideals. But more importantly, it needs to carry a Christian ideology.  The party which succeeds in this endeavour will make it into the local arena and will become truly Malta's third political pillar.