When voting, time after time, the Maltese people decided that they would only choose between two parties. If in future democratically they do decide differently... say for having three to four parties... in no way could one contest that decision, it’s up to them.

So long as we maintain a two-party system, one consequence has come to mean that who of the two wins, “takes all”. The winner obtains total control over who does what, as well as on the choice of future directions. This point, which to me appears crucial, has been mentioned much less recently than the predominance in running the government enjoyed by whoever has the role of Prime Minister.

I have long been asking myself the question but still have not discovered a reply that is sufficiently “correct”: What can be done by way of checks and balances that curb the winner takes all system and thereby create a better balance in the exercise of executive powers?

***

URBAN CORES

There was a time when protecting the urban cores of towns and villages, especially traditional ones, was considered a main objective of environmental policy as it related to construction. Some emphasize that this is still the case but I think a number of instances, and not just in Sliema, indicate they are wrong.

It has become necessary to solve this problem. Possibly, while that is being done, we need to establish a more stringent definition of what constitutes an urban core that requires full protection – a definition that allows for the clear and strict recognition of the spread and limits of cores that need to be conserved.

The concern will still remain that when this is being carried out, some will still manage to feather their nest.

***

POLITICAL PARTY MEDIA

I totally disagree with a proposal that has resurfaced to close down the political party media. Exactly which media should be wound down? Would newspapers be included, or is it the case that since their sales are down, it won’t matter if the parties continue to publish them?

And according to which logic would party media be shut down, but not say the “religious” radio stations?

If one then turns to the so-called “independent” media, should we start controlling whoever owns shares in them? If the owners of Lidl or Farsons or Gasan get involved in the “independent” media, should they still be allowed to stay in control when they reach a dominant position in the markets where they compete? Should the “independent” media be monitored to check whether they are being objective when reporting current political and economic news?

The most important task carried out by the political parties occurs when they transmit their messages. It is the people who then come to a judgement regarding the content and style of such messages. To hinder parties from getting their message across is an attack on freedom of speech. It is curious that among those who are pushing for such an approach, there are people who boast about their commitment to this particular liberty.