Political parties are drawing up their election manifestos, which they will then present to the public once the Prime Minister announces the date of the next election.

Electoral programmes are the parties’ pledges to the people. They are the promises that political parties make to get themselves elected. If they do win, they then set out to bring them to fruition.

It is a complex process, one that takes months of planning. Electoral programmes are built on ideas that the parties pick up in the course of a legislature. Many times it would be just a plan for an update of existing legislation in the hope to make things better. On occasion, they would be fresh thoughts that could lead to bigger changes in our society.

We have had some so-called revolutionary ideas over the past years. Civil unions, gay marriages and cannabis legislation were all introduced in the last decade, much to the pleasure of the more liberal sector of the electorate.

They were all part of the electoral manifestos presented by the Labour Party before the last two elections.

But do the people really vote for a party depending on what is listed in the pre-election programme? Or do they vote according to tradition and would not even know what promises “their” party is making?

Just to use the radical changes mentioned above as examples, did all Labour voters want civil unions, gay marriages and recreational cannabis?

Don’t think so.

Careful wording

Political parties are very careful in how they present their election manifesto. After all, it is like a contract they are “signing” with the voters. If they don’t fulfil their pledges, then it would be tantamount to breaking that deal.

And so they use vague words and descriptions to leave so much to interpretation, just in case they do not manage to carry out what they plan, or have a change of heart.

For example, in the last election programme, the Labour Party presented their thoughts on cannabis in this way: “The next step is a national debate on whether we should go further… including a discussion on the use of cannabis for recreational purposes”.

So by saying there is a need for a national debate, the PL did not really pledge to introduce legislation on the use of cannabis for recreational purposes. They were just saying they want to talk about it. Maybe they did not want to irk the Labour traditional core that did not want cannabis use to be made legal, possibly knowing that the party grassroots did not really like the idea.

But they put the cannabis carrot before those who are in favour of cannabis use, including thousands of youngsters who are more likely to experiment with the drug. In this way, the PL manifesto did not say that recreational cannabis legislation was a done deal, but at the same time hinted that it was something they intended to do after a nationwide discussion.

In other words, they were keeping all options open.

The wording pleased both those who were against the idea, and those in favour. It allowed for hope on both sides – those against thought there will be a discussion but the law will not come to be; those in favour believed that there will be a discussion followed by legislation.

That, then, the Labour government introduced the legislation in spite of the opposition of 60 NGOs is another matter. So much for having a national debate.

It would not be a surprise if other, controversial subjects find their way in party political programmes ahead of the next election.

Euthanasia and abortion quickly come to mind.

More clear

So now is the time to urge the political parties, all of them, to be clearer on these and other matters.

As they prepare their election manifesto, they should understand that it is vital for the people to know what their plans are, particularly on such delicate subjects.

Like many other issues pertaining to what are known as “civil rights”, both abortion and euthanasia are topics that divide populations. This division is across the political parties. There are Labourites who would be in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, given the choice, in the same way that there are Labourites who are adamantly against one or both. Likewise, there are Nationalists who see nothing wrong in enacting laws allowing abortion and/or euthanasia, but then there are other Nationalists who would shun one or both with disdain.

Just as much over many years we moved – some would say slowly, others would say too fast – in the direction of having civil unions, gay marriages and recreational cannabis legislation, both abortion and euthanasia are also subjects that have come up very often on the national agenda. We are going down that road when we will make a decision, one way or the other.

The Labour Party has given a hint on what it thinks about euthanasia. In a document it prepared with what it described as 100 ideas for discussion, it proposed a “national discussion” on “voluntary euthanasia for people with a terminal illness”.

Doesn’t this sound like the wording Labour used for its plans on cannabis?

Given that euthanasia is already on Labour’s agenda (the list of 100 ideas), it is likely that the subject will find a place on the election manifesto too.

What is hoped is that the PL will be clearer. Likewise, if the PN has something similar on its mind, it should also express itself well on what its intentions are.

What is left out

What should not be repeated is what happened with the sale of passports scheme, introduced by the Labour government in 2013. That was not on the PL’s electoral programme. It was something that Labour kept up its sleeve until it won the election, and could then launch the idea.

It was a sneaky way of doing things. It’s probable that Labour thought that if such an idea was included in the 2013 programme, it would have possibly dented its chances. Given the way Labour won the 2013 election, the PL would have won the election anyway, perhaps with a smaller margin. With hindsight, it should have taken the risk of sharing the idea before the election took place.

Maybe word it in such a way as not to attract too much attention. Maybe the PN would have missed it.

Whatever the case, the passport scheme remains a highly contentious subject, with the European Union still insisting – right to this very day – that Malta should not open access to Europe so easily to non-Europeans. Only this week, we had MEPS in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs overwhelmingly voting to ban these so-called golden passports and golden visas.

In the approved text, MEPs stressed that ‘citizenship by investment’ (CBI) schemes, under which third country nationals can get nationality rights in exchange for an investment, are “objectionable from an ethical, legal and economic point of view, and pose several serious security risks”. So-called ‘golden passports’ undermine the essence of EU citizenship and should be phased out, they insist.

Malta is one of the three EU states that offer CBI schemes.

On the other hand, the Maltese government insists that there is nothing wrong and that, after all, the money being collected is being used for good purpose.

One of the questions that arise before each election is whether the parties are listing all they intend to do, if they are elected. We hope there will not be any more surprises.

Public views

Then again, it would be interesting to know how many voters bother to read the political parties’ pre-election proposals.

A good guess would be that very few do. Some would bother to have a quick look at what the party they support is proposing, but most would not spend a minute on it, let alone see what the political opponents are suggesting.

Those thousands who wear red and blue and go to mass meetings waving flags and shouting slogans will probably not be able to say what the manifesto’s slogan is.

Still, voters should go through electoral programmes. It would help them form a better opinion of what is being suggested, and then they would be able to hold parties to account if promises are not kept or parties deviate from their official proposals.

After all, electoral programmes set the agenda, and the people voting in an election have a right to know where political parties want to take them – at least, as far as promises go.

Whether they are fulfilled is another matter. But then, another election will come.