Do we really need surveys?

The idea of a democracy is to allow the people to exercise their sovereignty, since the basic concept is that in a democracy the people are sovereign. It’s true that candidates offer to represent the people and administer the polity on behalf of the people. But it’s the people who chose who’s to run the show, after they listen to what the candidates, organised in political parties, have to offer via manifestos.

At least, that’s the ideal we aspire to. In reality, many people think in terms of tribalism, “us and them”. One deludes oneself if one thinks that the level of education has any impact on tribalism. I know people, with doctorates no less, who moronically don’t help new converts to their “tribe” because they once belonged to the other tribe. These are modern-day inquisitors, who, like their moral ancestors, find it hard to believe that converts adhere to the tenets of their new faith. It seems to me that the inquisitor mindset transcends epochs – even outside an ecclesiastical context, this mindset still pushes “inquisitors” to eliminate those they perceive as “misfits”.

So, party politics is dominated by the us-and-them mentality. Many think and vote in a primitive, tribal fashion.

And yet, there’s a minority, probably growing in numbers but still a minority, that votes after really weighing what the parties are offering. This minority makes democracy worthwhile.

Which is why I wonder whether surveys are healthy for a democracy. Consider the surveys of these last few years. Newspapers commission statisticians and other experts not to gauge the mood of the governed but to ask the question, “Who would you vote for if an election were held tomorrow?”

This question is based on a wrong premise, and is not healthy for democracy.

If pre-electoral-campaign surveys were meant to determine how voters rate the government of the day, I wouldn’t say anything. But surveys ask voters how they would vote before have gone through an electoral campaign, thereby excluding from the equation democracy’s quintessential element: the electoral manifesto. Surveys seem based on the fanciful idea that a campaign means nothing more than going through the motions. When this is not the case!

A democracy presupposes that voters vote according to the promises and vision found in party manifestos, because that is what the politicians should deliver if elected. Asking voters to declare their voting intentions before the manifestos are properly discussed is like asking someone at the restaurant to choose a dish before reading the menu.

Even before the 2022 electoral campaign started, we were constantly bombarded with survey results. What’s the purpose of these surveys? What’s their relevance?

Surveys seem to undermine the credibility of certain politicians. Instead of allowing all politicians to compete for our votes on a level playing field, the campaign already starts off with the newspapers declaring that one party or one party leader enjoys more support than another. They even have the gall to call it scientific! How can it be scientific when the campaign hasn’t even started? What are voting intentions at this stage of the democratic process based on? Impressions, feelings, tribalism…? Certainly not on the most important element: the vision and promises found in manifestos. Manifestos need to be publicly discussed before voters make their minds up and express a significant opinion for the surveys to capture. That is why there’s the day of reflection, when politicians have to stop campaigning to allow voters to weigh the options.

Surveys end up influencing public reactions to manifestos. This inversion is a disservice to democracy. Surveys create a contextual prejudice that devalues politicians’ promises. They thus affect the reactions to the promises, creating self-fulfilling prophecies. It’s as if you want to analyse water purity, but first you yourself throw in contaminants and then you proceed to analyse the contaminated water. You would first create the contamination and then you would find it!

In this topsy-turvy approach, instead of debating whether electoral promises are feasible or their potential consequences beneficial, we get a series of worthless surveys that gauge emotions.

It’s more like marketing than politics. Voters are treated like consumers instead of participants in the political process.

Certain journalists seem happy with this situation. Because it’s easy. Not like analysing promises and their costs, which requires mental energy.

Instead of having an intelligent democracy, we have a sort of reality show, with people voting who should leave the casa del grande fratello and who should stay. Democracy isn’t a reality show. We don’t vote for a game but for the best ideas and the people best equipped to implement those ideas. Surveys don’t help in this exercise. Not only are they an obstacle to real democracy – they are but an exercise in narcissism on a grand scale. There’s only one survey that matters: the General Elections.

Friends of Keith Schembri

I followed carefully a recent court sitting. The defence team made a fundamental point: people shouldn’t be punished for “political” reasons.

We shouldn’t discuss the case per se; it’s still sub-judice and all that. But the point raised by the defence isn’t purely judicial – it’s also political.

Two individuals have had their assets frozen even though the prosecutors knew they had made no personal gains out of whatever it is that the case is about. These two individuals have been punished – the defence spoke of “bankruptcy” – without there being a crime.

This constitutes a breach of the sacred principle of criminal (and constitutional) law that there can be no punishment without there also being a crime.

Let me be clear. I don’t like Keith Schembri – as everybody knows, I even wrote a book to denounce his abuse of office and all that. I don’t know Keith Schembri personally, so my dislike is not personal. If instead of Keith Schembri, it had been “Mr X”, I would have written the book against “Mr X”. Mine wasn’t an ad hominem attack, but a matter of principle. Which doesn’t mean that I don’t want to see Mr Schembri go to jail if he’s found guilty of having committed one or more crimes. But it means that if he goes to jail, it must be after a procedure that follows due process; and once behind bars, I wouldn’t want him to be mistreated by some warden who watched too many movies. I would simply want him to get the punishment envisaged by the law, no more, no less. The law shouldn’t be an instrument in the toolbox of the mighty; people should be punished according to processes that are – as much as is humanly possible – politically neutral.

I don’t know the two people involved in the case I referred to above. They are neither friends of mine nor enemies. And if they’re guilty of something, they should pay for it. No ifs and buts. Yet, if they are innocent, and the prosecutors know beforehand that they’re innocent, then I cannot be quiet. I have a moral duty to stand up for them. I’m not part of their defence team, so I won’t be paid for it. But I’m a citizen of this country, and it is in my interest – as it is in everybody’s interest – that there be the rule of law. One aspect of the rule of law is that there should be no punishment without a crime. If these two individuals didn’t commit a crime, and the prosecutors knew it, then they shouldn’t have been punished by having their assets frozen.

This case is even more sordid because, to top it all, the punishment wasn’t meted out after a deliberative trial – they were punished through a preliminary measure. If it’s true that these two individuals have gone bankrupt, then a grave injustice has taken place. And the defence team is right to be angry. I support righteous anger.

What’s worse is that the gravity of the situation hasn’t been properly analysed by the “fourth organ” of the State… probably because surveys are more fun and don’t require background reading in philosophy of law, moral philosophy, and the real principles of liberalism. And probably because the two individuals are “friends of Keith Schembri”.

I’m disgusted. Justice is represented by a lady who holds a sword in one hand and a balance in the other. And she’s blindfolded. Justice shouldn’t depend on the identity of the individual, but on the merits of the case. If the balance tips in favour of the accused, then the accused is acquitted. If not, then Justice uses the sword. But Lady Justice is blindfolded.

That this isn’t understood because we’re too occupied watching the reality show of politics, is a sure sign of the immaturity of our democracy.

Ian Borg

Minister Borg has to stand tall in this dark hour. The U-turn on the Marsaskala marina project is clearly a no-confidence vote in him. Will he be able to convince the intelligent members of the public that this isn’t the case?

Owen Bonnici

Minister Bonnici was given a ministry that can be best described as insignificant. Whereas I disagree with Prime Minister Abela on most issues, on this one I think I agree with him hands down.

Dr Abela astutely realised that Owen Bonnici is a feather-weight who wants to compete with the heavy weights, and gave a clear message to the electorate. He couldn’t deny Dr Bonnici a portfolio; so when Dr Bonnici looked at him imploringly, babbling “Zippity zoppity, give me the boppity”, Dr Abela gave him a portfolio that knowledgeable onlookers understood as meaning, “I don’t like having this guy in the Cabinet of Ministers, but I have inherited him from my predecessor, so, hey, what can I do?”

Well, now the electorate has the chance to respond to Robert Abela’s coded message and show Owen Bonnici the door.

Just consider the incredible U-turn on the Żonqor issue. In 2016, Owen Bonnici was overjoyed at the prospect of virgin land being built up to house a “dormitory” for the newly-set-up AUM; now, six years later, he’s equally overjoyed that the land is going back to the State! One can easily understand Robert Abela’s frustration at having Dr Bonnici participate in Cabinet meetings – the man is a useless weathercock.

Dr Bonnici’s further confirming his uselessness by disagreeing now with the Marsaskala marina plans published last summer. Apart from inducing one to question why he needs to undermine his colleague Ian Borg – weren’t the negative opinions of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister enough? – one has to wonder why he is speaking only now.

Whichever way you look at it, you have to agree with the deduction made from Robert Abela’s decision to entrust him with an insignificant portfolio: Owen Bonnici is not Cabinet material.