The result of the election held last week was not a surprise.
As all pre-election surveys were indicating, the Labour Party cruised to a comfortable victory, the third in a row, the third with a record margin.
From a gap of 35,000 reached in two elections in 2013 and 2017, Labour jumped to a 39,000 difference, a result which solidifies Robert Abela’s position.
Fewer votes were cast, and therefore the bigger gap that was achieved means that the distance between the PL and the PN has grown much more than the 4,000 extra votes indicate.
Robert Abela was not able to eclipse the personal votes achieved by his predecessor Joseph Muscat, but the overall result gives him the satisfaction that he has gone one better. Abela may not attract the same adoration that Muscat did (and still does), but Labour supporters have given him something to shout about.
As for the PN, the massive defeat continues to expose a party that is still to find its feet. A double change of leadership was not enough to eat into Labour’s majority. In spite of a government which committed many mistakes and embarrassed Malta on the international stage, the PN is still not seen as a valid alternative.
Let’s go into some more details.
Absenteeism
There is no doubt that the most significant message that was sent by the electorate is the high rate of absenteeism.
We were used to having huge turnouts in general elections, which topped 95% over five elections between 1987 and 2003, and settled in the 92-93% range in subsequent polls.
So for many it was quite a shock to see the number of voters drop so drastically. If one were really to look deeply into our system, the signs were there for all to see. It did not happen overnight.
Two years ago, the undersigned had written an article about this, entitled “Voter indifference likely to lead to lowest election turnout in 50 years”, in which the general disillusionment about the current political class was analysed. The prediction that we would fall below the 90% voter turnout figure turned out to be true.
The fact that around 15 per cent of the electorate did not bother to pick up their voting document or turn up at the polling station is not to be taken lightly. It means that one in seven voters, or two electoral districts, did not want to make use of the only weapon they have in our democracy – their right to vote to elect a government of their choice.
It means that, for them, no party deserves to be in power, for different reasons. They have given up.
Labour Party
For the majority of the people, the Labour Party continues to be the better option.
The people who voted Labour gave more consideration to the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, the strong economy and the infrastructural progress, as against shortcomings in good governance, a high level of nepotism and so many instances in which individual members of the government caused embarrassment.
Not even the murder of a journalist, the grey-listing of Malta by the Financial Action Task Force or the title of the man of the year in organised crime and corruption given to the previous Prime Minister could sway their vote.
Financial hand-outs given all throughout the legislature, and in particular in the last two weeks of the campaign, appeased many who failed to see through to the panem et circenses approach adopted by Labour. Keep the people happy, throw them some crumbs, and they will keep quiet.
The PL’s electoral programme is replete with more goodies to come in this term, unfortunately enhancing the idea that the government is there to act as a big brother and to hold one’s hand. A materialistic society accepts these gifts without question, and without seeing that it is being bought (not to say bribed) and that future generations will suffer the consequences, not only from the financial aspect.
Having more and more people relying on what the government has to offer, rather than work hard for a living, will lead to laziness and lack of initiative.
The Nationalist Party
The PN went through the ordeal of two changes of leadership after the 2017 election, a situation that exposed it as a fragmented party and one that is not fit to take over the country’s reins.
That the change from Adrian Delia to Bernard Grech took place after a group of MPs did not accept the election of the former is not something that the party that professed itself as the beacon of democracy should be proud of.
It could be that many of the 12,000 votes the PN lost in between the last two elections were as a result of pro-Delia people choosing not to support their party.
But, on the brighter side for the PN, the people who did vote for the party sent a strong message to the so-called rebels. Some of them did not contest the election, but many of those who did either struggled to be elected, or else have to rely on casual elections or the gender-mechanism process to make it to Parliament.
Instead, PN voters chose at least eight new MPs as part of the PN line-up, and the number could grow when the electoral procedures are completed.
And it is from here that Bernard Grech should start. Grech has said that he intends to continue as PN leader, and so far he is not being challenged. If confirmed, Grech should make it a point to listen to what the PN voters have told him.
Third parties
As expected, third parties have fared dismally again. ADPD is saying that it has doubled its votes since the last election, but this is only if the votes AD obtained in 2017 are counted.
If one had to consider the votes that were given to PD candidates in the 2017 election, and compare the result of the two parties together, then ADPD in 2022 obtained even fewer votes than what AD and PD obtained individually in 2017.
The other small parties obtained an insignificant number of preferences.
One must however give a special mention to independent candidate Arnold Cassola, whose single-handed contribution led him to obtain nearly double the votes he had obtained five years ago.
Co-option
Parliament is still to be officially opened, and yet we already have the first co-option.
The Labour Party has chosen to co-opt Randolph Debattista, and this happened after its executive decided that Michael Falzon and Clifton Grima both give up the seat they obtained in the ninth district.
This meant that only one candidate was eligible to replace either of them, and so a co-option is needed. The party, on the recommendation of Abela, went for its former CEO.
In other cases where two candidates were elected from two districts, the PL chose to have elected MPs give up seats on different districts so as to allow for casual elections to take place. It is a procedure that allows unelected candidates to try their chances again and, after spending many months of campaigning, it is a fairer approach. Casual elections mean that the elected MPs come from among a list of candidates who the people voted for.
The PL did not choose this road with regard to Falzon and Grima. Fairness would have demanded that one of them gives up the ninth, and the other the 10th, so as to allow unelected candidates on the 10th district to have another opportunity. But Labour chose to have them both cede the seat obtained on the ninth district.
Prime Minister Abela later explained that this is part of the regeneration process that the party wants to implement. In other words, what he was saying that the PL did not want to give the chance to Evarist Bartolo to make it via a casual election. Bartolo had been an MP for 30 years, and had been elected on two districts in all elections he contested since 1992.
This is not a new thing from Abela. Under his tenure as PM in the past legislature, five MPs made it to Parliament via co-options when casual elections would have been the more appropriate way of having a candidate elected.
It is clear that Robert Abela intends to keep choosing the people he wants to be part of his team, rather than have the people be the ones to choose their representatives.
What is also questionable is that the PL chose to co-opt someone who did not even contest the election held last week. There were many candidates in the PL fold who were not elected, and if the PL did not want to give Bartolo and other candidates on the 10th district a chance, then the second best option was for it to pick from among the unelected candidates who at least had their name on the ballot sheet.
But Abela wanted otherwise, and hand-picked Debattista.
This was in complete disregard to the electoral process which is the foundation of our democracy.