Our political system is witnessing an increasing degree of polarisation and a low sense of common purpose. Should we blame democracy itself, or should we blame ourselves for the pathologies of our own politics? We have been living through a dispiriting descent of Maltese politics and governance into pervasive paralysis, conflict, and sheer mediocrity. It is no wonder, then, if many of our ills perhaps result from the intrinsic shortcomings of our democratic model itself. Democracy has design flaws, if you will.
Doubts about the value and wisdom of democracy are growing at a faster rate than ever, and so too are voices arguing that the continuity of an incumbent regime, for better or for worse, might be more tempting as they become more and more loathe to a change in government and having to start from scratch again. Let us briefly delve into a few stark realities that have emerged from our last two or three general elections and their aftermath.
Is it not a reality that we are seeing short-termism, thanks to our electoral cycle, where our democracy is struggling to focus on long-term problems and is prone to remaining mired in short-term policy approaches? Is it not a reality that our politicians suffer from pain aversion, in the sense that they are averse to imposing near-term pain for long-term gain because of their need to keep voters happy for the next election? Is it not a reality that by opening up decision-making power to competition among rival politicians who are constantly in need of money for elections, our democratic system is prone to being captured by the wealthy? And is it not a reality that relying on ordinary citizens to choose leaders and make judgements among them based on policy performance is condemning our democracy to leadership and policy choices that reflect chronic voter ignorance and irrationality? And looking at the state of our political leadership today, it would be hard not to see voter ignorance and irrationality as major concerns.
Certainly, these are all serious issues in our small country. Successive nationalist and labour administrations have proven woefully unable to focus sustained attention on a raft of major long-term challenges, whether it is infrastructure decay, a consistent and sustainable national supply of energy, the public transport conundrum, or climate change, and are unwilling to craft reforms that inflict short-term pain for the sake of long-term gain. The tendency of our politicians to avoid any fiscal or other economic reforms that involve near-term belt-tightening has become a major problem for the fiscal health of Malta. Occasionally, the odd politician talks a good game about the need for budget austerity, but when push comes to shove, they reveal themselves to be deficit doves. Of course, Malta is hardly alone among democracies in its chronic inability to inflict short-term pain for long-term gain. Many peer democracies, including Belgium, France, and Italy, have struggled in recent decades to cut budgets and reduce high levels of public debt.
The distorting and often corrupting role of money is almost always an issue in our democracy, but certain legal and economic policy choices specific to us are aggravating this problem. These include what in fact amount to tax breaks and other policies that contribute to high levels of inequality, especially the rapid expansion in recent years of a class of super-rich citizens, and a campaign-financing system that allows enormous amounts of funding through political action committees.
Sometimes, I scratch my head over why we, the Maltese, think it makes sense to have a political system that seems to sharpen societal divisions rather than emphasise consensus and unity. It is easy to invoke the standard answer: that competitive pluralism helps ensure that diverse interests in society are well represented by the government and encourages different groups and perspectives to forge productive compromises and hold each other accountable. Yet, it is hard to offer that answer without acknowledging that polarisation is indeed a serious problem in Maltese democracy, one that has reached a fever pitch in recent years, fostering legislative gridlock, reducing public trust in the judiciary and other key institutions, and fuelling social tensions and anger.
Our present state of democracy constitutes a systemic risk that impacts fiduciary duties. More and more people have the perception that Maltese democracy is backsliding towards failure. We are wont to distinguish sharply between democracy in principle and practice. There is near-universal agreement that our system is not working well, in particular that it is not delivering the results people want. This is troubling because most people value democracy for its fruits, not just its roots.
It is not surprising that public support is very high for fundamental change in our political system to make it work better. There is no party to the status quo in contemporary Malta. Both sides want change, but they disagree about the direction of that change. And because it has not changed despite growing dysfunction, polarisation has led to legislative gridlock, which has generated rising support for unfettered executive action to carry out the people’s will.
It is my personal opinion that if democracy fails in Malta, it will not be because a majority of Maltese are demanding a non-democratic form of government. It will be because an organised, purposeful minority would have seized strategic positions within the system and subverted the substance of democracy while retaining its shell, while the majority are not well organised or do not care enough to resist.
Dr Mark Said is an advocate