We traditionally and politically associate the colour red with the progressive Labour Party, while the colour blue is associated with the conservative Nationalist Party. Mix both colours, and you get the colour purple. There was a time when there was a great ideological divide between our two main political parties. Yet, in this day and age, it is quite difficult to sort out and identify any major ideological differences between the two. They no longer cross swords on ideological grounds or fundamental principles but on other issues that transcend ideologies and core political beliefs.
An analysis of this phenomenon should reveal that we have a purple-tainted political typology in Malta. Differences between Nationalists and Labourites should be as stark as those between libertarians and authoritarians, even though both political parties have liberal and illiberal leanings, respectively. Contrasts come down to the issues on which they are either more or less liberal, which almost always differ. In other words, Nationalists are more liberal when it comes to economic freedom, whereas Labourites tend to be more liberal when it comes to personal freedom. This inversion of commitments means both political parties will make a common cause with libertarians or authoritarians (depending on the issue), but rarely with each other. Such a stark contrast should create the left-right dichotomy that seems to be more familiar in contemporary politics. Still, that dichotomy obscures the liberal/illiberal distinction, which is increasingly important in twenty-first-century Malta.
Due to the two main parties’ inverted commitments to either economic or personal freedom, respectively, there are virtually no similarities between Nationalists and Labourites. Nationalists should be seen as scoring higher on economic freedom but lower on personal freedom. Yet, at least in theory, we are witnessing a growing number of young PN activists who score higher on personal freedom as time goes by, even at the risk of being chastised by their party’s leadership. It is hardly anymore the case that Nationalists think that too much personal freedom breeds widespread immorality or worry that excesses in personal freedom can lead to cultural or civilizational decline.
On the flip side of the coin, we should be seeing Labour score lower on economic freedom but higher on personal freedom, meaning that Labourites should be quicker to embrace values of personal choice but place a comparatively lower value on private property rights or investment, production, and exchange. We should be having the Labour Party preach that capitalism is a system that allows the strong to prey upon the vulnerable. In reality and practice, however, the opposite is quite true. Both economic and personal freedom are rife, and we have a growing hybrid and dangerous brand of capitalism in this small country. Should it be called ‘socialist capitalism’?
Ideologically, Labour should portray itself as an advocate for those it considers dispossessed or disenfranchised, favouring wealth redistribution. Such redistributive policies include raising taxes and revenues to fund centralised social programmes or welfare schemes. Yet, what the PN should have been doing years ago, lowering tax rates, ended up being done by Labour, making up for this shortfall by selling Malta and its citizenship in the Euro to foreigners.
Part of the confusion hinges on the fact that the generic meanings of Nationalist and Labourite have nothing to do with the political ideologies to which the labels correspond. When people first learn about politics, they often assume that Labour progressives are the good guys. Who, after all, could possibly be against progress? Similarly, who would want to be a Nationalist conservative stuck in the past? But do progressive political ideas actually drive progress? Do conservative ones keep us stuck in the past? Not necessarily. The labels progressivism and conservatism are arbitrary, mere verbal shells. It is their content that matters.
If the generic meaning of these labels really coincided with their respective political ideologies, we should all become progressives. Then, assuming that we could take the reigns of government, our society would, by definition, progress. But the truth is that it does not matter how we label our ideas. They either help us solve problems or they do not.
I have come across several middle-aged floating voters who have confessed and confided in me that they do not swear any allegiance or pledge any loyalty to either of the main political parties or to any political ideology. They do not, today, discern any ideological differences between them, save perhaps when it comes to performance and action. They have voted for both Labour and PN in different general elections, casting their ballots not on ideological grounds or principled reasoning but for personal, selfish reasons, not minding the long-term consequences of their choice. Of significance, too, is the growing indifferent electorate.
Today, one can live like a stereotypical progressive and accept conservative political ideology, and vice versa. It is perfectly plausible to be a pot-smoking, tattoo-wearing hippie while advocating for small government and conservative principles. Conversely, one can live a traditional lifestyle and simultaneously call for progressive, or even socialist, policies.
‘I am progressive because I am for progress’ is an empty statement. Nearly everyone thinks that they are for progress. The real question is: do the ideas and actions that you advocate solve problems or exacerbate them? The implementation of progressive and conservative political agendas does not necessarily cause progress or conservation, respectively. Do not assume that progressive ideas necessarily imply progress or that conservative ideas conserve anything. Scrutinise the content of the ideas and decide for yourself whether they survive rational criticism. Labels are nothing. Content is king.
This emerging scenario presents multiple challenges for both parties. It complicates the already difficult task of governing a divided nation. In addition, to succeed politically, the parties must maintain the loyalty of highly politically engaged, more ideological voters while also attracting support among less politically engaged voters, many of whom are younger and have weaker partisan ties.
This new political typology should provide a road map for today’s fractured political landscape.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer