In the two-party system that engulfs Maltese politics, elections can be tricky to perfectly predict - regular surveys conducted in the election build-ups often do not give the true picture. But what is it exactly that people vote for? The Malta Independent on Sunday has asked (from left) anthropologist and assistant lecturer RANIER FSADNI (RF), European Studies academic Dr JEAN CLAUDE CACHIA (JCC) and sociologist professor MICHAEL BRIGUGLIO (MB) for their thoughts.

 

According to the most recent State of the Nation survey, 70% of Maltese respondents said that they have only ever voted for the same party. In 2021, this figure stood at 83%. What influences voters? What influences the vote of floaters?

RF: Voters are influenced primarily by their personal and family history, which informs their trust in one party and distrust of the other. Floaters are not a monolith; their motivations could be various, such as grudges, single issues, a transformational experience, their idea of the common good or the zeitgeist.

JCC: In Malta, party loyalty and identification remain strong within the political system. Clientelism still poses a significant challenge, as it is often used by parties to maintain their support. It would be interesting to explore whether voters who choose alternatives favour the other mainstream party, opt for independent candidates or support smaller parties.

The decline in overall party support indicates a growing apathy towards the main political parties. Recent Eurobarometer surveys reveal increasing mistrust in political parties, exacerbated by extreme polarisation.

Floaters may still be influenced by traditional bread-and-butter issues; however, concerns about corruption and environmental matters are gaining importance as voters consider which party or candidate to support.

MB: Despite all our challenges and problems, we still have the highest turnout in Europe, even though voting is voluntary. Because voting isn't compulsory, the political parties pester voters to go out and vote. The familial opinion is influential; people are also influenced by friends and trends.

I think the main issue is the younger demographic, which is perhaps less tied to traditional voting patterns, and perhaps, as things stand, holds a sense of disillusionment or apathy.

There are different types of floating voters. Daphne Caruana Galizia had coined the term "switchers" to reference those who switch out of favours by parties, rather than for the common good. Some vote because one party is better than the other given the time, for example, PN in 2004 with EU ambitions.

 

Recent surveys have indicated that the Nationalist Party currently has a slight lead over the incumbent Labour Party, even though PN leader Bernard Grech has a trust rating of just 25% (Prime Minister Robert Abela recorded a trust rating of 45%). Do you believe that, in our political climate, the PN can win the next general election if the trust rating for its leader remains so low?

RF: To my knowledge, for the last 40-odd years the majority of votes was always won by the political party whose leader's trust rating was superior to his rival's. A change of pattern would require very unusual circumstances. 

JCC: The mismatch in terms of support for leaders is a concern when one considers that the Nationalist Party aims to position itself as the alternative governing party. The Labour Party, under both Muscat and Abela, has consistently used this to their advantage during multiple elections. In my view, their success will largely depend on whether voters are motivated by dissatisfaction with the incumbent Labour Party rather than strong support for Grech. A relevant example is the 2024 election in the United Kingdom, where the Conservative Party lost votes to the Labour Party primarily due to voters casting ballots against the Conservatives rather than in favour of Labour, which only secured 34% of the popular vote.

Additionally, under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, voters not only select a party but also rank individual candidates. This means that parties typically promote popular candidates who can attract non-partisan voters to gain additional seats.

MB: This is a big issue - there is a huge gap between the two leaders' trust ratings. It could be problematic for PN, it could also mean that the hardcore Labour element is greater than the PN's. Simultaneously, the 40,000-vote majority Labour had sustained for many elections doesn't seem to be in place anymore. We clearly have an open race now. For the first time since 2008, the two parties are actually competing at similar levels of trust and support.

Trust-rating has an important role. Ultimately, one of the biggest challenges for both parties is to win floating voters; without floating voters, you won't win an election.

It is clear that Robert Abela has more trust than Bernard Grech, but people are going to vote, in the final instance, for a party. Not just 25% are saying that they will vote for PN. It's a major issue for both parties. Abela has a higher trust rating but Labour has a major challenge because it cannot live with or without Joseph Muscat, meanwhile the PN has seemingly done away with internal conflicts; its different factions were together during the last European elections.

This is a paradox. One has a higher trust-rating but has internal conflicts which haven't been appearing in a very long time, and the other has a lower trust-rating but seems to have done away with longstanding internal conflicts. If anything, it shows us the importance of floating voters to me, I think they will make the difference.

Politicians say that elections are the ultimate survey. Do we need a politics of superstars? While personas matter, maybe politics needn't be about characters only. I would prefer a dull prime minister who offers a steadier type of governance, like Angela Merkel, than an erratic superstar like Donald Trump.

There is also this idea, and I think this is the biggest hurdle which small parties have, that voting for a small party is a wasted vote, when technically it isn't.

 

Some people believe that the country's two major parties - PN and PL - are ideologically very similar. Do you agree? If so, why don't people vote for a third party or an independent candidate?

RF: There are significant differences. The two parties have some similarity on welfare issues but different instincts on power and rights. Labour favours centralisation of decision-making power when it is in government; the PN favours more dispersal of decision-making power. Labour in government has been illiberal on rights like free speech, transparency and rule of law (that is, the rights that can be used to keep its power in check), but liberal on rights concerning personal identity and private conduct. The PN in government has been liberal on human rights and checks and balances, but conservative on personal status and civil rights governing private conduct.

JCC: Membership in the European Union can be considered as the last issue which provided a clear distinction between the Nationalist and the Labour Party. The Nationalist Party and the Labour Party now have similar approaches towards the European Union and Malta's economy. The issue concerning abortion is always in the background and if it becomes a major issue during elections, it can be turned into another polarising issue with the main political parties taking opposite views.

The question surrounding third countries could be explained through the maximisation of votes. A number of individuals in Malta might be willing to vote for independent or smaller parties in local or European elections, but not in national elections, because they believe they will waste their vote by voting for other parties because they will not be able to govern anyways. So a change in the political culture is required to break away from the two-party mentality.

MB: I don't think there's so much of a difference between the two parties. On certain issues, they are very similar - both believe in a mixed economy (perhaps to certain degrees). In civil rights, despite certain conflicts which exist, they are very close to each other.

They are both centrist parties in my opinion; sometimes one of them shifts a little to the left and sometimes the other one shifts a little bit to the right. Politics is not only about ideology, it's about styles of governance and leadership. PN is trying to present itself as being better in terms of governance.

It is a safer bet to vote for a big party than to vote for a small party which might not get elected. That is the main reason. People have consistently shown that if they are not satisfied with the style of government of one party, they will shift to another. One might agree more with a third party, but then, one would have to weigh that out with if they would prefer to have a Labour government or a Nationalist government.

People vote for a government or vote to put a government out of power. People also might not vote for a third party because there is nothing inherent telling people that what third parties are offering is necessarily better.

 

Are people still going to politicians for favours or has this praxis come to an end?

RF: Clientelism won't come to an end as long as there are people who need help understanding their rights or whose difficult-but-deserving case, which fails to satisfy the formal rules, meets with official indifference or paralysis. You can't reduce clientelism without reforming the state. The question is whether we are moving in the wrong direction, with government behaviour increasing the need for political patronage. 

JCC: I believe that clientelism has become ingrained in Malta's political culture, as it is often seen as a strategy to maximise votes. Politicians frequently utilise Customer Care Units within ministries to provide favours to constituents, which reinforces this practice. We have also witnessed various allegations of malpractices, such as those involving drivers' licences and disability benefits, which are closely related to clientelism. Given these factors, I do not think that the practice is coming to an end anytime soon.

MB: Yes.

 

Are electoral manifestos actually important in influencing the electorate's vote nowadays? After all, how many people read these manifestos?

RF: Few people read electoral manifestos and programmes, but their content is also delivered in debate and advertising. They are published because a political party would look bad if it didn't; not publishing would lose votes. Another reason is to show single-issue voters and lobbies that the party is addressing their concerns. 

JCC: Electoral manifestos are crucial because they outline the programmes that political parties intend to enact if elected. However, in the last elections, we observed that manifestos were published very late in the electoral campaign. For instance, the Labour Party's manifesto included 1,000 pledges. By this time, many voters had likely already made their decisions on whom to support before the campaigns officially began. Therefore, I believe that electoral campaigns play a much stronger role in influencing the electorate than the manifestos themselves.

MB: Many people probably don't read the manifestos. I think there are many other reasons why people vote for parties beyond them. If a government is elected, its mandate is unofficially based off its manifesto; they cannot break what they propose. Some issues are not always in manifestos however, like abortion. No party has the mandate to introduce abortion because no party has promised it. This could maybe result in a referendum. Additionally, when Labour was elected in 2013, it didn't promise to sell citizenship.

Manifestos also have another important function. Before elections, political parties meet NGOs/lobby groups/groups of residents to discuss what pledges to include in their mandate. Through a manifesto, a political party can promise a lobby group/NGO/group of residents that it has written, black on white, that it will introduce a certain policy. I think the manifesto is just one factor among many others why people vote.

 

Do you think the number of voting abstentions will increase over the coming years? Why?

RF: Abstentions will increase if disenchantment with politics persists, and currently that seems the most likely scenario. Labour is proving it cannot reform itself while in power. The PN is keeping pace with opinion but still not leading it.

JCC: According to a Eurobarometer survey conducted after the 2024 EU Elections, 56% of respondents who abstained cited distrust and dissatisfaction with politics as their primary reasons for not voting. This sentiment reflects a broader disillusionment with the political system and its main leaders. If the major political parties fail to regain the trust of these voters, and if smaller parties do not succeed in attracting their support, I believe that voting abstentions will continue to increase. However, it is important to note that turnout in national elections will likely remain higher than in European and local elections.

MB: According to the last elections, it is. It appears to be increasing significantly, though perhaps not excessively, as Malta continues to have the highest voter turnout in Europe. Many say they will not vote but then vote when the time comes; a good percentage of them will probably vote, and probably for the two parties. People also say - in elections and surveys - that they are more likely to abstain from voting than vote for a third party. None of them have been elected outside of local councils.

 

Are political parties attractive enough for youths today or not? Are parties doing enough to attract them?

RF: The political parties are condemned to be perceived as pedestrian and ineffectual until they formulate an imaginative programme that establishes a secure state, open society, environmental justice, and the urban infrastructure needed by a 21st-century economy. 

JCC: Malta has lowered the voting age to 16, allowing younger individuals to vote and contest elections. The government has also established a forum for young people aged 16 to 35. While this is a positive step, political confrontations and various corruption allegations are disillusioning some Maltese youth, who feel disconnected from the political class.

MB: Both PL and PN, structurally, have had attempts to try and attract more young people. Both parties have functioning youth wings and none seem to be in crisis, however, many young people don't give a lot of importance to party politics. Some are disillusioned with politics and become activists, but I'm not seeing a greater wave of young people to decades ago; many less visible young people are not really bothered with politics and prefer gaming with their friends.

Young people also care about everyday issues related to lifestyles and one's choices - maybe parties need to speak about them more. Vot16 should be an indicator that young people are interested in politics.

 

In elections, to what extent do the following factors influence a person's vote: belief in a politician (and/or their character/persona), political party, political ideology.

RF: With most voters, trust in a political party and its leader comes first, and then they look at the choice of candidates within their electoral district. If by political ideology is meant an articulated, coherent set of political principles, then you would be hard-pressed to find even politicians who can state what they're for without resorting to waffle and cliché. 

JCC: I believe that all these factors influence how people vote in Malta. Party affiliation remains a strong determinant of voting patterns, with the Nationalist Party (PN) and the Labour Party (PL) dominating the political landscape. While party identification and loyalty are declining, they are still essential for the main political parties to maintain their core voter base. Voters typically align with these parties based on shared values, although there are growing concerns about whether these ideologies remain popular and whether political parties are resorting to populism to sustain or increase their support.

Trust in political leaders also plays a crucial role in voter decision-making. Historical examples, such as Lawrence Gonzi in 2008 and Joseph Muscat in 2013 and 2017, demonstrate that the popularity of a party leader can significantly enhance their party's electoral success.

MB: They are all important - it depends on the voter - but in my opinion, the political party is the most important aspect. The two parties, who everyone loves to criticise, have hundreds of thousands of voters; people are consistently saying that they trust the political system we have. Metsola's role as European Parliament President played a huge role in her result this June, but being on a party ticket was very important.

Persona made a huge difference for Robert Arrigo in the 10th district. Many PL voters liked him as a PN politician; his vote count kept increasing after each general election, even as PN was losing votes at the time. Ideology can affect, but it doesn't necessarily mean conservative or socialist. It could do more with believing in certain styles of governance or prioritising the management of the economy. If there is one issue with most weight, I think management of economy plays an important role - and that is how PL is presenting itself; that despite everything, it is the safest pair of hands vis-à-vis the economy. On the other hand, PN is saying it has a better economic model. They know the economy plays an