Philosopher Simone Weil once said that political parties are an unnecessary evil of democracy. It's hard to find fault with the statement.  While an adversarial political process is supposed to produce good results, in reality it tends to generate paralysis and distrust.  Rather than engendering cooperation, it often falls victim to conflict and contention.

The beauty of a democracy is its openness to different opinions, visions, and proposals. Yet we frequently see politicians who do not have the best ideas win office and get to enact their agenda.  Why?  Because they manage to persuade voters that the persons on the other side are deplorables. 

Instead of choices being made in a consensual way and leaders being chosen based on their capacity and character, most politicians forego civil discourse and engage in mutual vilification.  The trick is to persuade voters that no right-minded and ethical person would take somebody on the other side seriously.  All that a party needs to win is to convince enough people that the other party would lead them into misery.

This sorry situation is now the rule in Malta too.  It is almost impossible to have a civil discussion on anything that does not descend into an angry exchange.  Family relations and friendships are broken daily due to polarisation. Outrage becomes the order of the day once people are persuaded that "the other side" will do terrible things if elected. 

It is harder to get people upset over well-thought-out political stances.  The adversarial system provides strong incentives to entrench voters against a side rather than persuade them with valid ideas.  In the process, the political process becomes one of "angels" against "devils", all the more to convince those who have been persuaded that they are angels to fight tooth and nail against the demons.

The religious formation of most people in Malta tends to reinforce the narrative.  Demons are awful while angels are beautiful.  One does not try to reach an understanding with the demon; the only way is to fight him.  One does not engage with a villain who is plotting to destroy the country; it is better to eliminate him.  We have definitely entered the stage of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. 

There is no doubt that the trend toward identity politics has only increased our polarisation.  Normally, diversity of opinion is an essential asset, allowing all sides of a question to be considered. That only holds true, though, when people cultivate critical thinking and stay free of the groupthink of entrenched right- or left-wing identities.  I am often asked whether I am a Labourite, a Nationalist or a turncoat whenever I express an opinion on anything, as if this matters to the intrinsic value of an argument.  I actually take great delight in not answering the question, daring the questioner to address the opinion rather than the opinion-maker.

Of course, I for one do not subscribe to the angels and demons nonsense.  I believe that most Maltese are normal people who want good things for the country.  Most of them are reasonable people to be persuaded, rather than obstacles to be conquered. When not on the social media or in a crowd, many people are prepared to discuss what government should do and why, to listen to arguments about what is right, good, and beneficial.  They normally show goodwill and respect when they see it in others.

I am encouraged in believing this is the case by the 2025 State of the Nation survey, whose results were published last June.  It was good to note that only 27 percent of people say they form their views based on the positions of their preferred political party, while almost 42 percent explicitly rejected party influence altogether.  This reflects another statistic that just over 30 percent say that politics are important in their lives, while a record 34 percent   ̶   triple the number three years ago   ̶   say politics means nothing to them.

Another interesting statistic from the survey was that 42 percent said they might switch parties in the next election, openness being higher (65 percent) among younger voters.  This tends to show that many people do not subscribe to extreme perceptions of what "the other side" believes.  Perhaps, they still think that there could be a shared reality between different people, that cross-party relations   ̶   such as having members of the other party as friends, building consensus, and supporting bipartisan cooperation   ̶   are valuable.  What is intriguing is that these views sit with the view of most respondents (52 percent) that they do not believe the two major parties are the same.

What gives?  The discrepancy could be because what people believe in the abstract (angels versus demons) might be different from what they would actually do to bridge the divide if it were up to them. I would suggest that they might view cross-party empathy as an asset as opposed to a liability.

But, if this is the case, why are political parties not responding to the feeling that politics are not important, especially among young people, of whom only just under 20 per cent think it is important?  If people are averse to political division, why are the PL and PN still sowing it?

My personal opinion is that the adversarial "winner-take-all" approach in western democracies is immoral, in that it fails to consider the concerns and issues of all constituents.  This failure makes it difficult to address social and economic inequalities, which are themselves the product of selfishness and disregard for others.  There is what one might call a "flattening of choice" implicit in a neoliberal democratic system which does not recognize the different socio-political pressures placed on constituents.

If it were up to me, I would advocate for a gadaa system type of democracy.  I actually heard about this five decades ago at Oxford, when I shared accommodation with a student from Ethiopia.  It is a rich indigenous system which emphasises inclusivity, consensus-building, cooperation, and shared leadership   ̶   to be contrasted with division, confrontation, polarisation, conflict, and distrust.

The gadaa does not have a hierarchy.  All people are treated with almost equal respect, without regard to their differences. Political power is shared equitably among five parties and across generations. The system is based on a set of principles: checks and balances through a periodic succession of every eight years; division of power among executive, legislative, and judicial branches; balanced opposition among the five parties; and power sharing between various administrative organs to prevent power from falling into the hands of a strong ruler.  Other principles of the system include equitable representation of all sectors; accountability by leaders; dispute resolution through reconciliation; and respect for basic rights and liberties.

We who think of democracy as a way of life often fail to realise that actual democratic politics is a fierce, no-holds-barred competition for power, where partisanship is the driver. I would rather have citizen assemblies to deliberate on policy issues and make recommendations to the government and parliament.  We can learn a lot from the 25 countries   ̶   some of them in the EU   ̶   which use this system. 

Frans Camilleri is an economist. He studied at Oxford and University of East Anglia, is a former corporate head at Air Malta, and has served on various public and private boards.