It is often said that in a democracy, everything should be placed before the public. Any internal squabbles of any political party will always go down in history books as the main characteristic of any ruling party's legislature, more so if several MPs are sidelined and feel very lonely within that party's parliamentary group. Any number of MPs within that parliamentary group who do not contest the next general election would just prove my point. That was just what happened in the last GonziPN legislature.
If it happened within the PN, it is now happening within the current ruling party's governmental set-up. First of all, the Labour government must understand that harping on the same strategy of criticising past nationalist governments is not going to work for the upcoming general election as more than ten years have gone by. They should focus, rather, on viable projects this government proposes to launch.
Secondly, it is a common trait of Maltese politics and the politicians who animate it to revel and get bogged down in washing their dirty linen in public, more so whenever some elections are fast approaching. Come elections, it is a time of mud-slinging and washing dirty linen in public instead of policy programmes and defined objectives by political parties. Even manifestos risk becoming a thing of the past. Policy objectives are set aside and charge sheets are brought to the forefront, while achievements are hyped rather in comparison to performance or activities against past governments.
What the ruling and opposition parties are giving the masses through their public gibberish does not speak of concern for the state and its people. Instead, they delve into bickering and make asses of their opponents, who, in like manner, return the unsavoury compliments with additional doses of unpleasant things.
The bickering between the opponents as well as in-party factions continues to leave a bad taste in the mouth. Casting aspersions on one another, attacking privacy and calling each other crooks, or using baser terms creates an impression of individual uncouthness.
They never ask or analyse what the voters really want to hear from political leaders or the candidate themselves. The voters expect party leaders to spell out why they are putting up the particular candidate and on what merits, while from the candidates, the voters want what they are planning for the overall development of the constituency and for welfare activities. By voters, I mean to include not only the flag-waving 'paid' attendees of such conferences but all the voters of the constituency concerned.
It is simply not on for most of our politicians, of whatever ideology, to resort to dirty tricks in order to unfairly enhance their chances of success. Take what I describe as the 'whisper campaigns'. Rumours, innuendo and slanderous statements are quietly conveyed in order to damage reputations and/or dry up funding sources and support. Because the allegations are not made publicly, the target is caught in a Catch-22: if the candidate publicly denounces the rumours, it calls attention to the issue. If the candidate ignores the behind-the-back rumours, the campaign can be damaged.
Then there is push polling. Push polling is an unfair and unethical political device used to communicate negative messages. Under the guise of conducting a legitimate poll, defamatory or otherwise negative and usually false information is conveyed.
Practices that hamper the opponent's ability to fairly compete are unethical. You will sometimes see wealthy candidates hiring as many political consultants as are available, not for their services but to keep them from working for the opponent. If a candidate condones the removal of posters or any behaviour that stifles the opponent's message, he or she is engaging in unethical campaigning.
There is the last-minute surprise, whereby a negative attack comes out shortly before an election, giving the target of the attack little or no time to respond. If the attack is subject to denial or rational explanation, the interests of an informed electorate require that assertions be timed in such a way as to allow a response.
Both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party should also refurbish their respective image severally sullied by several infamous major project deals and the corruption scandals while concentrating on policy objectives and governance issues instead of personal attacks. Perhaps the time has come for them to consider how to re-invent themselves or how to shed the negative baggage they both carry, which continually drags them down at crucial times.
The greatest threat to our democracy today is political parties that play dirty to win. Past nationalist governments embraced an "any means necessary" strategy to preserve their power. These last few years, too, Labourites have also been playing dirty. In doing so, they probably are not driven by an intrinsic or ideological contempt for democracy. They are driven by fear.
Democracy requires that parties know how to lose. Politicians who fail to win elections must be willing to accept defeat, go home and get ready to play again the next day. This norm of gracious losing is essential to a healthy democracy.
When party leaders fear that they cannot win future elections or that defeat poses an existential threat to themselves or their constituents, the stakes rise. Their time horizons shorten. They throw tomorrow to the wind and seek to win at any cost today.
In short, desperation leads politicians to play dirty.