Having read Victor Scerri's contribution "Counterfeiting democracy - Labour style", one might have got the very wrong impression that the Nationalist Party is a defender of electoral democracy. Nothing is further from the truth!

Indeed, the Nationalist Party has a remarkable track record of electoral deceit and gerrymandering. Lest we forget, let us remember that this is a party which spent years in government merely because Archbishop Gonzi (a relative of its present deputy leader) declared that it was a mortal sin to vote Labour.

Lest we forget, let us remember that this is a party which discriminated between electoral districts in Malta, making those of a Nationalist predominance return six seats to parliament, as opposed to the normal five seats.

Lest we forget, let us remember what happened in 1971, and that the gerrymandered electoral districts of the 1996 general elections gave the Nationalist Party three more seats in parliament, although they received 7,633 fewer votes at the polls.

Lest we forget, let us remember that their present general secretary has boasted publicly that they knocked down in 22 months a democratically elected government. And for the future, rest assured that the present gerrymandered electoral districts will give us in the next general elections a result very similar to that of 1996. And so on and so forth!

Coming to the present proposed electoral reforms, the Nationalist Party's sole aim can be simply summed up in one sentence: it is a barely disguised, arrogant and desperate attempt at retaining power at all costs and by all means, fair or not, democratic or otherwise.

If nothing else, the proposed amendments clearly illustrate how totally untrustworthy these people really are in that they themselves have not stood by what they themselves proposed, insisted upon and negotiated and signed last year.

The proposed amendments, both to the Constitution and to the electoral law, put forward by the Nationalist Party in government, have but one aim, that of making the electoral process as loose and as open to abuse as possible.

Starting with the Constitutional amendments, for example, both parties agreed that there should be a widening to the residence requirements rules, and both parties agreed as to whom the new exceptions are to apply, contrary to what Dr Scerri wrote.

However, while we, as a party, seek to ensure that in all cases there is to be a clear tie to Malta, in that such persons are to be registered in Malta for taxation purposes and for social security contributions, the Nationalist Party is striving to do away with all this.

To us, and I am sure to all those who have no hidden agendas, the underlying principle is: that all those who in some way contribute to this country are entitled to decide on its future.

To the Nationalist Party, however, all is permissible, so long as they can organise their supporters to vote for their power-hungry, arrogant party, even if such persons have no ties whatsoever to Malta and do not contribute anything to it at all.

Moving on to the electoral law itself, the amendments proposed make electoral abuse ever more easy and possible. Indeed, here the amendments proposed depart totally from what the Nationalist Party representatives themselves negotiated and insisted upon last summer.

Thus, for example, numerous amendments which were intended to make the electoral process cleaner and more transparent and which they agreed to, have been purposely left out.

The proposed removal of voting documents, for example, though originally proposed by the Nationalist Party itself, has been left out. Reforms to the system on appeals to the electoral register were also left out. Also left out were amendments intended to make clearer the legal and constitutional obligations of the Electoral Commission - not a real surprise considering that this is totally made up of Nationalist-appointed persons.

This, however, was not enough. The new amendments include an obscene provision, one that goes against the very grain of all basic legal principles in that it provides that "ignorance of the law" can be brought as an excuse for persons who vote in breach of the law and the constitution.

The Nationalist Party in government is not only doing everything to facilitate abuse, such as by the removal of records, etc., but it is also, in the most obscene way, preparing beforehand a "legal" (sic) excuse for all those who will vote illegally. Whether or not these will be organised through our embassies abroad is yet to be seen.

Indeed, all is allowed by Nationalist standards (or rather by their total lack of them) so long as it is to their party's unfair advantage.

As Dr Scerri said, there is indeed a difference between the two parties. The Labour Party just wants to make the electoral process more secure, fair, just and transparent. The Nationalist Party just wants to make it more loose, open to abuse, striving even to sanction beforehand law-breakers.

True enough, times have indeed changed; what has not changed is the Nationalist Party, which is still the party of obscure manoeuvres, of unlimited arrogance and which will do anything to cling unlawfully to power, including "Terrinati" and the like.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.