In Malta we have a tendency to confuse the terminology used when analysing elections in general. I would like to make a clear definition of the terminology used in order to facilitate the discussion on a topic that should interest those who follow the debate about our entrenched democratic values.
The electoral system refers to the composition of parliament and the method of election of its members. In our case, parliament consists of 65 members elected from 13 districts, using the proportional system and the single transferable vote.
Our constitution provides for adjustments to be made in the number of members of parliament to ensure the rule, for governance, of the party obtaining an absolute or relative majority of votes, without gaining a majority of seats.
The electoral process refers to the detailed process of holding and running an election. The process starts with the publication of the writ.
The sole responsibility for the running of the electoral process falls on the Electoral Commission. Political parties have the right to monitor and verify the process and to appoint their staff to ensure the full compliance with the electoral law. It also includes the maintenance of the electoral register.
The electoral campaign refers to the party political positioning, strategic and tactical planning, message development and political communications. It also includes a number of subsets such as, direct voter contact, opposition research and qualitative and quantitative research. Voters' behaviour is mostly influenced by the electoral campaign since this deals with the issues, some of which are relevant and others less so.
Electors all over the world are interested in listening to what the political parties and their politicians have to say on the issues. "In this new media age where politics is dominated by television coverage, winning elections is very much about image and presentations, not facts and figures, about past performance, international comparisons or carefully crafted policy detail."¹
It is for this reason that the media focus on the electoral campaign rather than on the electoral system and the electoral process.
Having tried to make these terms clear, I would like to refer to a recent report issued by the Electoral Commission of the United Kingdom.²
The UK parliament appointed this independent body under the new political parties act. The commission "aims to gain public confidence and encourage people to take part in the democratic process within the UK by modernising the electoral process, promoting public awareness of electoral matters and regulating political parties."
Although there are at least two significant differences between the scenarios in Malta and the UK, I would like to make some reflections on the shape of future elections in the UK and their applicability to Malta. The two significant differences are:
Voters in the UK need to register for their vote while in Malta persons are registered automatically on their 18th birthday (subject to being eligible);
Voter turnout in the UK is very much lower than that in Malta, where we have one of the highest voter turnouts in democratic countries.
The recently appointed Electoral Commission in the UK has started a series of pilot projects featuring an impressive range of schemes. The evaluated methods include: the transition from using postal voting to an all-postal voting system, meaning that voters may only cast their vote through the postal vote system; internet voting; telephone voting; voting through SMS; interactive digital television, and schemes called 'new administrative arrangements'.
The number of people eligible to vote under these pilot programmes in 2003 is about 6.4 million, i.e., over 14 per cent of the English electorate. "The Commission believes that voting should be made easier and more convenient for the 21st century electorate. It is necessary to ensure that security measures are in place to maintain the public confidence that is vital to our democracy."
In fact, the Commission has made detailed recommendations on the postal voting system and remains cautious as to the further expansion of this voting method. It says: "We recommend that all-postal voting should not progress beyond pilot status until our wider recommendations for legislative change detailed above are enacted."
Although the commission supports the government's vision for a future in which electors have more choice about the way they cast their vote, it states "we are clearly some way from the prospect of an e-enabled general election."
The British government has announced that Britain should move towards an e-enabled general election some time after 2006. There are many open questions regarding the security of electronic voting and the right of secret voting in the postal voting method.
The latter issue arises as the voter has to make a signed declaration attached to his vote and hence the counting staff may view the ballot paper and the signed declaration, violating the right of the secret vote.
Although these pilot schemes for alternative voting methods have yielded a small increase in the voter turnout, it is also important to note the different scenarios obtaining in the two countries.
Whereas in the UK, there is an urgent need to increase voter turnout, in Malta voter turnout is so high that some foreign journalists covering the 2003 general election compared our elections to those held under dictatorial regimes.
Due to the changing dynamics of our electorate base, it might be interesting to evaluate the postal voting system. In negotiations between the political parties in 2001, we reached an agreement to widen the eligibility of voters to enable Maltese working abroad to maintain their right to vote. This agreement did not materialise as the PN withdrew from the agreement when parliament was presented with the legislative bills to amend the electoral law.
I strongly believe that the local political leadership should continue to consider the possibility of reaching a wider bi-partisan agreement, also covering the allocation of resources to the opposition as I have already proposed in a previous article in The Times.
It is not only Malta that has a polarised society. We all follow the bitter Italian politics, and must have followed the shutdown of the American Establishment due to Washington gridlock. At the moment, there is the recall of Governor Davis in California.
If Air Malta is privatised (the PN has a tendency to privatise overnight!), it would not be possible for the airline to offer the Lm10 trip to registered voters.
Therefore, we will all gain if the government changes its arrogant attitude, not only towards the opposition but also towards its backbenchers, and realises that for Maltese democracy to flourish, the first step for the government is to recognise that Malta is a multi-party country.
It is also high time for the EU Commission and the EU parliament to recognise the full list of democratic deficits that exist in Malta.
We would need to look into the national broadcasting service, the executive committee of the association of local councils, the allocation of resources between the political wing of the government and the opposition, the formation of electoral boundaries, and so on.
It is very easy for the prime minister to state that he is happy with the government's performance but that sounds very much as a statement coming from the leader of a regime. Many people feel the spring broom has not been made to work yet.
Notes:
(1) Nick Sparrow and John Turner: 'The permanent campaign' - European Journal of Marketing.
(2) Electoral Commission - 'The shape of elections to come' - July 2003. Those interested in following this contribution may do so at: "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Electoralreform" "mailto:Electoralreform@yahoogroups.com"