Cacophony and damp squibs

Will the event to elect five representatives to the European Parliament on June 12 prove to be a damp squib? The answer, to some extent, depends on how one defines damp. The first element in Malta's particular context will be the participation rate - how many of the electorate will turn out to express their preferences. Such elections in the existing member countries to date are notorious for their failure to ignite a great deal of interest. The turnout tends to be quite below the average at general elections, and in some countries abysmally so.

Whatever most Euro citizens think about the economic benefits or costs of membership, that does not translate into huge interest in the democratic aspect represented by elections to select MEPs. Perhaps many people are aware that the European Parliament is not a centre of strong power in the Union. That is rooted in the Council of Ministers as influenced by the stances of the unelected Commission. More likely Euro citizens are not really fired up with a sense of Euro identity. An average of a third to a half are disinterested in the mechanism to elect representatives in their own Parliament.

The fact that the European Parliament has gained a larger role in the overall workings of the Union, as well as a somewhat higher profile, could raise the level of interest. The test, most likely, will be in the ten acceding members. Referenda on accession itself did not draw voters out in droves. Electorates might feel that elections of MEPs offer an opportunity to demonstrate their likes or dislikes towards the institution their governments, in some cases with the concurrence of Opposition parties, strove so hard to join.

In Malta the participation benchmarks at both general elections and referenda are among the highest, if not the highest, in democratic countries where voters are free to decide whether to participate or not. There is lesser interest with regard to local elections. That is due, in part, to the early division of attitudes towards them. A more lasting factor could be a perception that general elections are do-or-die affairs and in them it is a matter of 'to the victor, the spoils'.

Though the tempo should build up over the weeks to mid-June, that is unlikely to result in keen interest for or against, evident in last year's referendum and repeated with sharper intensity in the general election. As in local council elections the absence of a do-or-die dimension will not do much to spur some electors into stifling their yawns to find the time to stroll over to their designated polling station.

T+here are two other factors at play that could keep a substantial number of voters away in June. On the Nationalist side and among uncommitted voters there is a discernible feeling that the government has not delivered. A year has gone by since the general election, and there is not much to show for it. A new prime minister and a rejigged Cabinet are substitutes for the drive many had hoped for but failed to arrive these past 12 months.

Drive is equated with results. The good citizenry still expects, because that is what they foolishly promise it, governments to deliver economic growth and well-being. Two springs into the government of the Class of 2003, that is still not in the air. The amazing sight of our tourism minister on the apron greeting a representative of a low-cost airline that has included Malta in its programme is not quite the symbol that those who trust the government of the day to be dynamic expect. Nor are many people taken in by talk of restructuring of the public sector which simply means that wage costs are transferred from the rest of the public sector (parastatals and state-owned commercial entities) to the general government.

There could be an extent of protest-non-vote in June. That is why the Nationalists, while claiming that EP elections are national, not partisan affairs, are putting together a partisan campaign. With one side of their mouth they welcome the fact that the Labour Party has accepted the majority decision in favour of EU membership as the new reality. With the other they do their worst to rubbish Labour's participation in the EP elections.

It is as if there is an inability to focus on what membership and the European Parliament are all about, and what the role of our five MEPs should be. The campaign already has the makings of one more exercise in calculated if childish yah-booing.

The other factor in this context is the cacophony coming from the Labour camp. Expression of different opinions regarding prospects for Malta within the European Union is natural enough. It is only the Nationalist Party that flies in the face of credibility by presenting one face and speaking with one voice in public. Any organisation of thinking people cannot perpetually sing like a choir.

It is also to be expected that those who vehemently and honestly opposed membership in principle, will continue to do so though Malta will now be within the union. Those who claim they did not also anticipate that committed Labour voters could be as confused as they seem to be by the party's repositioning are kidding no one but themselves.

No amount of spin and stage-management can alter the fact that the Labour leader in particular pronounced his opposition to membership as a fundamental principle, a religion. He left no space whatsoever for the possibility that the majority would go against him, and so against what he had made the Labour Party stand for on what he had turned into a theological issue.

When you lead your supporters into a crusade, to anticipate that they will easily accept that the crusade was over just because you lost them the battle is to force them to see you as either heretic, a false prophet, or both.

Such mixed feelings also take in the contrasting utterances by people who are accepted as stalwarts crowded on the same platform. Is the June election a do-or-die issue for the party, as one candidate put it in public? Or is it not that all, as the leader quickly rebutted, also publicly? Will it be a matter of a vote of confidence in the leader, as another candidate claimed in order to urge Labour voters out of any disregard for the outcome? If it is that, will not the result be a can of worms, however it totals up?

Better a diversity of voices, a cacophony even, than close togetherness singing in falsetto unison. But do not blame the electorate for scratching its head and wondering what it is all about.

The fact that the two main parties will hot up the campaign and heap partisan fuel upon it to raise the flames as high as can be will mean that there can be no lame excuse if the participation is not strong.

How strong? I would say that anything above eighty per cent would be respectable. If fewer than that bother to turn out, the stay-at-homes would be the most significant voice of all.

It remains to be seen to what extent the candidates selected by the parties for the electorate to choose from will influence the turnout. The minnow among the three, Alternattiva Demokratika, has been the most focused, as well as realistic in its own context. Its resources are limited. It will not disperse them among several candidates.

It is fielding one, no more. Had that candidate been Harry Vassallo, he could have pulled it off over the two giants. His honesty and charisma and a parcel of provocative ideas that he is now airing regularly in the media, strike a chord.

The two teams presented by the main parties, if one can stretch the description to that, are a mixed lot. They include only one from the Nationalist side and two from Labour who have parliamentary experience. The fact that they call upon the personal network within their old constituency to build upon them at a national level may seem to give them an advantage.

So does the familiarity of their face with their own particular side of the electorate. That also makes them unappealing to cross-party voters and less attractive to floaters. Those who bring along a basis in their party media also start with an advantage in their party sector, but the same handicaps too as those who sat or still are in the House of Representatives.

At the end of the day what will count is the national networks that the candidates will build and deploy, their projection along the media spectrum, the personal contacts they manage to make, and the stamina required to that day in day out for the next eight weeks. The Maltese Islands are small, but not quite that tiny. Working a constituency in the few weeks leading to a general election take a lot out of a candidate.

Attempting that on a national basis is daunting.

In strict political terms MEPs, provided they can apply themselves and work with people, will be able to carve out their own niches. They will find good examples in the Euro-pean Parliament, and bad ones as well. Some MEPs start their political career in that forum, not having tried to get a seat in their domestic parliament.

They are usually the most vigorous and active in EU proceedings, though some tend to be one-dimensional, speaking with an eye on some constituency back home they hope to try to stand for eventually. Other MEPs will have moved on from their own parliament, some to experience change, others to prolong the end of their road.

They have experience, but may not always offer the best role model in the European Parliament. In the years I sat on the Malta-EU Joint Parliamentary Committees we had a number of them representing EU side. Some of them did not bother to attend one single meeting, whether in Brussels or Strasbourg, or in Malta.

Whether those who become Malta's MEPs will follow any role model or structure themselves as they go along will depend on their individual abilities and inclinations.

What one hopes and prays for is that they will never fail to remember that they are sitting in a forum where issues are of a Euro nature but always with domestic implications. These implications should be dealt with from the national standpoint.

If we ever get MEPs who carry the Malta squabbles onto the Euro forum, we might as well not send any at all.