Editorial

The result of yesterday week's election to choose Malta's first members of the European Parliament will continue to be analysed for some time, together with the local council election results which came out yesterday.

Of one thing there is no doubt: in the EP election, the Nationalist Party, in government for all but two of the last 17 years, has received a mighty drubbing. Its share of the vote fell from 51.8 per cent in last year's general election to a dismal 39.7 per cent, below even its performance of 1955. It fared better in the local elections, but still registered a drop compared to three years ago.

The EP election was ostensibly won by the Labour Party, which took three of the five seats at stake, but its share of the vote - despite a vigorous campaign - rose only marginally over last year, and failed to breach the 50 per cent mark.

True, one cannot really compare the election for five MEPs with a general election. What was at stake on June 12 was not the government of the country for the next five years. Besides, the absence of any caution regarding the use of the first preference meant that voters felt this was the time to protest against their 'traditional' party.

Indeed, they chose to do it in various ways. Many of them - almost 18 per cent of the electorate, in fact - simply did not turn out to vote, or even pick up their voting documents.

Others - an inordinately high 2 per cent, or almost 5,000 - chose to spoil their ballot papers, in a "plague on both your houses" mood.

Others still - another 6,000 or so - voted for an unprecedentedly colourful, and numerous, mix of independent candidates. Of these, the far-right white supremacist candidate polled an alarmingly high 1,600 votes. The hunters' candidate attracted a little over 3,000, which should mean that the hunting lobby is no longer in a position to hold the two major parties to ransom. Those 3,000 votes came more or less equally from traditional supporters of the two major parties.

The party which benefited most from the massive protest vote was not, as expected, the MLP, but Alternattiva Demokratika, which presented just one candidate, Arnold Cassola. AD, the Green Party, managed to increase its vote by an astonishing 1,300 per cent over its performance in last year's general election, to 9.3 per cent. Dr Cassola won almost 23,000 first preferences (Malta and Gozo were a single constituency for this election).

However, despite going on to attract more than 6,000 additional preferences - again, mostly from eliminated Nationalist candidates - Dr Cassola failed to overtake Labour's last remaining candidate, Louis Grech. (As if they had not siphoned off enough Nationalist votes and preferences as it was, AD cheekily complained that PN voters 'used a block vote' and did not continue to give their preferences to Dr Cassola!)

Why did thousands of voters who normally vote PN this time vote for Arnold Cassola? For a number of reasons. To begin with, many consider Dr Cassola - for the last few years the Brussels-based secretary-general of the European Federation of Green Parties - to be highly qualified for the European Parliament.

The fact that AD had supported Malta's EU membership was another factor. But many who voted for Dr Cassola were also swayed by the persuasive argument that while two or three MEPs in either the People's Party or the Socialist group in the EP would not make much difference regarding Malta's ability to influence decisions, the presence of a Maltese MEP in a third grouping, the Greens, would be an advantage. Some simply felt that AD deserved a chance to prove their worth after 15 years of existence, and this was the time to do it.

For many other usually Nationalist supporters, though, voting for Cassola and AD was motivated by a desire to send a simple message to the government: we shall not be taken for granted.

That message had many nuances. For instance, quite a few readers had stated openly in letters to this newspaper that since the government had failed to do anything regarding rent reform (receiving a rental income fixed at 1939 levels today is not just pathetic, but sheer robbery), they would be voting AD. Others felt that the tax paid on inherited property simply rubbed salt into the wounds of those hit by frozen rents.

Others, of course, were hit by cost-cutting measures the government has embarked upon at money-losing state enterprises. The lack of real progress on the environment front, arrogant behaviour shown by politicians and bureaucrats, bureaucratic delays, fears about pension reform and, of course, the threat of unemployment in some sectors - all contributed to the feeling of malaise, which translated itself into a protest vote.

The message was strong enough to lead the Prime Minister, Dr Gonzi, in his first reaction to the result, to promise more vigorous action on a number of fronts for the government to be seen to be delivering. Time will tell.