In the past, politics in Malta was dominated by the great causes: integration in the 1950s, independence in the 1960s, the creation of the welfare state and the closure of the British military base in the 1970s, electoral reform and the question of neutrality and non-alignment in the 1980s, Malta's relationship with the European Union in the 1990s. With the closure of the debate about Malta's relationship with the EU, in April 2003, the politics of the great causes was over.
What has perhaps gone mostly unnoticed in the post-April 2003 period is the fact that Maltese politics is today dominated by very complicated issues which the majority of Maltese citizens find it exceedingly difficult to understand. How many Maltese citizens understand all the complicated arguments involved in the political controversy about pensions reform? How many fully comprehend what is meant by such technical terms as "financial deficit", "restructuring", "accrual accounting", "depreciation of the exchange-rate", "recurrent expenditure", "retail price index", "alternative energy", "inclusive education", "national minimum curriculum", etc., which have been used in political debates recently?
Okay, if you are one of those citizens with a high level of education you might be inclined to think that I am exaggerating but consider those thousands of voters with only a basic level of education. Such persons will feel lost when presented with highly technical arguments and technical jargon. This could be dangerous because these persons can be easily manipulated by the media.
Maltese politics today is dominated by the media. I sincerely believe we have a situation where a good number of citizens can be manipulated to the extent that what is presented to them as the truth is indeed believed by them to be the truth when the opposite is the case. When citizens feel lost in a political debate, which is nothing else but a jungle of technical terms and arguments, they will go for the political arguments that make most sense to them in the way they are presented by the media.
What is unfortunate is that here in Malta we are, little by little, approaching the situation prevalent in such countries as the United States of America where everything depends on how you package what you have to offer to the electorate and not so much on what the package contains. This is because a good part of the electorate can make sense of the packaging but is baffled by what lies inside the package.
In such a situation, the odds are tilted in favour of that political party which is in power, which has the greatest financial backing and which, as a result of all this, has the capability, because of its greater media resources, to bombard the electorate with messages to favour it with its vote. Politically weak arguments, especially on highly technical matters, can be effectively packaged in such a way that they can be made to look appealing to a huge chunk of the electorate.
Again, if readers think that I am exaggerating, consider how the electorate was taken for a ride by the Nationalist Party in 1998 and, again, in 2003! In both instances, the Nationalists made good use of "the great cause of EU membership". Next time around, they will not be able to use this electoral weapon. But they will still have great advantages where media campaigns are concerned and they will have a new advantage in that the issues at stake will be highly technical and difficult to understand for many of the electorate.
The great challenge facing the Malta Labour Party is how to get its political message through to the people, using limited resources and anticipating the media bombardment that the PN will mount prior to the next general election. Unfortunately, telling the truth and being politically honest may not be enough, as experience has sadly shown. Many people will vote for what they perceive to be the truth even if, in reality, it is not. This is where the role of the media will be decisive in influencing the outcome of the next general election. The MLP is well aware of all this. Its success in getting its political message through to a majority of the electorate is crucial for the future of this country. Whether it will actually succeed in doing so is another matter. Hopefully, it will.