Perverse

Possibly we have invented this adjective for electoral results, as its proper place should be in the field of morality. For some, morality may be an important badge which they wear on their jacket to proclaim to all that they are above suspicion. When their mouth does not match their jacket, then it is perverted morality.

I dislike those who proclaim themselves paragons of virtuous thoughts and actions, only to be shown to be not only ordinary sinners, but worse - hypocrites. They may point a finger at others, but forget that in the process, they have three fingers pointing at them.

When the Electoral Commission published its conclusions about how the constituencies should be formed, the Nationalist Party, through its highest representatives, called "foul". They argued that the electoral boundaries as proposed by the Electoral Commission, or rather a deciding majority in that Commission, would create a "perverse" result as that of 1981.

It is the perversion of morality to point your finger at one particular instance, which was not acceptable, and forget that there were three occasions when the system generated three results which are not entirely faithful to truth. One of them was identical to the 1981 result.

The three fingers...

The electoral result of 1981 should have been an eye-opener. I continue to insist that the constitutional amendments that followed did not solve the problem. They only generated a stepney system, by providing an extra wheel, but there is no guarantee that boundaries cannot distort the proportional result. The system worked perfectly in last year's election for the European Parliament, when there were no boundaries and Malta was one constituency. To harp on the 1981 result as the pinnacle of perversity is hypocritically perverse.

The Nationalist Party and its leaders seem to forget that today they have a majority of five members over the Opposition, and there is no mathematical argument which justifies that difference. Five other MPs were elected with practically two-thirds of the quota in any district. Is this a perverse result? How did it come about?

The answer is simple enough. The manner in which constituencies have been tinkered with under a Nationalist administration were bound to create such a disparity. There goes one finger pointing at the Nationalist Party, which forgets its own sins.

The ring finger pointing at the Nationalist Party and its rectitude in the question of electoral boundaries is the 1996 election. On that occasion, the Labour Party was returned to power. The result was "perverse", on the boundaries as approved by a Nationalist majority. The result obtained from the working of the single transferable vote system gave the Nationalist Party a majority of seats, which was only "corrected" through the constitutional amendment of 1987.

Enough seats were created to give Labour a majority of one. If one compares the difference of votes obtained between the two parties in 1996 and 2003, one finds that the system favoured the Nationalist Party on both occasions. With a clear majority of 8,000 votes, Labour had a majority of one, which was fatal. In 2003, with a majority of 13,000, the Nationalist Party had a majority of five.

What was worse in the 1996 election is now past history, but everyone will remember how the Nationalist Party had a second chance within two years on electoral boundaries which it had approved.

That brings to the third finger pointing at the Nationalist Party. The electoral result of 1998 was also abundantly in favour of that party in the allocation of seats as compared to its difference in votes. On that occasion, to make matters worse, a Speaker was appointed from outside Parliament, but that gave the Nationalist Party an effective majority of four.

Fingers and nails

"Perversity" in the electoral sense (though it shows also the perverse morality of those who denounce the sins of others) is paramount and entrenched in the representation of local councils in the governing bodies. In that sphere, the Nationalist Party has guaranteed its own perpetual majority.

These are the three long nails pointing as the Nationalist Party when it points its finger at the 1981 result.

Redistricting may be difficult. It may create a problem for individual MPs on either side of the House, who may lose their seat because of the new configuration. If we really want to put an end to this endless debate, there is only one solution. A constitutional amendment is called for which guarantees a proportional majority to the winning side. No government, Nationalist or Labour, should win an election comfortably and then depend on a slim majority of only one seat.