Electoral changes

Not democratic, says Alternattiva Demokratika, referring to the agreement reached between the two main political parties regarding the electoral proportionality issue. Why, one may ask? Simple, this agreement does not give any political party a free ticket to parliamentary seats. Their outburst constantly refers to the two big parties, and they conveniently forget to point out what makes any political party big - its following!

The agreement reached guarantees that parties are assigned parliamentary seats in strict proportion to the number of votes achieved on a national level. What a far cry from the infamous and perverse 1981 result! In the 25 years following that ridiculous situation, this country has moved from the confrontational politics of the day, when we were literally fighting to guarantee the most basic of rights, to civilised discussion. We have moved from a system that resulted in the party with the absolute majority of votes not having enough seats to govern, through a system where majority rule was guaranteed but not proportionality and now on to a guaranteed proportionality. That is democracy at work, alive, healthy and in a constant state of development.

Then, one might ask, what is the flea in AD's ear about this great step forward in our country's democratic development? The issue seems to be that for a political party to be eligible for this system it must achieve 16 per cent of the eligible votes cast in any one district and they want a low national threshold, whereby "small" political parties could be allocated one seat on the basis of having managed to knock together enough votes from the whole country to justify a seat. It would not take much for any movement to gain representation in this way. Any organisation could spout forth a message that would attract this nationally relatively insignificant number of votes, and in that way grab a parliamentary seat. One seat is not much, one again might say, but can anybody imagine a scenario whereby the two so-called big parties have an equal number of seats and the one seat goes to a "small" organisation?

AD are hoping for just such a situation, whereby that movement would have power and clout far beyond and totally out of proportion to its following and to the one seat that they would have.

But such seats could also be spread out to other movements. For example, what would then stop other movements with specific raison d'etres, however understandable they may be as pressure groups, to pick up a seat that is there for the taking? Various organisations immediately come to mind that might have a justified point of view, but does that mean that a parliamentary seat is an option? Other movements with less justifiable agendas could also hop on to the bandwagon: racist and xenophobic organisations and any other topical group that might feel it has an axe to grind. Parliament would then risk becoming a farce as it is apparent that achieving a national quota on a single issue and not on national policy is relatively much easier.

So, I can confidently state that this agreement is historic in its courage and scope. It does not only have the aim of guaranteeing proportionality, but also includes safeguards against allowing our Parliament to become a house of farce. Democracy is about representation, yes, but anarchy is not democracy. Having serious systems in place that assure the possibility of governing cannot be labelled undemocratic just on the basis of a party's interest. There is nothing to stop any political party in this country from growing in following. AD's chairman has already stated that at the next election he expects to have at least three MPs elected with the present electoral system.

People make individual choices for whom they vote and the "big" parties don't hold anybody's hand when voting. AD will have representation in Parliament when the people decide so, within the parameters established by the needs of democracy including the right of a people to be governed. Safeguards, checks and balances are never popular when the dangers of not having them are not explained. When the representational landscape changes, then electoral systems might need to be revisited.

Dr Scerri is president of the Nationalist Party's general council.