Most of the comments on the outcome of this round of local elections appearing on the Sunday papers and on Monday were mostly fair. Labour has made sweeping gains. Labour has become stronger and the Nationalist Party has taken a battering. Indeed, the local councils' political map has become a sea of red. However, I completely disagree with the comment that we put up a brave face because we could not do otherwise and that we were furious, non-plussed and in a state of near panic.

Of course, no one likes losing three councils especially that of Mosta where in general elections we garner about 60 per cent of the vote. We do not relish having just the support of just 44 per cent of the electorate at the local level. The result is very near what most of us expected. Our post-election comments could well have been made on Friday.

This is not to say that we are complacent. The results will be analysed in detail and discussed within the party. It is too early to make an informed appraisal. But the short history of local council elections in Malta has taught us that those who extrapolate these results to general elections are mistaken. Foreign experience leads us to the same wisdom.

The Leader of the Opposition would not agree with me, having already stated that pre-2003 serial triumphs did not translate in victory for his party in that year's general election due to the EU issue. He has a point in that it was a mega issue. But we lost that year's local elections, even though they were held in the same breath as the referendum. Four per cent of those voting in the referendum did not bother to cast their vote for the local elections. And the gap might have been wider because, probably, there were some Labour supporters who, while voting for their local candidates, decided to boycott the referendum as instructed by their party. This is indeed proof that there are some who do not believe in local councils. The number of those who want to have no truck with local elections is growing.

That itself points to the necessity of a radical rethink of the role of local councils. Not just the warden system, but the whole scope of local councils and the frequency of elections. The Labour Party, knowing that as an opposition party it had an annual propaganda tool, refused to agree with us to extend the life of local councils. We partly paid the price for consistently refusing to let these elections interfere with normal government business. We trust that, after the next general election, Labour would realise that its presumed advantage has proved ephemeral and annual electioneering is indeed not in the national interest. I personally believe that all local councils renewal should run concurrently with the European Parliament elections, saving millions of euros in the process.

This is not denying that there are some voters who wanted to protest against the government. Many do so for genuine personal reasons, though I find it hard to justify their behaviour. But quite a few thousands do so out of selfish reasons asking for what is not theirs. An election for these people is an occasion for turning a vote into a pistol. I hope no one ennobles these people by classifying them among bona fide floaters. These kind of voters are found within the folds of both parties. They do not surface at the same time. While those who usually "support" the government of the day are cocking their pistols, their opposites are probably busy investing for the future. Should we provide them with this type of occasion every year?

Then there are those who refuse to vote because of one issue or another. Those who feel strongly about their pet issue may not vote in a general election. But most, while "risking" their vote in a local election, would not do so in a general election where the stakes are higher. The issues may be myriad. It could be hunting and trapping as well as the environment where, probably, they could be counted in thousands. It could be perceived civil rights. It could be some village issue. It could be law and order. It could be the state of road, the pavement or an electric street bulb.

After more than a quarter of a century in politics, I am still being surprised during my house visits not only by the variety but by the novelty of some complaints, perceived or real. It could even still be bread and butter issues. Twenty years ago the issues were far fewer and more fundamental. So it was easier for the government to act. I know this will not go down well with most readers, especially in the wake of defeat, but I have to say that the variety of issues point to the success of successive Nationalist governments in having addressed the fundamental issues.

There are some unchallengeable facts. One fact, only 68 per cent of those eligible to vote did so. Does anyone believe that in the next election the figures will not be above 90 per cent? What is the political profile of the circa 25 per cent who stayed away? Will they vote in the next general election? Reason and experience tell me that the number of supporters of the party in government who refuse to vote by far surpass supporters of the opposition who withhold their vote. So is the chasm as wide as it seems? Nay, our surveys show otherwise.

Last year, in Naxxar we locally analysed in detail the profile of those who stayed away on a zone basis. It came out crystal clear that those ballot boxes representing the zones where percentile support for us runs into the seventies had the most absentees. Conversely, in those zones where our majority is much less (there is no zone in Naxxar where we cannot boast of a majority) the number of votes cast were much higher. While those who did not vote came from both sides there were about six per cent more voters who usually voted Nationalist who stayed at home. Our share of the vote, in fact, dropped by three per cent from the 2003 to the 2006 election. (The discrepancy is explained by the fact that in 2003 there was an AD candidate.)

This provides further evidence for our conviction that there was no swing from Nationalist to Labour. Detailed analysis for this year would probably give the same indications. No wonder that the MLP, despite some 10 percentile difference, is not so euphoric. We should worry and try to find out if those who abstained will do so again in the general election. Labour should probably be worried that after our 20 years in power those who do not see eye to eye with us still do not trust them with their vote.

Can I venture a guess? Where is Labour's vision? Let's take just one example. Would there have been an ICT revolution had Labour been in power? Would they have had the confidence to go for SmartCity? Would they have dreamed of making Malta a regional centre of excellence? Can they inspire our youth? What future with Labour? This should be a main issue for the next election.

Dr Deguara is Minister of Health, the Elderly and Community Care.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.