Coalitions are made on political platforms that are clear and understandable to the electorate.
The political weakness behind Alternattiva Demokratika's offer to take part in a coalition government lies in that they failed to indicate with whom.
AD must at all costs get out of the mode of being the recipient party of the protest votes of the day. Because these protest votes do not belong to them but will return to the other party at some time or other.
AD was born as a reaction to the excesses of the Mintoffian regime and the likes of Toni Abela and Wenzu Mintoff were proof of this. Today, with Labour in opposition, they firmly form part of the Malta Labour Party and are actively campaigning for a Labour victory. Their place is being taken by the likes of Carmel Cacopardo, a former exponent of the Nationalist Party.
This is not good news for AD because they will never beat the quirks of the electoral system in this manner.
What future does AD have if at this election it is banking on disgruntled nationalist voters?
Does not AD realise that, unless it portrays a clear strategy for the future, these will remain Nationalist votes, just as the disgruntled Labour votes remained Labour votes?
AD must reflect very carefully now that it has suggested a coalition government. Why should disgruntled Nationalists vote AD if it is prepared to ally itself with the party they wish to protest against? Even worse to the disgruntled Nationalist voter would be for AD to accept to join the MLP in a coalition government.
Not only. Why would a left-leaning voter opt for AD if their aim is to oppose the present government?
AD, therefore, have to realise they have only two options to be credible.
Either declare their intentions with whom they are prepared to ally themselves before the voting takes place. Or else, take the courageous decision to declare they will not ally themselves with any party because they represent a distinct political force with its own ideology and programme.
The quirks of the electoral system make a coalition government a very remote possibility because if a party obtains over 50 per cent of the first preferences, it will govern alone even if AD were to elect one member of Parliament. Ironically, according to the Constitution, it would only serve to increase the main party's majority because seats will be increased to give the winning party a proportionate majority over the combined seats of both opposition parties.
However, voters have to start moving away from allowing the electoral quirks from interfering unduly with their voting patterns. The quirks are there and they will condition the result but they must not be the only criteria of how to vote.
A protest voter who wants his/her vote to count must ask the question as to the effect the vote will have on the final result.
By voting AD just to express a protest vote is, of course, a democratic option. However, I genuinely cannot see any protest voter, either from the right or the left, feeling comfortable that his/her protest vote ends up supporting the party or parties they are protesting against.
AD's political decision to vaguely offer a coalition government would seem to militate in favour of yet another two-party race.