Claire Bonello
Who's a selfish, grudge-bearer?
I like my former lecturer Austin Bencini far too much to imagine that he would have wished to brand me and other voters like cows. But he has - unintentionally, of course.
In recently published articles about coalitions and voting choices, he has made reference to people who intend to vote for Alternattiva Demokrattika. And Dr Bencini inexplicably concluded that all such votes are protest votes and since "these protest votes do not belong to them they will return to the other party at some time or other". The same sort of language was used by Nationalist candidate Clyde Puli on a television programme this week. He was bellowing at AD spokesman Mario Mallia for "taking Nationalist votes".
The implication is clear - once you have voted for the PN or MLP you are branded in the same way as cows are branded with fire irons. The PN/MLP brand is scorched indelibly into your skin and you are deemed to be property of the major party you voted for - permanently. Should you try to venture to other pastures or dare to vote for a minor party, all hell breaks loose. Attempts are made to corral you back to the holding pen and - if you actually vote for another party - that party has "stolen" your vote.
The cow branding analogy might not be perfect but it shows how ridiculous all this talk of votes "belonging to", or being "stolen from" any party is. Votes do not belong to any political party. It is the voter who may exercise the right to choose the person whom he thinks may represent him best.
Even though it should be clear that votes cannot be stolen, this sort of baseless claim continues to be made. The most recent "AD is stealing our votes" accusation came by way of an e-mail which pinged into my mailbox. It was an article by columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia which had originally been published in another newspaper. Having been adapted and renamed as "Why a vote for AD is a vote for Alfred Sant" it was forwarded to various recipients with the author's exhortations to circulate. Later I received yet another shorter version with big, red letters ordering me to pass it on to anybody who intended to vote for AD. I'm not a big fan of chain e-mails. I like those containing a whole set of incorrect, simplistic assumptions even less. So I decided to address a few of the most sloppy forwarded.
The first relates to the voting profile of people more likely to support AD. They are variously described as the Sliema-Swieqi types, people who only care about themselves or their ideals and the car-park in their backyard (which is slightly better than the way they were described in an online comment by the same author as "those whose bitterness, grudges, nimbyism and sense of personal disappointment have made vulnerable."). The crude stereotyping doesn't stop there. According to Caruana Galizia, the only votes which AD attracts are from people whose sympathies are more in line with Nationalist Party thought.
This kind of conclusion completely ignores the fact that there is a core green vote which may have voted for the PN to secure EU accession and which now feels free to vote for a party which reflects its ideals more closely. These are the people who would not vote for either the PN or the MLP and who would probably not vote at all if AD were not in the running. These have to be factored in, as should the new voters and former PN supporters who welcome a multi-party approach to politics.
This is the voting pool from which AD tries to garner support - as do the major parties. It is rather nonsensical to rail against AD for trying to attract votes from a particular sector - which political party wouldn't? Judging by the frenzied onslaught of the PN machine on this so-called demographic, that's precisely what it's doing.
The second shaky argument put forward in the article is one based on the politics of fear - fear of Alfred Sant, to be more precise. This is the argument which would have us holding our nose and voting PN even if we were profoundly disappointed with its performance during the past legislature. "Vote for the lesser of the two evils" is the repeated mantra here, "otherwise Sant will get in and catastrophe will ensue".
I'm not buying it. Apart from the fact that the post-apocalyptic visions being drummed up are purely speculative, the most dismal prospect I can imagine is not the return of either the MLP or the PN to power - it is the continuation of this alternating one-party system of government. It is a system where both major parties are financed by the same lobby groups and won't reveal it. It is a divisive and tribal system where honest criticism is frowned upon if it dents election chances. That is a more frightening prospect then the meltdown scenario dreamt up by PN/MLP exponents.
A more inclusive multi-party system would start doing away with this non-productive form of politics. People who vote for AD for this process to begin, are not voting for Sant or the absurd one-man Gonzipn party. They are voting for a completely different set-up. If some 2,500 voters do so in one district, then an AD candidate is elected and their vote would not have been "wasted". On the other hand, a vote is wasted when instead of voting for the party of your choice, you opt for a candidate you don't trust because you're afraid of the other. That means that the party you like, but were afraid to vote for, loses its support and the issues which it promotes are put on the backburner by the major parties in Parliament.
Another inaccurate statement made is that relating to the possibility of a coalition government being formed between AD and one of the major parties.
PN pundits keep saying it's impossible. They're wrong. If no party obtains an absolute majority of the votes, and AD manages to obtain one parliamentary seat, then it can link up with another party which shares its goals and priorities. And no - coalitions aren't those volatile formations where parliament is dissolved at the drop of a hat and where minor coalition parties hold everybody to ransom with unreasonable demands.
Besides considering the fact that this would be political suicide for that minor coalition partner, it would be a good idea to have a look at the majority of European countries where coalition governments are stable and effective and allow for more consensual politics. So before you click the 'Forward' button on dodgy articles describing voters as grudge-bearing NIMBYs, who should vote for one party in perpetuity, pause for a moment and consider whether the 'Delete' button is preferable.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Dion Borg
Feb 21st 2008, 15:12
Without sounding disrespectful to Dr. Sant (whom I respect for leading Labour out of the DM & KMB era), I wish to take on Ms. Caruana Galizia’s point….if the alleged catastrophe is ‘Dr. Sant PM’ and ‘a Labour govt.’ (so it is not just Dr.Sant?)….’a safe pair of’ minds ought to easily avoid such potential alleged catastrophe by forging a common front (with no 11th hr backstabbing pls). Thus unless Labour already has an absolute majority – the alleged catastrophe would be averted once and for all – Dr. Sant will resign, Dr. Gonzi will become PM again, but instead of an absolute PN govt we’ll have AD’s input in a hopefully refreshed cabinet.
So according to Ms. Caruana Galizia’s scales, two catastrophes cancelled, one wish granted, whilst the other also in place, but with a credible AD input to ensure that the EU values (those who are demonizing Dr. Sant seem so fond of), are truly embraced and upheld.
AD has a track record of drawing GonziGovt’s attention to EU directives/standards that were being disregarded or conveniently misinterpreted. What catastrophe could AD pose to a refreshed ‘Gonzi lead’ govt? .....Insisting that the Environment is factually safeguarded (Xaghra & Ramla il-Hamra, Ta’ Cenc)? …..Emphasize on the Quality of Life, Air, Sea, Water, efficient Transport for our immediate benefit and sustainable Tourism Income (Water Table, Renewable Energy proposals)? …….Support an overhaul at MEPA and the Construction Industry (Cacopardo has hands on experience)? …….Stress on credible long-term sustainable financial responsibility (having sold off most of our national assets)? …….Guide a ‘Gonzi lead’ govt., to truly uphold, Accountability, Meritocracy and technical Expertise in the appointment of public officers (no party stalwarts pretending rewards)? ……Accelerate sensible Rent reform (deflating the property bubble)? ……Champion referendum on matters of national interest? …….Insist on Transparent Party financing, so no sticky hands subtly influence decisions and govt’s credibility? …..Will they be such a pain that the ‘Gonzi lead’ govt., would risk all the visions the PN are saying that they have? ….Haven’t the outgoing GonziGovt’s troubles, been induced by party stalwarts, and wouldn’t AD strengthen the PM’s hands in having such stalwarts’ pretensions dismissed? Isn’t it dangerous to let the PN run the country alone, where the PN’s interests are given priority?
What’s dangers do the likes of Harry, Arnold, and Carmel pose? What dangers are the Greens posing in the EU parliament?
Let’s be sincere, they have a valid and crucial contribution through which all honest citizens are sure to benefit, both directly and also indirectly, as the major parties would be induced to clean up their acts, once and for all, and a really new way of doing politics finally dawns on Malta. As I see it, the ball is in Dr. Gonzi’s court…..
Daphne Caruana Galizia
Feb 19th 2008, 19:11
It isn't a choice between a Labour government and a PN-AD coalition. It's a choice between Alfred Sant and Lawrence Gonzi as prime minister, between a Labour and a Nationalist government. AD does not factor in the equation except as a destructive force. The fact that AD is receiving the 'support' of the Labour Party should alert you to the way things are going. You're doing them a favour.
Dion Borg
Feb 19th 2008, 13:31
Dear Ms. Caruana Galizia, a couple of thousand people can decide whether there will by yr dreaded Dr. Sant or yr beloved GonziPN as PM in a single party govt….. many more thousand people believe that the world is somewhat a bit more colourful than simply blue and red, and that (apart from voting for whom one really wants, including across fictitious party lines) blending ideas, discussing objectively and constructively, lends to better decisions for mutual benefit – rather the hysterical cries of doom or naïve arguments and doublespeak. The majority of European democracies, including the EU parliament itself are a proof of different thinking hats contributing to objective decisions and policies.
An official (it already exists….16% threshold rings a bell?) MLPN coalition would still be beneficial….hopefully tapping on the few capable individuals from either party….and acting in congruence where it matters, rather than striving to sniff out an issue or watching over one’s shoulders. However, I just see one major problem….poor old Net and Super1 will have to come up with some quality TV for a change! Finally dear Ms. Caruana Galizia, pls clarify in simple words, do you prefer a (sole) Labour Govt., or a PN-AD coalition?
Daphne Caruana Galizia
Feb 19th 2008, 04:46
Will somebody please explain to me, as I seem to be missing something here, exactly who is interested in a coalition? A couple of thousand people maybe - if that? I think it's more like a couple of hundred. The rest of us just want some peace and quiet and a stable government. And yet these people make so much noise about their coalition bogeyman that we've forgotten there really aren't that many of them, so why are they trying to force what they want on the rest of us? Because a minuscule minority wants a coalition government, the other 300,000 electors have to have one forced on them? How does that work, exactly? I thought it was electors who decided who gets to govern? Or are we going down that road where suspended animation is the order of the day for months as a government is cobbled together from various bits and bobs amid a hundred power stuggles? Coalition works, they tell us. Well, I have news for them: our system works even better. I have a daring suggestion: that the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party form a coalition government (they can call it MLPN to keep AD happy) and put AD with its single seat in Opposition. What fun that should be.
John Schembri
Feb 18th 2008, 22:26
Choosing an MEP is one thing , choosing a local councilor is an other ,but choosing who is going to govern us for 5 whole years is a hell of a lot.
Dion Borg
Feb 17th 2008, 20:32
In the last two elections, a sizeable number of voters expressed their will to entrench Malta in the EU – thus ensuring that EU standards can dawn on our shores notwithstanding the self-defeating vote grabbing policies of the MLPN. This time round, a similar sizeable number will break the MLPN dual dictatorship, so that the core European democratic, transparency and accountability credentials can factually be implemented in Malta – freed from the MLPN and their tycoon sponsors’ self-centred interests!
John Schembri
Feb 17th 2008, 16:53
The problem is not coalition, it is with which party AD will do it.
If there is no difficulty for Alternattiva to go with the Labour Party , let it be so and make an ALLIANCE, BEFORE the elections, after all two of its ex-officials are prominent members in the MLP. (Will Caccopardo agree?)
As the Alternattiva ex-candidate Rene' Rossignaud declared inter alia , "AD is being used to beat Gonzi to get Labour in power".
Labour supporters cannot be disgruntled with 'their' government , the last Sant government lasted for 20 months of uncertainty, 10 years ago. The most plausible scenario is that AD will not garner enough votes to gain a seat in parliament, and will only help MLP to be in power with a RELATIVE majority. We are not discussing whether this is fair, these are the rules.
So before voting to AD people should think of three possibilities: Alfred Sant prime minister and Harry Vassallo minister of the environment, Alfred Sant Prime minister and AD & PN in opposition , or Alfred Sant Prime Minister with Gonzi in the opposition and no seat for AD.
People voting AD with Alfred Sant at the helm of the country will support his new "fight" with the EU and the oil surcharge removal from the electricity bills which are not that green.
D. Mangion
Feb 17th 2008, 12:14
Excellent article. Puts back some sense into this mediocre election campaign where we have a pseudo Mintoffian style PN, which is scaring people from seeking pastures new by telling them that Labour have never changed. Could be so. But PN have changed...and how !! They have gone back to the one man party style on the 1980' s MLP. We
voted against this in 1980 and we will vote AD so as to create a situation where it will never be repeated.