Ranier Fsadni
Why the PN prefers opposition to coalition
Although Lawrence Gonzi has ruled it out, Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) continues to claim (at the time of writing) that a coalition government between AD and the Nationalist Party (PN) is quite possible. AD claims it is the people that choose: How could Dr Gonzi face his voters if he rejected a coalition and handed government to Labour?
The assumption: a coalition government has to be in the PN's interests. But you do not need a hotline to Dr Gonzi's inner thoughts to realise it is highly unlikely to be in his party's interests at all. And it would be easy for him to explain why to the PN's voters.
Before we get to why, let us clear up two other things.
First, come March 10, a PN-AD coalition is not likely to be on the cards.
The new district boundaries have put about three PN seats, in different districts, within Labour's reach - even with AD out of the equation. Labour can grab them without a big national swing in its favour - that is, without winning the absolute majority of votes.
If the PN loses a further seat or two to third parties, Dr Sant will get to rule - and rule alone. Whether that is good or bad is up to you. But the maths is not.
Second, it is not the voters who choose to have a coalition. Voters choose their MPs. They can choose to put three or more parties into Parliament. But it is the MPs, particularly their leaders, who choose whether to enter into a coalition government. It is the leaders who get to agree on what goes into a compromise government programme. Without a compromise they can live with, no coalition is possible.
AD itself has made this clear. Its leader has categorically stated that he would bring a coalition government down if it crossed one of his red lines. Funnily enough, however, while AD can see its interest in aborting a coalition (under some circumstances), it cannot see the PN's interest in not entering one (under virtually all scenarios).
AD says that, since the PN contemplated a coalition in 2003, it would do so again in 2008. But surely the salient fact is that the PN ultimately rejected a coalition back then. It would have alienated it from key segments of its vote.
Five years later, for different reasons, a coalition would still greatly risk alienating the PN's voters. AD has stated it would help form a government if AD's programme, or most of it, were accepted.
How are (at the very least) 45 per cent of voters going to like being governed by a programme voted in by 10 per cent of voters (to take AD's most optimistic estimate)?
Nor do there seem to be compromises available that would not damage the credibility of one party or another. Would AD stop Dr Gonzi from bringing income tax down to 25 per cent for people earning up to €60,000? How could he face his electorate if he stopped at 30 per cent, as AD would like?
AD would like to double parental leave and raise it to 26 weeks. Admirable. But if it insists that the government do this, the PN would alienate the employers out of whose pocket this measure will be funded. And private schools would be crippled.
Already, with parental leave at 14 weeks, Church schools cannot cover the extra salaries from the government subvention.
Even if the government increased the subvention to cover the extra costs (and throw another PN financial promise out of the window), the schools will find it virtually impossible to find the extra teachers.
Already, heads of schools need to jump through the hoops to find replacements for 14 weeks. With 26 weeks, there is no doubting who the heads will blame when telling parents why their children have no teacher for French or IT in midyear, a few months away from national exams.
Even if an agreement on a government programme is reached, there will be dim prospects for proper Cabinet government with open discussion. Over the last four years, AD has called the PN (and MLP) "moral dwarves". AD has made it clear it would see its role in government as a whistleblower in waiting, watching over people it does not trust.
We know, from the Cacopardo case, that AD is so convinced that its interests and the public interest are uniquely fused that it is prepared to publicise confidential internal reports: for AD, its moral authority dwarves even the advice of Mepa's auditor and that of the Ombudsman.
Perhaps it does. But it is highly unlikely that Dr Gonzi thinks so or that he would put up with AD's holier-than-thou attitude.
Particularly since, in the face of a difficult international economic situation ahead, and important strategic decisions to be taken, this kind of coalition is unlikely to be able to provide the kind of decisive stable leadership that is needed.
AD likes to point to Germany's stable coalitions. But those have happened because a segment of the Greens travelled towards the pragmatic centre. AD's insulting attitude towards everyone and soaring self-regard has seen it travel in the opposite direction.
Did Joschka Fischer ever hurl the insults at Gerhard Schroeder that Harry Vassallo has hurled at Dr Gonzi?
What, then, is likely to happen in case AD's favourite hypothetical scenario - a Parliament with 32 seats each for the MLP and PN, with the deciding seat for AD - comes to pass?
I bet my bottom euro that Dr Gonzi will make good on his promise and let Labour clasp the chalice of government.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
C. Scerri
Feb 21st 2008, 19:39
I bet that the lifetime of an AD-MLP coalition would just be under 22 months!!!
Another election - and guess who would be win it - PN - basically a repeat of 1998.
Harry Vassallo
Feb 21st 2008, 18:35
Last I heard Lawrence Gonzi evaded a direct question on a possible AD PN coalition by claiming that AD wants a coalition with the MLP. Remarkable. He avoided saying never to a coalition at the cost of making the most grotesque of contortions. He is a politician. Ranier this article is not worthy of you. I am sincerely appalled that your claim to intelligent commentary has been jettisoned in a state of total panic.
Alex Ellul
Feb 21st 2008, 17:04
Ranier Fsadni has made a very realistic evaluation of the current electoral campaign situation and its possible, but not probable outcome. However, should the improbable come to pass, I cannot see how: 1. An MLP-AD coalition can survive at all. 2. A PN-AD coaltion even be agreed to after all the mostly unjustified criticism and eventual bad blood caused. Should a 32-32-1 result, the PN will most likely let an MLP-AD coalition and see this go bust in a few months at the expense of the Maltese economy. We have already been there, that is when the Alferd Sant-Dom Mintoff coalition went sour after just a few months in power and collapsing within 22 months.
Reuben Balzan
Feb 21st 2008, 16:47
I'm glad I read James Micallef's comment below..
Whatever Lawrence Gonzi says is not important and should be totally ignored.. there will be an AD-PN coalition because Mr Micallef said so himself.
Joe Gatt
Feb 21st 2008, 16:39
Sadly, it is clear that James Micallef, like most hardcore AD supporters is living in a dreamworld.
To reiterate, the 32-32-1 situation cannot arise, because of the nature of our electoral system and the current electoral district boundaries.
Even if by some mathematical miracle it did, it would be suicidal for the PN to enter into an alliance with an impossible partner like AD. The only available partner would be the MLP -- and AD has NOT ruled out such a coalition. Neither has Labour.
So the truth is what it has always been.
Vote Harry, get Fredu.
Charles Camilleri
Feb 21st 2008, 15:57
Coalition Government means democracy for the minority. It is always at the whims of its minor partner. This is not what Malta needs in the coming years. It needs a strong able Government to ride us through the rough storms ahead and maintain our present prosperity.
Danny Attard
Feb 21st 2008, 15:26
I find it strange how the AD/PN coalition debate is based exclusively on seats and ignores votes. What if, for example, the Nationalist Party would gain 32 seats with 44% of the vote, the Malta Labour Party 32 seats with 49% of the vote and Alternattiva 1 seat with 5% of the vote? Would such result influence at all Alternattiva’s thinking or for that matter that of the Nationalist Party?
Charles Spiteri
Feb 21st 2008, 14:56
If AD prefers a coalition with PN rather than MLP, they should say so.
If AD's manifesto overlaps with that of PN, it should say so.
The reality is that AD don't really care with whom they get a coalition, and are keeping their options open.
All they care about is grasping power.
So much for being different!!!!
Joe Martinelli
Feb 21st 2008, 13:56
A coalition government at this point is hypothetical, but for argument's sake let us assume that the election will result in PN 32 - MLP 32 and AD 1. Irrespective of which party AD chooses to prop up, it may be safely assumed that the 1 AD elects will definitely not make it to Cabinet. Therefore the AD's influence will be limited since no 'outsider' will be privy to Cabinet discussions and plans.
Secondly the 1 AD representative will be seen as an obstacle to implementation of the government's promises made to the electorate leading into the election. The government will then have a choice to either submit to those who voted in 1 MP and upset those who elected 32 or it will find an opportunity to defeat itself and go for fresh elections.
But before an election takes place, the President will call on the other party with 32 seats and offer it to form a government. One would assume that the 'other' party would jump right in and form another coalition with the same 1 AD MP. The first scenario will repeat itself.
In the meantime valuable time is lost, an air of uncertainty is created, foreign investments will dry up and what we have gained so far will be perilously close to being all lost.
All this is because of 1 AD MP! The aloof attitude of Harry Vassallo does not help and humility is obviously not his forte. With a picky voter, it is the wrong attitude to have and besides his wooing of the likes of Mr. Cacopardo is not earning him any converts.
For those who think that a coalition is a solution, better think twice. The Canadian Federal Government is made up of a Conservative Minority which has not entered into a coalition with any of the other two parties represented in Parliament but it has to rely on passing legislation which is 'approved' by any of the two lesser parties. This arrangement has lasted for about two years but the Conservatives are itching to dump the present arrangement since it impedes passage of legislation which they deem essential but which the other two lesser parties do not approve of. Such an arrangement is only causing a stop and go kind of governing which satisfies none.
Is this what we want for Malta?
If Harry Vassallo succeeds in creating such a scenario, he knows very well that it will be a temporary arrangement at best and worse, if the side he chooses to help grasp the reins of government blames his party for its ultimate demise, then AD will certainly be punished and its influence will be greatly diminished.
James Micallef
Feb 21st 2008, 10:53
I don't believe that at all. First of all, whatever AD's attitude I still believe they would prefer to coalition with PN rather than MLP. Secondly, a large part of AD's manifesto overlaps with the PN's, at least in spirit if not in all the details (so much that on some points AD have accused the PN of 'borrowing' its proposals). This means that enough points of compromise could be found to form a stable government.
In 2003 the coalition talks failed because the proposal was a pre-election coalition. With that scenario, disgruntled PN voters could feel free to vote either AD without risking losing their EU ticket. That is why Eddie offered AD 1 seat in exchange not to run, Because they both knew that with a free vote, AD would grab much more than 1 seat. The MEP elections proved as much - with a completely free vote huge amounts of people will vote AD. That is why the PN is ruling out coalition, because it wants to keep its voters chained in tightly.
Finally, which action by Dr. Gonzi is more likely to be seen as a betrayal by PN faithful? Forming a coalition with AD, or allowing Dr. Sant to govern when there was the possibility of keeping him out? Surely the latter would be seen as a far greater betrayal.
No, if the result is 32-32-1, it will be a PN-AD coalition. Whether there is a chance of that result is another matter of course