Words and deeds

The report on the 2008 general election in (The Times, March 11) suggested that the expected PN deficit in seats "will be made up for under recent constitutional amendments guaranteeing proportionality between votes and seats in a two-party Parliament".

The amendments actually promised strict proportionality between votes and seats. And this is what is assumed to have happened. But is that really the case? The final seat ratio for the PN was 35/69 = 0.507, whereas the vote ratio is 0.502. To keep to "strict proportionality", the number of seats would have to be 101 for the PN and 100 for the MLP. Aside from the problem of physically catering for so many members, that inflation would cost the taxpayer too much in the way of salaries and even more in pensions. So the method of compensation chosen was in fact the old one of a one-seat majority to that party with a majority of first preference votes - no "strict proportionality" there.

The next day Lawrence Gonzi delivered his victory speech. He appealed to us all, including the Opposition, to work together, very much in the spirit of his pre-election slogan Flimkien kollox possibbli, to bring about a change in our way of doing politics. But what he said next, and even more what he did not say next, did not hold out much hope for any radical changes. In view of the closeness of the electoral result, Dr Gonzi could have brought about an instant change by inviting the MLP, already shorn of its leader, to form a coalition government, German-style, or un governo di larghe intese, as Silvio Berlusconi has put it in one of his more lucid moments. On that score, Dr Gonzi chose not to put his money where his mouth was; that knocked a good deal of stuffing out of his appeal.

On the other hand, he was eloquent about the need for "electoral reform". Yet the form of words used pointed more to tinkering than to real reform, and the driving emotion sounded most like concern for the close call the PN had just had. There was no evidence of any wish to shake off the shackles left us by our former colonial masters, no wish to have a system which would give small parties their due, no admission of the obvious: that "strict proportionality" cannot come from the single transferable vote system we operate.

It does look as if our politics are going to be, yet again, the art of the selfishly possible; but if that does provide us with the promised "peace of mind", who am I to grumble?