Thursday, 3rd April 2008
Talking point
Back from the brink
One of the ironies of the result of the last general election is that the Nationalist Party and its supporters seem to be blaming Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) for the perverse permutations of our country's electoral system.
In this way, AD is perceived as having brought the country to the brink of a potential "disaster" with the MLP obtaining fewer votes than the PN but having more seats in Parliament.
This is indeed well and truly the mother of all ironies for a party which has suffered ever since its inception from an unjust and unfair electoral system. The crude truth is that the PN has been in government for over 20 years and has had all the time in the world to change the electoral system to avoid the potential "disaster" Lawrence Gonzi was complaining about after the elections.
The cruder truth is that the PN and the MLP have repeatedly avoided going for a truly democratic and just reform of the electoral system and have instead chosen to tinker with the electoral system with incredibly blinkered partisan short-sightedness.
They are solely to blame for the potentially "disastrous" situation AD is now being held responsible for.
The last amendments to the electoral law agreed between the PN and the MLP late in 2007 are a glaring example of this partisan short-sightedness. The amendments were trumpeted as the end of all problems related to the gerrymandering of electoral districts.
Strict proportionality between votes and seats in Parliament was depicted as doing away once and for all with the risk of a so-called "perverse" result.
There again the PN and the MLP conveniently failed to emphasise that this strict proportionality between votes and seats was limited only to a situation where only two parties are elected to Parliament. In the case of a third party being elected, this strict proportionality clause would not come into effect. In their haste to create a system to fit their myopic vision of what democratic representation should be all about, the PN and MLP chose partisan expediency over the national interest. Last year, only AD pointed out the inherent risk of such a system still leaving the possibility of gerrymandered districts creating a perverse result.
This year we were proved right. The cruel political irony is that in some way we are being blamed for a system exclusively concocted by the PN and MLP and which AD had repeatedly and strongly criticised.
One positive result of the last general election is that, finally, this repeated tinkering by the PN and the MLP with our electoral system has now come to a dead end.
The need for a just and fair electoral system is there for all to see. Lawrence Gonzi is on record as saying that such a reform is now a priority. After an electoral campaign in which truth was the first casualty of spin, one can only hope that the Prime Minister will try to regain the high moral ground by proposing an electoral system that is truly in the national interest.
Early rumblings from Joe Saliba suggesting a 7.5 per cent national threshold of votes for parliamentary representation are not encouraging. That would fly in the face of the EU norm, making it closer to non-EU Turkey's 10 per cent threshold than the threshold of any EU country currently using such a system.
Whatever the reform proposed, one hopes that the national interest will prevail over the partisan interests of the major parties.
Above all, one hopes that all those opinion makers and bloggers who got so hysterical about the AD risk during the last electoral campaign will now pull themselves out of the mud they have repeatedly slung at AD and start calling with their customary insistence for a just, fair and democratic electoral reform that truly reflects the national interest.
Mr Cachia is deputy chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika - The Green Party.
RSS
Comments
My first comment was directed at Stephen’s contribution….
However the suggestion that the party with the higher No.1s should govern (alone), would be somewhat peculiar since it will continue to inflated the number of MPs, and ingrain a (relative) minority govt.
Stability is not necessarily synonymous with one party govt., being assigned absolute power, and indulging into a 4 yr arrogance, before playing repentant as election draws nearer.
Majority participative govt. is logical (whether through one or more parties). Stability would then depend on the responsibility, clarity and objectivity of govt./parliament, in seeking and working toward the crucial objectives, rather than wasting energies on petty squabbling.
The parties (especially small parties) would be under the electors’ watchful eyes, which hopefully will not be clouded by the partisan media.
Nonetheless, what’s clear is that the current system has to be changed – i.e. made democratic and fair.
Hopefully the Labour party under the new leadership will not weigh matters solely on the basis of the short-term likelihood of it attaining more votes than the PN, but on what is really in Malta’s democratic interest – whoever future small parties may represent.
Ultimately major parties may still govern together – which would again be an improvement….
Dion i got your points and you really feel hurt. But as i told to some of the Greens heads, the AD was playing with fire, sort of being confident of electing at least one MP and expecting to part of coalition government.
With the setup as it was, they did not stand any chance, because the big parties used the reforms to their best advantage.
I agree the national threshold should be lowered to 5%, but with a guarantee for a stable government.
That means the party with the biggest total of number one preferences will
earn the right to govern..the others should sit on the opposition benches.
Who knows, maybe someday some sense will come out of my suggestion!!!!????
Firstly, the flaw in the electoral system had ALSO been pointed out by Laurence Grech in one of his editorials (Times of Malta).
Secondly the current electoral system is not the result of some hasty short-sighted quick fix by the MLPN, but of a cheeky Machiavellian stratagem, that has unfortunately worked to perfection:
In my opinion, the objectives of the ‘hasty’ fiddling with the electoral system were:
(MLPN) Increase the national threshold by eightfold, to keep third parties at bay
(PN) Splitting Swieqi – Sliema into different districts, thus diluting AD’s relative stronghold.
(MLP) Trade the PN’s crucial Swieqi-Sliema split request, to additional changes in the districts’ layout to ensure an overall advantage (on paper) to the MLP.
Moreover the PN, not a naïve party by any means, consented to the overall advantage to the MLP, perfectly aware that it (PN) can shrewdly use the ‘threat’ - posed by a sure Labour victory (based on seats) and the practical improbability of AD’s getting past the 16% threshold or either electing anyone in the now dispersed Swieqi Sliema districts. In fact the PN propaganda machine was put to ample use to scare off voters from voting AD, simply by highlighting the situation that the PN had itself devised, without obviously saying so!
Unfortunately the same scenario and tactics, subsists and are sure to be used in the next election, unless we uphold true proportionality of votes – or at least, reduce the threshold to 5% and cap the number of districts to a handful or less.
Quite fair. But why should, in the meantime, any votes earned by the small parties be totally wasted.
Stephen is right we should go for a more reasonable and lower percentage than 7.5% national treshold.
And I maintain that any small party getting a seat or two should sit on the Opposition benches, while the Government stability is redressed by adding to the biggest party a majority of one seat on the Opposition, no matter who forms it. I think that Alternattiva Demokratika insistence of forming part of a coalition government sort of put off the electorate in giving AD a much more deserved support.
AD should have been careful to first learn to put the first step, before aiming to run straightaway.