Albert Cilia-Vincenti, Attard.
One seat is enough
Recent contributions to these columns, including editorials, seemed to claim that Lawrence Gonzi's new Cabinet has no clear mandate to govern and to introduce necessary reforms, because of a majority of only 1,500 popular votes and one parliamentary seat. I beg to differ.
Although some in the past have likened democracy to "parliamentary dictatorship", whether we like or not, a one vote majority is as good as any for a democratic government. Let me give two examples how this has worked in the past, locally and overseas.
We elected a Labour government in 1971 with only a one parliamentary seat majority.
Within the first 100 days of this government, Malta's foreign policy was transformed from a pro-Western to an anti-Western one, with our "friends" being suddenly translocated to the southern Mediterranean shores, and with our new "enemies" bearing down on us from Europe and north America.
I'm not going to argue whether or not this was our finest hour in the last 200 years of Maltese history - the point I'm making is that all this radical change, and its consequences, were perfectly democratically possible with only a one seat majority gained with the slimmest of popular vote majority (about five votes) in one district.
Margaret Thatcher came to power in late 1979, after a disastrous period of "old" Labour administration, which reduced post-Empire Britain to a strike-ridden bankrupt economy, whose Chancellor of the Exchequer (Dennis Healey) had to borrow from, and to submit to, conditions laid down by the International Monetary Fund. Ms Thatcher's legacy, carried on by John Major and Tony Blair's "new" Labour, transformed Britain to one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
Her bloodless revolution amended legislation controlling unions, permitting privatisation of public services monopolies, permitting employers to shed redundant workers, and laid down rules for the ending of taxpayers' subsidies to state industries and universities. These had to cover all their costs from the money they earned for their services.
Thus the cost of public transport shot up and universities had to start charging tuition fees, but Ms Thatcher brought down the highest level of income tax from 96 per cent to 40 per cent, to reverse the brain-drain and to make working in Britain worthwhile again. Albeit Eurosceptic, her legacy is enshrined in fundamental EU rules, particularly those relating to achieving and maintaining a free market economy with a level-playing-field scenario, where taxpayer subsidies to inefficient industries (which won't reform their employment or work practices) are not permissible.
Ms Thatcher achieved all this with only one third of the British popular vote, because the British "first-past-the post" electoral system is intended to produce strong governments and no need for coalitions (in contrast to, say, Italy where the resulting difference between, say Alitalia and British Airways, couldn't be starker).
Dr Gonzi and his team have all the credentials to govern and to push our country forward. Our "new" Labour need to study how they might convince us, in five years' time, that they have the potential to improve on the gonzipn team's performance.
Editor's note:
The Times never spoke on the lines the correspondent refers to in the first paragraph.
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Charles Camilleri
Apr 4th 2008, 18:50
Dear laurence schembri, M. Thatcher had the guts to do what was right for her country. Time proved how right she was. Her economic reforms turned the country from bankruptcy country into one of the strongest in Europe. Milk was not longer distributed to schools after it was found out that it was not being consumed and was wasted. As regard strikers, these in those days had the arrogance to pretend to run the country and many times resorted to violence to have their way. The Govt is there to keep order and protect the law abiding citizens.
Joseph R Aquilina
Apr 4th 2008, 17:39
For a short history of how the Single Transferable Vote system (as amended) has worked in Malta read Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Miño and John C. Lane in an article titled "STV in Malta: Some Surprises", published in Representation (winter, 199697). Also article “Malta STV with some twists” (with one paragraph I do not understand re power of female vote) – updated to September 2006, also by Wolfgang P. Hirczy de Miño carried in ACE Encyclopaedia – available on website http://www.aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_mt/. As Prime Minister Gonzi correctly stated immediately after the last General Elections, the system nearly threw another wobbly, and during the next legislature the system requires to be revised once again
TONY FORMOSA
Apr 4th 2008, 15:43
Wishful thinking mate! Buttigieg knows that Parliament must open before May 11 and immeditely we shall have the usual 'early election' screams by the Labour media.
Buttigieg must remember all this after all it was always the pattern after any election won by the PN during the last 27 years.
And there were far too many.
Dreaming is not a sin.
TONY FORMOSA
Joe Martinelli
Apr 4th 2008, 15:06
Whether by old rules or new ones, a one seat majority is good enough.
If the MLP will make the defeat of this one seat majority government its policy, it will do so for the sake of being in power. Before it tries to bring down the government, it better have credible policies in place which it does not have now, otherwise it would be governing. The 'new' (or rather not so new) leader they choose will have a large task ahead to first unify the party and secondly to examine what is best for the country and the party - in that order - and I suspect, by the time he/she accomplishes that, it would be time for another election.
Instead of wasting so much energy at throwing wrenches in the works trying to trip the government, it should put the interest of the country first.
Everything else I have read so far from Labourites is very similar to the fox who trying to reach the unreachable (for him) grapes declared that they are sour anyway.
Victor Laiviera
Apr 4th 2008, 14:27
Mr Cilia-Vincenti is not correct when he says that in 1971 the MLP had "only a one seat majority gained with the slimmest of popular vote majority (about five votes) in one district."
In actual fact, the MLP had an absolute majority of 50.84% while the PN obtained 48.1%.
The difference went to smaller parties who did not elect any candidates. In actual votes, the difference between the MLP and the PN was just over 4,700.
Due to the way the districts had been adjusted, this vote difference translated into a one seat majority - and it hinged on a handful of votes in Qormi.
The PN called for several recounts to try and win that seat. Had they succeeded, they would have won the government with a majority of seats and a minority of votes.
Which shows that the fuss they made when the same thing happened in 1981 was pure hypocrisy.
laurence schembri
Apr 4th 2008, 13:30
Margaret Thatcher also took the milk out of the school children mouths when she was a Minister for Education, she also sent police to actually beat-up miners and printers during the strikes of that particular time, i know I was there and got beaten when the printers strike had nothing to do with government.
Joseph Buttigieg
Apr 4th 2008, 10:43
A. C. V has his rights to such opinion but he has no right to change political facts.
A relative majority gave a constitutional right to the PN to govern> It is completely different from 1971. May I add that even Mintoff then found it very difficult to govern with one seat majority. When an NP member crossed the floor gave then Mintoff''s a new breath of fresh air to govern and complete five years in office.This is a political fact and the rest is history.
Quoting other nations is more then irrelevant and does not fit with our political scenario.The fact is that with such a slim majority it is not only difficult but much worse,keeping in mind how the PN behaved in 1996's Labour administration, I rather dare say it is impossible and impractical to survive 5 years in office.
If nothing else the MLP is not that suicidal and whoever would be Leader of the MLP, would be much aware that the chances of survival of the present Administration is very minimal. The Arrogance and bla bla of the present administration would definitely bring about its downfall much earlier then expected.
I am convinced time would prove me right.