Lou Bondì, Guardamangia
Gerrymandered elections
I refer to President George Abela’s letter sent through his official channel (The Sunday Times, January 16) in response to my article “Let’s be fair”.
I stand corrected that our President was a member of the Electoral Commission in 1987, not in 1981, and I apologise for the mistake in the dates.
However, I have to point out that the mistake does not change my argument. The 1987 election was as gerrymandered as the one in 1981.
It was not thanks to the Electoral Commission that democratic justice was finally done in 1987, but thanks to the new clause which dictated that the party that won 50 per cent plus one of the votes was the winner.
Without this clause, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici’s and Dom Mintoff’s Labour Party would have usurped government in 1987 against the will of themajority of voters for the second consecutive legislature.
The 1987 Electoral Commission had plenty of ugly, very ugly evidence to show what could happen to this country if the will of the people is thwarted. Yet it did not pay attention to this evidence and went ahead to produce yet another gerrymandered result. I condemn any gerrymandering during any other election in our history.
Be that as it may, the key point I made in the original article was that a flourishing democracy does not allow the past to hold it to ransom. I argued in favour of forgiveness and a benign forgetfulness about the unsavoury bits of our past. “A political heart which does not allow time to heal wounds,” I wrote, “produces nothing but dark ill-will and even darker politics.” I praised Dr Abela, not criticised him.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
21 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Tommy Vella
Jan 23rd 2011, 21:18
@Muscat Pat
So, according to you, what should the PN have done in 1962? Should they have refused to govern? If so what would have happened then? Don't forget that we were still a colony at that time. If no government was formed (the then MLP could not govern because it did not have the majority) would we have achieved Independence and the right to fend for ourselves?
Muscat Pat
Jan 24th 2011, 09:06
There comes a time in the history of us all, when principles, especially ethical ones, come before anything else. The 1962-1970 PN governments were userped and hyjacked by gross human rights violations and freedom of expression. What sort of free elections were those when anyone who voted for the Labout Party was condemmed to eternal strife. Thanks God the Holy Mother Church apologised; the PN and its acolites have not.
Muscat Pat
Jan 24th 2011, 15:03
Vichy (France) under Petain and Quisling (Norway) willfully collaborated with the foreign occupier ( Germans) when no other Norwegian or French patriot wanted to collaborate with the foreign occupier. Both Petain and Quisling were shot as traitors after the end of the Second World War! Thats a lesson in democracy for you!
Tommy Vella
Jan 23rd 2011, 19:10
@ J Borg
Whatever the constitution said it was still very undemocraticof the PL. It may not have not been illegitimate by letter but it was very undemocratic in spirit. First of all because as I said this wasn't an accident but the result of deliberate gerrymandering. Number two because if the PL was democratic it would have governed for a short time until it was ensured that the anomaly would not happen again andf then went back to the people for a mandate.
Muscat Pat
Jan 23rd 2011, 20:07
I suppose the PN was "democratic in spirit" when it accepted to form a government ( not once but twice), against all the basic tenants of free elections and basic human rights in 1962 and 1966! If one wants to be credible one has to be consistent and not to conveniently suffer from selective or (worse) partisan amnesia! This goes for Mr Lou Bondi too who wants us to believe that he is an impartial political referee!
c. camilleri
Jan 23rd 2011, 18:03
@ J Camilleri. The clause which states that the party getting 50% of the votes plus one would be the winner was offered to the Nationalist Party as a sweetener to accept the neutrality clause in our Constitution. Had the NP refused this clause, things would have remained the same. So this clause was forcibly accepted the NP to safeguard our Democracy. Surely Mintoff never had any love for Democracy. His days in office proved this..
Paul Borg
Jan 23rd 2011, 18:41
On the contrary. Everything Mintoff did was with futuristic intent, both for democracy and the immense love for his country and it's people. Today's politicians only WISH they could think as far ahead as 'Him' or respect the people as 'He' . Nowadays our government depend on people like Lou Bondi to hammer an opinion on us , instead of showing Honesty, strenght and determination with a will to put the people first and foremost ( and not their pockets )
Dr Joseph Fava
Jan 23rd 2011, 17:54
It's credibility! Even if you declare that your intention was to praise President Abela and not to criticize, nobody believes you. The general public's mind is set and considers everything Lou Bondi says or does as critical of Labour. If he really wants everybody to forget and forgive his two decades during which he used the State TV to sing praises in favour of his Party and tear apart the LP, he should retire immediately from the mediatic scene and hope for he best.
We've had enough of him nad anyhow, it's the only way for him to mavoid Judgement Day.
J. Borg
Jan 23rd 2011, 17:14
Gerrymandering or not....why iasn't anone mentioning what the constitution said at that time. The party with the majority of seats.
Dear Lou why don't you explain to us then that in 1996 with a hefty majority in 1996, the PL had one seat majority?
Christopher Ripard
Jan 23rd 2011, 22:49
Its amazing how the ONLY time the (M)LP ever respected the constitution was when it gave them power against the democratically expressed wish of the people, yet Mintoff himself once said (when told he was - as usual - doing something unconstitutional) "Nigi nit****** mill-Kostituzzjoni" And boy did he mean it - the violence, the suspension of the constitutional court judges, the gerrymandering, and above all else, the 1981 elections.
Tommy Vella
Jan 23rd 2011, 16:36
@ Wally Vella Zarb
No matter the number of recounts IT STILL DID NOT.
I agree with you and with A. Schembri that it was not the best solutuion. There were other instances where the proportion of votes was not reflected in the number of seats but it at least ensured that whoever the majority of electors chose to govern them, would do so.
Paul Borg
Jan 23rd 2011, 16:01
If you all read carefully, Lou Bondi 's statements and articles always highlights what he and his PN followers think , and how to mock the PL . But when it comes to historic and also recent events that embarrass his party ( the Nationalist Party ) , he merely brushes over it with a carpet statement like " I condemn any gerrymandering during any other election in our history " meaning ?????
While I respect mr.Bondi's opinion , I would prefer to see ( or not see at all ) his programm on NET TV , and not on the national public Channel.
A. Schembri
Jan 23rd 2011, 16:00
There are other sollutions to avoid perverse results. It was a very quick solution as recent elections have proved. Others such as lessening the nuber of districts - so the number of surplus votes seems to be a far better solution.
Tommy Vella
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:35
@ Gerard Cassar
Did that give a perverse result? Was the party elected then the one with the majority of votes or not?
Gerard Cassar
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:11
So Lou Bondi has to have the last say in an argument. He apologise for his mistake but still persists in his argument. He expects that confusing dates, he an outstanding journalist, he who considers himself as being unequal on the islands, is of no importance. What about the P.N. ploy to diferentiate certain districts to elect 6 M.P. and other districts 5 MP. How would he call that., the best decision to avoid gerrymandering or the essence of gerrymandering.
The fable of the "Frog and the Ox "is the most suitable descriptive anecdot to describe Lou Bondi journalist
Tommy Vella
Jan 23rd 2011, 11:42
I can answer that, it was the PL. But do you want us to doff our hats to them when they were only mending what they themselves had broken? Elections in Malta, being run the way they are, could always, before 1987, have had a perverse result. But somehow they never did. It had nearly happened in 1971, but IT DID NOT. But it did happen in 1981. A perverse result could have occurred either by chance or directly as a result of gerrymandering the districts, as they so blatantly were, before the 1981 election.
To make matters worse and galling to any democratically minded person, the 1981-1987 legislature was a record breaker in its duration. The Constituition gives a maximum of 5 years 5 months for any government and between December 81 and May 87 the span of time is 5 years 5 months.
And to rub salt into the democratic wound, the PL wanted also to be paid for righting the wrong it had committed, by combining the majority clause with neutrality.
wally vella-zarb
Jan 23rd 2011, 13:59
"It had nearly happened in 1971, but IT DID NOT"
Sure it did not. What you fail to mention are the innumerable recounts that were demanded by the PN, hoping against hoping that the difference of a handful of votes (FIVE if I remember correctly) would be annulled. This would have seen them being elected to power having won the majority of seats while the MLP, with a VAST majority of votes would have been sent to opposition. THOSE were the rules then but, since the PN did not manage to attain the majority of seats - as set out in the same rules - they could not cry foul like they did in 1981.
The 1987 amendments still left an enormous lacuna. Ideally, the number of seats that a party obtains SHOULD reflect the percentage of votes that it gets across the whole country but such is not the situation. Adding seats until a majority of one is reached does NOT reflect the wishes of the electorate. Compare the votes obtained / seats allocated in the 1996 and 1998 election results...
Lou Bondi
Jan 23rd 2011, 11:13
Re: J.Camilleri. It was Dom Mintoff who proposed the clause in 1987. But what are you trying to say? That we should be thankful to him for not violating the people's will a second time? For not triggering a repeat performance of the horrors of the 1980s? It would be like Caesar thanking Brutus for taking him to hospital after stabbing him.
Joseph Sammut
Jan 23rd 2011, 16:56
@ Bondi: a simple answer would have done!
john vella
Jan 23rd 2011, 21:40
@Joseph Sammut
You must be kidding! It is said: For some the less they know the more they pretend to be knowledgeable! and my goodness thanks to PN little hand some are making a fortune in this field of information, do I need to say more. HA!
J.Camilleri
Jan 23rd 2011, 10:43
Could Mr Bondi please remind me who passed ''the new clause which dictated that the party that won 50 per cent plus one of the votes was the winner''? Which party had the majority of seats in Prliament at the time?