Candidates’ recruitment is a vital activity in the life of any political party because it is the primary screening device in the process through which the party seeks to secure the trust of the electorate to obtain public office.
The importance of the selection process is highly dependent on the electoral system in use. Different electoral systems offer parties different sets of concerns and incentives. Scholars argue that the logic of the relationship between the relative importance of candidate selection and the electoral system revolves around the degree of choice available to voters in the general election. In some systems, the party selection phase carries more weight because the electorate has little or no opportunity to influence the ranking of a party’s candidates. In other systems, voters have unfettered choice in selecting which candidates, from a large pool, are elected.
The Maltese system falls in the latter category. The nomination process does not pose any problems for Maltese parties as there is no such thing as scarcity of ballot positions in Maltese elections. Our electoral system guarantees office to the party that wins the highest number of first preferences and, since 1987, parties are seeking to maximise their vote by fielding popular candidates who could attract a few extra first preference votes from the opposing party.
In the run-up to an election and up to the closing hours leading to the nominations deadline, new candidates mushroom in every district. This happens in every election and for both parties. The election fever takes its toll on everyone, including the parties’ elites and the expected scrutiny is relaxed at the eleventh hour.
Given the nature of our electoral system, the surge of surprise candidates in the final weeks of an election is understandable but when it happens almost two years before an election is due one does wonder whether that party’s internal structure is working responsibly. Why am I saying this? In the past six weeks the Labour Party announced the candidacy of Deborah Schembri and, more recently, Cyrus Engerer revealed that he is considering contesting the next election on the PL’s ticket. Dr Schembri and Mr Engerer were both considered supporters of the Nationalist Party before their announcement.
Dr Schembri’s announcement was made barely a week after the divorce referendum result and did not come as a surprise. What surprised me was the Labour leader’s hastiness in accepting her nomination. If Dr Schembri’s case surprised me, Mr Engerer’s proclamation of his consideration to stand for election on behalf of the PL shocked me. Unlike Dr Schembri, who was never a PN candidate, Mr Engerer was elected in a local council on the PN ticket and only up to three weeks ago delivered a speech at the party’s general council. Mr Engerer has every right to defect to the PL. What I cannot understand is how Joseph Muscat and his party allow somebody to proclaim his consideration to stand in their name only weeks after the same individual was criticising the Labour leader’s policies.
The switch seemed rushed. The implications of it remain unknown, up to now.
I have always been critical of the mechanics of our electoral system putting pressure on the two parties to field popular, rather than affable, competent candidates. There were occasions when parties nominated candidates who would not have been nominated had the electoral system been different. A case in point is the nomination of Dom Mintoff in 1996 who had declared in advance that he had his personal manifesto that was different from that of the PL’s. Alfred Sant was concerned that Mr Mintoff’s personal votes would cost him the election had he not accepted his nomination. What followed is history.
So, yes, the electoral system is affecting the parties’ nominations strategies and, at times, parties appear to be impotent in front of certain candidates. Labour’s latest case is however different. We are not on the eve of an election. Dr Muscat and the PL had all the time in the world to discuss Dr Schembri’s nomination in their executive committee but that does not seem to have happened. The PL’s silence with regard to Mr Engerer’s announcement is even more worrying.
Dr Muscat’s and the PL’s vigilance already appears to have been relaxed. At this rate, it will not come as a surprise to me if Labour fields a record number of candidates come next general election. You never know who might appear next on Labour’s list. The only criterion upon which Dr Muscat seems to base his choice in selecting a potential candidate is an individual’s ability to attract votes from the Nationalist fold. Party leaders ought to look for other attributes such as a person’s values, honesty and trustworthiness when recruiting their candidates.
Recruiting defecting candidates so rashly can only be interpreted as a sign of power hunger.