Electoral campaigns are not usually the right time to entertain discussions regarding the merits of the political set-up wherein the race between political parties is being contested.

As things stand, equality is for the most part formal and not substantial- Michael Grech

Whereas this should be the time where people are most sober and open-minded to be able to make a judicious decision, in reality it is a time of blinkers and passion.

Political bias takes over individuals who for four years are balanced and sensible.

(One particular specimen of this species consists of those who spend an entire legislature criticising the party in office and promising not to vote for it come the general election, vote this party nonetheless and, if re-elected, restart complaining and promising that they will not do the same mistake again a fortnight after the election.)

People are divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’. These distinctions are believed to indicate some essential difference in the intellectual, rational and moral characteristics of those pertaining to each group.

A case in point is Therese Commodini Cachia’s recent piece (January 11) where this supposedly fresh candidate claims that Nationalist voters “tend to expect more of their party” whereas Labourites are “less critical about what their party has to say”. (Why? Because they belong to an inferior, less rational, species?)

Labour, obviously, has its own batch of candidates who come out with similar lines.

In this article, however, I do not discuss the de/merits of some party or candidate but those of the system through which government is elected.

Many equate democracy with a political system whereby a government is chosen according to the majority of votes cast in a general election. Not merely is there a more substantial sense to democracy that goes beyond elections but this equation is mistaken even with regard to how society is governed.

Democracy means power by the people. How the people exercise their power is a matter of dispute. Many assume that representative government elected by the majority of voters is the best method there is to democratically govern a society. Others, however, disagree.

Apart from the difficulties related to concepts contained in the claim that representative democracy is the best method there is to govern society (that is, difficulties relating to the concepts ‘representation’ and ‘government’), some contemporary philosophers suggest other methods through which a government may be elected.

These include lotteries, whereby one vote from those that are cast is drawn and the party is elected according to the choice expressed in this ballot paper.

These philosophers claim that this method is fairer to elections because it would enable minorities not to be permanently excluded from the possibility of having a say in the running of the state. (See, for instance, Ben Saunders’ The Equality of Lotteries.)

The intent of this piece, however, is not to discuss the qualities of this or that mechanism. I’ll stick to elections and, by way of provocation, argue for a suggestion made informally by a friend of mine.

This suggestion endorses plural voting. It does not suggest multiple votes for those who own a certain amount of property, as with the 1921 Constitution, but plural voting for those in the lowest echelons of society.

For instance, a minimum-wage worker might have two votes. Someone beneath the poverty-line five. A single-parent, a low-income pensioner or an immigrant could have three votes. A differently abled person or a worker on a short-term contract four.

Most readers will think that this proposal is unfair. Democracy entails a certain kind of equality whereas this proposal would privilege some ahead of others. I believe that this is not the case.

As things stand, equality is for the most part formal and not substantial. Moreover, a fundamental value in a modern democracy is inclusion. As many scientific indicators demonstrate, social exclusion exists in our democratic society as well as in others.

If democracy is to be true to its promises, the fate of those who are socially excluded or face the risk of such exclusion should be the litmus test of how society is run.

After all, if we accept the current dogma that success is due to hard work and/or God-given talent, and not to the intervention of the State, the categories I mentioned are those who mostly require a successful and functioning government.

Hence, they should have a larger say in how the State is run.

Multiple voting to these categories would provide a possible means of addressing this imbalance and exclusion.

As things stand, they suffer the risk of being excluded even from electoral considerations.

Take the electoral campaign of Malta’s major parties. Emphasis is made on success and on those who apparently succeed (and I emphasise ‘apparently’ because, to my mind, this success is in many cases fictitious).

Those who fail or will inevitably fail (that not every one may succeed is an obvious feature of any capitalist society) are conspicuous by their absence.

If they were to count more electorally, political parties might be tempted not to overlook them.

But mine is only a provocation.