When Alternattiva Demokratika contested its first election two decades ago the result caused ripples in a rigid two-party set up.

When push comes to shove, people don’t take the plunge- Josie Muscat

The party had fielded candidates in all districts and it scooped up more than 4,000 votes.

The result was not enough to elect an MP but it was the strongest showing by any third political force since 1966.

The party had broken new ground, enough to force the two major parties into changing the Constitution to cater for the eventuality that none of them would get an absolute majority if AD’s voting share continued to increase.

But what appeared to be a promising start stalled. AD’s voting share dropped for three consecutive elections, picking up marginally in 2008 and hitting a record 1.8 per cent this year.

After 21 years AD has failed to become a third parliamentary force, never surpassing the two per cent mark in a general election.

The last time voters returned more than two political parties to Parliament was in 1962 but there does not seem to be any historical precedent to explain AD’s difficult patch, according to historian Dominic Fenech.

He says that in the past small parties tended to revolve round their leaders: strong personalities such as Mabel Strickland, Herbert Ganado, Toni Pellegrini and to a certain extent Paul Boffa. These parties tended to fall apart when the leader called it a day, he adds.

However, AD is different because it neither revolved round a specific leader nor started off in any strength, Prof. Fenech says.

“There is no historical precedent as such, except inasmuch as a party which fails to get elected after so many attempts is bound to consider giving up at some point. The surprising thing is how they hold out, heroically almost.”

It is this sense of going against the flow that has galvanised many AD activists and supporters over the years but the lack of any significant achievement does have its toll.

Wenzu Mintoff, a former chairman and AD founder, believes that “political fatigue” is the biggest problem.

It is humanly difficult for any person to carry all the weight the post of chairman entails with little human and financial support, he says of his experience.

“I understand the difficulty because carrying that weight for a long time is untenable, especially in today’s world where politics has become more sophisticated, more researched and technical,” he adds.

But Dr Mintoff believes AD’s fundamentalism since its inception on how it dealt with the business community has caused financial difficulties that are threatening its very existence.

“AD has made principled choices that have left it with very few friends in the business world. As a consequence the party always depended on the hard work of its activists and not all supporters are ready to roll up their sleeves and work, or do so for a long period.”

Former Nationalist MP Josie Muscat, who tried to set up a political party that contested the 2008 election unsuccessfully, believes the electorate is not yet geared for a third party.

“People just cross over between red and blue to where they believe they can benefit the most,” he says, arguing that when he set up Azzjoni Nazzjonali in 2007 many people had spoken to him about the need to have a political force in between the two major parties. “But when push comes to shove, people don’t take the plunge.”

He does believe though that there is want for change, especially among young people. “But in the pursuit of their utopia they are still waiting for somebody strong to channel their ideals and it is evident they do not feel AD can fulfil their dream,” he says, noting the impact comedian Beppe Grillo’s Cinque Stelle party had in Italy.

AD exponents have often blamed the electoral system for the electorate’s reluctance to vote for them. A system with such a high district threshold has worked against AD but Prof. Fenech believes it is the way people have used it that has warped the theoretical advantage it should give small parties.

He says the system designed by the colonial power back in the 1920s was intended to encourage political fragmentation and this did deliver more than two political parties at times.

The issue is how the electorate deals with the system, he adds, and there is no hard and fast answer to why this happens.

Small constituencies may not help but there could be cultural explanations as well, Prof. Fenech says.

He points his finger to “the quasi-imperative” of splitting up into two opposing groups, whether in the village festa or in the football duopoly, England-Italy.

“Another reason must be the easy access the voter has to politicians and parties, which breeds a certain degree of clientelism, or at any rate a sense of identification of one’s interest with a particular party,” he says.

When this happens people become very keen on their party winning and regard third parties as a waste of vote, he adds.

Another factor is the large size of the public sector. Prof. Fenech believes that people who work in it may feel better protected or advantaged if “their party” is in government.

Only history will tell whether a third party can ever break this deadlock. AD acting chairman Carmel Cacopardo says it is just a question of time but whether his party will survive to see the day is another matter altogether.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com

Going nowhere?

Election AD result
1992 1.7%
1996 1.5%
1998 1.2%
2003 0.7%
2008 1.3%
2013 1.8%

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.