The government’s proposal to postpone the next two rounds of local elections, due in 2015 and 2016, to 2019 is based on two arguments: the expense of holding such elections and electoral fatigue.
While I do not agree with the proposal as presented, I believe there could be a third or even a fourth way about how to handle this issue.
I must, at this stage, say something about the government’s argument of electoral fatigue. Electoral fatigue would be demonstrated in low voting turnouts. This is not the case. The day after last May’s MEP elections, my former PhD supervisor and an Irish professor of electoral studies asked me about Malta’s turnout. His immediate reaction was: “Malta’s incredibly high turnout continues.”
So, let’s be clear, voting is one thing the Maltese electorate loves doing.
The issue of when Malta ought to go to the polls must be looked at holistically
The government does not need the Opposition’s approval to postpone the local elections. A simple majority in the House suffices. But is it wise not to hold elections for seven years, in some cases? Should the people be stuck with non-performing councillors for such a long period of time? I do not think so.
What about the government’s argument of saving the coffers a few millions of euros by postponing elections? This idea should not be rubbished.
The government ought to consider the postponement of the 2015 elections to 2016 and bring forward to 2016 those scheduled for 2017. The Maltese electorate in its entirety would thus be able to go to the polls to elect their local councillors.
The expense incurred in holding all the local elections together would be much less than holding two rounds. The following round of elections would then be held in 2019, on the same day of the MEP elections and, forthwith, every five years.
If the government wants to take this issue a step further it should even consider holding the general election and the European elections together. How can this be done? In this case, the government would require the approval of the Opposition to secure a two thirds majority in Parliament to amend the electoral law.
If the issue of election expenses is the main reason behind the government’s idea, then it should consider discussing the possibility of holding a general election in 2016 on the same day as local elections, then another in 2019 and, forthwith, every five years on the same day as local and MEP elections. The exception, of course, would be in the case of a constitutional crisis, when an early election would have to be held. Such changes would require the Prime Minister to renounce his prerogative to choose the date when a general election is held.
We would have a set date for elections, as happens in the United States. This would definitely bring about more stability in the country and also addresses the issues of electoral expenses and electoral fatigue (although this is not something that is of concern to the Maltese voters).
As things stand today, Malta would have to go to the polls to elect its government by 2018. If I had to make a guess, I would say that Joseph Muscat would most probably call an election in 2017, immediately after Malta’s six-month presidency of the EU. Holding a general election in 2016 would therefore mean it would be held just a year before the Prime Minister’s probable plan.
Furthermore, a 2016 election would almost certainly suit the government more than the Opposition. It is very unlikely that the Labour Party would lose its strong majority, which was confirmed last May, in the space of three years. In all probability, Labour would win with a comfortable majority. But, then, the scope of this article is not to discuss possible outcomes of elections.
What I am trying to do here is put forward a few ideas to address the issues brought forward by the government with regard to the postponement of the next rounds of local elections.
One might argue that the country would not benefit by holding two general elections in the space of three years. This argument is very valid but what I am suggesting is a one-time transitional period.
The upcoming debate, which is likely to develop after the summer recess, could also include the issue of referendums. Would it not make sense to hold any pending referendums together with forthcoming elections in the future unless the question is one of national urgency?
Over the past few days, arguments have been put forward and positions made known. Some are correctly saying that we should not put a price tag on democracy. I agree. But if we can come up with a compromise, the country would benefit. If such a compromise would save the coffers a few million euros it would even be better.
The issue of when Malta ought to go to the polls must be looked at holistically. That is why we should not just be discussing the local elections.
Hermann Schiavone is an elections analyst.