Free elections are one of the guarantees that the country which holds them is a practising democracy, though they are not proof enough. But without them democracy does not exist. We are about to get further proof of that in Hong Kong where China’s leaders are insisting that only candidates approved by them will be allowed to stand.
That means there will be no free choice and therefore, no real democracy.
Another condition that makes elections an indicator of a working democracy is that they are held regularly and on time. Otherwise the intake of freedom is lost. Elected candidates overstay. The programme on which they were elected becomes stale and may not hold anymore.
A condition which would help democratic elections is if they are held according to a given fixed schedule. In this regard, elections in the US are a better indicator of democracy than they are in Britain as they are held on a fixed date.
Everybody knows when the next US presidential election is due, to take the main example. There are no surprises. Incumbents and party chiefs manoeuvre to get the best advantage, but not with the election date.
In Britain they do manoeuvre, but not so much. Although dates are not fixed, they tend to be announced in advance.
In Malta, the general election date is not fixed and so is open to political handling. We saw this in 1996 when Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami, in possession of a damning report by his Minister of Finance which he kept secret, called an early election without explaining what he was doing.
The government has come up with a rather harebrained scheme to indulge in a public consultation programme to postpone local elections
That is still the position. Our politicians have not learned their lesson. We talk about strengthening democracy but tend to do precious little about it. In fact, at present the pendulum is swinging the other way.
A lot of progressive social legislation has been enacted and more is in the pipeline, which is good for democracy, but patently not enough.
The government has come up with a rather harebrained scheme to indulge in a public consultation programme to postpone local elections.
Among other reasons it cited election fatigue. It is true that we have too many elections and too many local councils; when you think of it and factor in the size of Malta we live a ridiculous situation, and change and streamlining are needed. However, it depends how such change is brought about.
Postponing local elections for years is not the best way to go about it. I do not think that public consultations will favour it, whichever form they are taking.
It is a pity that this matter falls in the remit of Justice Minister Owen Bonnici. So far he has built a very good reputation as a social progressive. I do not think this issue enhances that reputation. It is, in fact, bad for the government as a whole. Some issues are being brought up unnecessarily. It is important to save money and be efficient; it is just as important to really safeguard democracy, at every level.
It seems to me that this issue, if the postponement is ditched, offers a good opportunity for the political parties to collaborate on how to improve local democracy, especially by making it more efficient and taking a lot of the political heat out of it.
We have too much politics. Most people will probably agree that in this regard the Opposition should take a look at itself. It is far too negative. All oppositions are negative but this one is exceptional, especially some members of it. They seem to forget that the contests for the party leadership are over.
Or they are preparing for the next time round, believing it will not be too long. Not longer than after the next election.
The political game will never be over, but it does not have to go on all the time.