Some time ago, I met a former very active member of the Nationalist Party who was involved in electoral campaigns, and we discussed the reasons why the Nationalists lost the 2013 elections with such a big margin.
I expressed the view that the main reason for this electoral defeat was that the party had lost the trust of many floating voters, of which there could have been as many as 60,000 (or about 20% of the electorate) at the 2013 elections.
Contrary to what many think, floating voters tend to be more principled and tend to punish, by means of their votes, politicians and political parties that resort to dirty tricks and corruption. The Nationalists in government used underhand tactics to remain in power, and some of their ministers, though not manifestly corrupt, resorted to unethical and duplicitous ploys to retain their seats. To make matters worse, the then Prime Minister did not take steps to censor these ministers, but defended them.
Another reason, in my view, was that the Nationalist government, in spite of its rhetoric, did not care much for the environment, as evidenced by the decision to reduce the green areas known as ODZ (outside development zones), and many floaters assign major importance to this matter. It is true that the economy was progressing well under the Nationalist government, but this is something that the voters expect - the economy is likely to become a major issue when it performs badly.
The former very active member of the PN with whom I was conversing, disagreed with my views. He said that the main reason for the electoral defeat was that the Nationalist government was a negative government (in Maltese gvern tal-le), and, he argued, its refusal to allow certain practices led to a large loss of votes. He mentioned, by way of example, the fact that under the Nationalist administration, barbecues on certain beaches were banned. He also mentioned the restrictions on hunters and trappers.
When I retorted that in doing this, the Nationalist government had modernised Malta by controlling certain practices which are more often found in backward countries, the reply was that a party should attempt to win votes, because its objective is to govern, and not to remain in the opposition.
Unfortunately this view prevails with many Nationalist and Labour party supporters. I sometimes listen to programmes on Radio 101 where listeners are asked to comment on air, and many of those who phone state that the Nationalist government did not take care of its supporters and that is why it lost the election. The complaints also include that the wardens led to a loss of votes for the PN, that the PN government treated Labourites on equal terms with the Nationalists, and that Mepa was too strict with Nationalist supporters.
The message conveyed by such comments would seem to be that a Nationalist government should favour its supporters and should close one eye if the person who requests privileged treatment is a Nationalist supporter.
The bottom line is that the 36,000 majority could easily disappear if the Labour government does not change its ways
This attitude also prevails among most Labour supporters. Many Labourites think that it is justified for the present government to treat Labour supporters better than Nationalist supporters and that certain important government positions should be given to Labourites, arguing that this is needed to create some sort of balance.
Such a view is often expressed during phone-ins on One Radio, with those who phone arguing that during the Nationalist government’s time, Nationalists received special treatment and many government positions were filled by Nationalist supporters. According to this argument two wrongs make a right and that with a change of government, playing musical chairs is justified.
The truth is that the two wrongs double rather than correct the damage.
Many supporters of both parties are also against modernising our society, simply because this is not in their interest. Hunters and firework enthusiasts wield a high degree of political influence, and any constraints on their freedom to operate, irrespective of the damage they cause, can result in a loss of votes for the party that attempts to control abuse.
Building developers and contractors, though relatively few in number, are also highly influential politically, for reasons which are well known. Controlling construction abuse may therefore result in a loss of party funding, and possibly freebies to individual politicians. It is very unfortunate that the opposing party often takes advantage of this and openly, and more often secretly, promises to reverse control of abuse if elected to govern.
In 2013, the Labour party probably obtained votes from three major groups of electors, namely: the diehard Labourites who normally vote Labour no matter what; the switchers, who voted for the Labour Party for personal interest, including preferential treatment or laxity of controls; and the floaters, who voted for the Labour Party believing that a Labour government would promote meritocracy and transparency.
In my view, a substantial gain in votes for the Labour Party came from floating voters. This category of voters may not vote Labour next time, as they are likely to be disappointed with the performance of the present government. Many switchers are never satisfied with what they get and they may also easily switch back if the privileges that they continually and incessantly request are not granted.
The bottom line is that the 36,000 majority, which actually requires a loss of about 18,000 votes to the PL, could easily disappear if the Labour government does not change its ways – and most of the loss will come from the floating voters.
Added to this, one should add the younger generation who will be first-time voters in 2018, probably with a higher proportion of floating voters than the present generations. It is true that the under the Labour government the economy is doing well, but so did it under the Nationalist government.