Last Sunday little men (and little women) walked into the little booths in Berlin and Russia with their little pencil to mark a little bit of paper. The significance of the results directly impacts Berlin and Russia but also influences Europe, Malta included.
Before some Google search-happy reader accuses me of plagiarism, let me set the record straight. The reference is adapted from Churchill’s speech in the House of Commons on October 31, 1944. He had said:
“At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper... no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point.”
The election in Berlin was another shock to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Her party registered its lowest ever vote in the German metropolis, while the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany’s (AfD) vote rose “from zero to double-digits”, as one of its leaders aptly said. Probably voters punished Merkel for her open door policy on immigration.
In Russia the number of those using their ‘little pencil’ to vote was the lowest ever while those voting by their feet – or more exactly, refusal to use their feet to go to vote – was the highest ever. The vote was in the region of 44 per cent. United Russia, the party backed by President Putin, quite naturally won. It could not have been otherwise in Russia’s managed democracy.
One can say that the Berlin election result justifies the popular trend – palpably present also in Malta – that politics should be poll-driven and not principle-driven
One can say that the Berlin election result justifies the popular trend – palpably present also in Malta – that politics should be poll-driven and not principle-driven. Had Merkel chosen a convenient populist position instead of the high moral ground during last year’s mega-immigration crisis, her political lot could have been happier. Had Merkel done an Orban, perhaps the results of current elections would have been kinder. On the other hand, would it have been humanly decent to abandon hundreds of thousands of people desperately in need of help just for short-term political advantage?
I do not want in any way to lessen the justified concern at the very positive result (14 per cent) obtained by the anti-immigration party in Berlin. But it is also true that the vast majority of voters are not anti-immigrant. Even if Merkel lost popularity, the positive ethos she and others defended is still the majority ethos. The heart and action of the vast majority of voters is in the right place. I still need to be convinced that in the long term voters will not appreciate Merkel’s magnanimous vision of human solidarity. History shows that short-term unjustified compromises can lead to short-term political gains but cause long-term problems.
Russia teaches us a different lesson. A cynic will just note that its strong man, Putin, is still in power and his party the winner. True, very true. But it is now clear that the emperor is not fully clothed. It will only be a matter of time before he loses more clothes since regimes based on corruption – in Russia and elsewhere – will eventually implode as they carry the seed of their own destruction.
Voters do want a clean administration. Unfortunately for Putin (another stalwart of the Panama Papers), the dire economic situation in his country did not permit him to alienate people from the corruption of his regime. Corrupt politicians do indeed get a respite from periods of economic well-being, albeit a temporary one.
Politics directed by crude pragmatism and a cynicism that cares only for the acquisition of power leads to a cul-de-sac. I have no love or liking for the contemporary trend of denuding politics from ideology. Politics should be much more than an effective marketing strategy or a cynical buying of votes through unjust satisfaction of egoistical needs, generally of the privileged elites. When all is said and done, history shows that politicians moved by principles and enlightened by ideology could propose and deliver a more-lasting holistic vision of the common good. When this vision is aided by good communication strategies, it will be easier for voters to warm up to and support such visions.
In my commentary of September 11, I strongly argued against those who label voters as stupid or gullible or crassly egoistic. Such descriptions are superficial and mistaken. Voters are decent people who do buy into inspirational dreams and projects, especially when they are ably communicated. It is not always easy to guess why the “little men, with the little pencil in the little booth” vote one way or another but it is always essential to respectfully reflect on their choices and learn from them. Besides, voters do recognise their mistakes and amend.
Churchill lost the 1945 election in spite of his victory over Hitler. But a few years later, in 1951, to be exact, he was re-elected.
(All resemblances between the situations described above and Malta are intentional)
■ Last Sunday Martin Scicluna wrote that I am either “too intellectually bankrupt or lazy”. I thank him for his magnanimity. Scicluna could have said that I am both intellectually bankrupt and lazy. In such circumstances one must be really thankful for little mercies.
Why did he not go for the jugular?
Could it be that he desisted from inflicting the double whammy because – as he wrote – he chastised me two years ago and thought that I could not take any more chastisement? Since I have still not recovered from his severe chastisement I am grateful that he chastises with docile doses. Or is the reason behind his generosity deeper? Could be. Since he is a faithful follower of Pope Francis he probably decided to admonish me with a generous pinch of mercy, the leitmotiv of Francis’s papacy.
Let me return the compliment. I suggest that while being kind to me he should show more respect towards himself. There was no need for him to write that I used a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt