Joseph Muscat’s decision is a slap in the face of the democratic process. It was always the case that the flexible timing of elections, and the Prime Minister’s prerogative over it, gave some leeway for partisan manoeuvre. Now, however, elections have been reduced to a full-blown field tactic.

A Prime Minister who desperately needed to communicate with citizens chose instead to speak more Labourese, as the Labour leader, to Labourites, at a Labour meeting. His message was that all was well with party and country, that there was no crisis or need for an early election, and that there would be one anyway because to wait would be to risk losing.

A masterclass in statesmanship it wasn’t. Instead, it turned us all into reluctant high-stakes gamblers. Muscat has said that if he loses he will put himself out to pasture and submit to damnatio memoriae (in its modern form, making speeches about dwindling swordfish stocks to snoozing MEPs). If he wins, he wins, and that’s about it.

Little wonder that so many people are upset at this sorry state of things. Still, there may be some room for optimism. This could be the real occasion for an idea whose time had come in 2013.

In principle, Muscat’s moviment was full of promise. Very many people were and are fed up of the bipartisan see-saw that makes Manichean morons of us. We would like to see political groupings that are more plural and that encourage different ideas to co-exist.

Problem is, Muscat’s was a moviment in name alone. What it really was was the Labour Party with a larger-than-usual retinue of sycophants, renegades, forelock-tuggers and what Turkish people call ‘jackals’ – individuals who will join any cause for a free lunch, that is. None of these could spell ‘pluralism’ if their lives depended on it.

Not surprisingly, this non-movement delivered nothing that Labour alone could not deliver. What’s worse, the Panama and Egrant matters and the Prime Minister’s reluctance to take sensible and responsible action (a snap election is not that) gave us the Castille cabal – the very antithesis of a political movement, in other words.

A coalition is the best chance we have to dump the Castille cabal and get something instead that no single party can offer

I would like to think that Simon Busuttil has the chance to do what Muscat didn’t. Last Monday’s news leaves him with little time, but do it he must. Taking Marlene Farrugia on board was a good idea. The real test, however, is Alternattiva Demokratika (AD).

Busuttil will be tempted into trying to outdo Muscat at promising everything to everyone. This is a trap, for two reasons. First, he will invariably lapse into some pretty daft designs along the lines of giving €10,000 to all those who pass Go in Gozo, without contraceptives.

Second, the good health of the economy under Labour’s watch will always make Muscat’s promises in that department seem more credible. A few hundred extra passports sold is all it would take for a Labour government to fund any number of underground trains. In sum, it is not a good idea to ask people to dump Muscat for reasons of economic performance.

Busuttil has two reasonable options. The first is to refrain from making grand promi­ses, and to keep his fingers crossed that enough people who voted Labour in 2013 will be sufficiently disgusted at the mischief of the Castille cabal to switch allegiance.

The second and braver one is to use the little time he has to lay the foundations of a truly plural political movement. The only way to go about it is a coalition with AD.

There can be no doubt that this would work to the political advantage of both parties. Alone, AD stand absolutely no chance of ever being anything other than grumpy. It says a lot that not even Raphael Vassallo - who last Thursday wrote about his disenchantment with and his decision not to vote for any of the two parties - seemed to contemplate voting for the third.

As for the PN, the risk of going it alone is very high. I’m not sure that enough among those crucial 36,000 will bring themselves to trust the party after such a short interlude. The PN could be looking at a narrow defeat with broad consequences.

That’s as far as political advantage is concerned. There is, however, a more fundamental point. Because AD’s principles and tangible positions have often been different to those of the PN, a coalition would offer a chance for disenchanted people to vote for, and possibly to get, something really and truly different – the something that Muscat promised in 2013, in other words.

Word is that the talks collapsed because of a dispute over the name. If that’s the case, I despair. It’s not as if the AD name is etched on a thousand trophies; as for the PN, it’s an obsolete name anyway, and one that is associated in international circles with jackboots and Islam-bashing.

Call it Rainbow or whatever else, a coalition is the best chance we have to dump the Castille cabal and get something instead that no single party can offer.

mafalzon@hotmail.com

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.