"I want to be Prime Minister"
This was probably the number one wish on the list that both Lawrence Gonzi and Alfred Sant sent separately to Father Christmas at the beginning of December. Santa's problem is that he can only deliver gifts only on Christmas night. Since there is a...
Sorry guys. There are no short cuts. You have to wait for the people's verdict. But till then you have to ask why the people decide the way they decide and try to discern the signs they give and the grunts they utter.
TV is not the kingmaker ...
Following the 1996 election the Nationalists said that they were done in because they did not have a TV station. So they built one, and, hey presto, an election victory in 1998! Elementary my dear Watson, says Sherlock Holmes. Not so simple, I say. Would TV have borne so strong an influence as to bring to nought Labour's pledge of removing VAT and, in the conviction of most, the hated cash registers? Would the Nationalists have won the 1998 election without Labour's increase of the water and electricity rates and the political crisis caused by Mr Mintoff?
One could safely say that Super One helped Labour in 1996 and Net helped the PN in 1998 but one cannot say that TV was the make or break factor in any one of those elections.
A similar debate was very popular in Italy when Berlusconi was elected for the first time. His media empire certainly did not harm him; but would he have been elected had there been no tangentopoli? Hardly. If TV was the kingmaker then Berlusconi would not have lost subsequent elections.
Things are always more complex than the way they seem.
... Nor are fundraisers
Both political parties are going to end the year happily boasting of the amount of cash they managed to raise.
Labour netted in just over one hundred thousand on Republic Day. They added it up to the other three fund raising activities they held during the year and totted up the bumper sum of Lm311K. They followed this feat by a statement declaring a non sequitur. On One's news bulletins the Labour Party said that the success registered by this fundraising activity confirms that the absolute majority of the people wants a change of government.
A couple of days later the Nationalists held their own do and collected Lm354K in one go. They were elated. What do you expect? But they did not go all the way to make the same claim that Labour did. They dropped hints subtly and not so subtly but stopped only just a wee bit short of claiming the causal connection.
It could very well be that the majority want Sant in government or that they want Gonzi back. Both are possibilities. But success at fundraisers does not bell the electoral cat. If they did the Nationalists have more to brag about.
Losing and winning an election is the result of sterner stuff.
The one who does not want to be Prime Minister
Dr Harry Vassallo does not want to be Prime Minister. In fact in last Friday's The Times he told us that Dr Gonzi would be the next holder of the port.
"It seems a certainty at this stage that the Nationalists will return to government. The opposition is nowhere at all when it should be careering towards a landslide victory over an Administration that has clung to power for two long decades. Every move it makes to stir up its ranks serves only to confirm its doom. The Labour core may get high on antique bombast but it is not the Labour core which can win Labour an election. The more militant Labour gets, the more frightened the Nationalist core becomes. And still that will neither win nor lose Labour the election. It is the vote in the centre that makes the difference and Labour still has nothing to offer those who have decided the fate of this country over the last several decades. So it looks like a Nationalist outright victory no matter how much the PN leadership tries to muster every last vote by spreading rumours that it will be a close call."
Dr Vassallo did not make this prediction to push the Nationalist bandwagon but quite naturally to push his own. His argument is simple: the Nationalists are set to win so you can risk a little and vote Alternattiva as this will guarantee a lot of changes. Dr Vassallo does not want to be Prime Minister but wants to have leverage, if not control, on the guy who will eventually be Prime Minister.
Drs Gonzi, Sant and Vassallo want what they want because they believe that it is for the common good. I happen to be one of those (is it a shrinking minority?) who do not look cynically on politicians. I do believe that each one of these gentlemen is doing what he is doing out of genuine concern for the country. Because I believe this I forward to them the following appeal.
Towards an ethical electoral campaign
Can a collective effort be made to have a more ethical electoral campaign? Let me throw in a few ideas.
- i. The law stipulates that candidates cannot spend more than a certain amount of money during the campaign. Following the campaign they have to file a declaration of expenses accompanied by an oath. All legal stratagems are used so that candidates - at least the absolute majority - can spend as much as they deem fit but can be legally correct when filing the declaration. It is said that it is not possible to conduct a modern campaign with the amount stipulated in the law. If that is the case than why not change the law? Isn't this casuistical approach giving everyone a negative message? You can break the law in actual fact but you can technically say that you are not breaking it - is the negative message. And if one resorts to these antics when one is out of power will not the temptation be much greater when one has power? If the sum is small come clean and change the law instead of fiddling about it.
- ii. The debate about contributions to political parties has been on the table for years on end. It is once more on the agenda following the initiative of the Prime Minister. Will the parties manage to conclude it before the election?
- iii. The election of 2003 was the first election when both political TV stations were broadcasting at full blast. On top of that, most prime time slots on TVM were taken up by political programmes organized by the Broadcasting Authority. Overkill is too simple a word to describe what happened. Will we go through the same process? Can't at least the parties agree on a code that they will follow in the electoral campaign and on their media so that basic respect is shown to all (and in particular for the truth) so that temperatures would not rise too high?
Will they oblige and prove that I am not naïve?