Tuesday, 4th March 2008
The math
You're probably following the debate that's going down between me and a couple of people who seem to have got it into their heads that the AD need their help to make a point.
The basic argument being used is that the big parties, which is hardly surprising, have sought to sew up the electoral process to exclude the smaller ones. If it were not for the fact that one of the smaller parties is the Alternattiva Demokratika, I'd say this was a good thing. The democratic scene is not improved by having thinly-disguised racists and marginal delusionals polluting the environment, even if they do provide some passing amusement.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the nature of the political arena does not, as a matter of stark reality, allow the more idealistic players to gain traction. Such is the polarisation of the electorate, a polarisation unsurprisingly aided and abetted by the Big Two, that votes are cast to maintain or upset the status quo and the status quo is what it is: you're either going to get Labour or you're going to get PN. There's nothing in between and for there to be something in between, tectonic plates are going to have to shift, which is hardly likely to happen.
Why does the electorate looks at things like this? I have to think that voters are just not prepared to take the risk. The "risk" is from the PN point of view, of course, because AD is not a natural home for MLP voters by any means, except for those for whom Sant is not the bee's knees. It is extremely likely, to the point of virtual certainty, that AD will not get any seats, and a significant erosion of the PN vote will let in the MLP.
In a "normal" situation, this might not be such a tragedy, but the manner in which Labour have chosen to fight the election, with smothering negativity, unproven allegations and an utter lack of policy (other than such policies as are made up on the hoof or nicked from the PN) should again make voting in Labour a non-starter in the minds of many people. In this situation, going for AD to wave a couple of fingers at the PN, or because some Minister or other has annoyed you, or just because you feel sympathetic towards them, is not going to do anything other than achieve what you don't want: Sant as PM. If you wanted him as PM, you'd vote for him, after all.
We saw this effect in the last round, when the clear and present danger that the EU Referendum "Yes" vote would be binned made voting for Sant more than slightly perverse.
What has changed this time around? He's not said he'll take us out of the EU - not overtly, anyway, though how he expects to rengotiate the Acquis is not immediately clear, given that he can't do that little thing. Has Sant proposed any policies that are attractive? Has Sant proposed any policies, for that matter? He's been far too preoccupied with the smear card he decided to play, ignoring the fact that the polls show that corruption is not uppermost in people's minds.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to try to kid you that some corruption doesn't exist (and won't continue to exist whoever is elected) but the so-called evidence that Sant is so smug about is really flimsy - and I really do get irritated by people like him, who go around crying "shame, shame" but when challenged, run away.
And to make his position even less palatable, when pressed for evidence Sant just smirks and says "the whole country knows about it, why are you asking me?" or "I've got evidence, promise, cross my heart and hope to die, but I can't show it to you". Sorry, mate, that sort of cheap line won't wash: go to the police with the evidence, don't store it up to attack people you think are threats. Oh, I forgot, the police are useless, aren't they? Just accomplices in the cover-up, aren't they?
The thing is, AD are not a viable option for other reasons, too. Unfortunately, their campaign has become too much of a "bash PN to get votes" gig for comfort. It's understandable why they're bashing the PN, because you can't really bash an Opposition that's failed to commit itself to any policy or measure that anyone can object to. Labour has prevaricated about anything and everything that might lose it a vote, whether it's the hunters' now obvious determination to defy the law or secular society's aspiration to remove religious influences from the policy making process or reforming the rent laws, and if you don't make waves in these areas, AD can't (or won't) attack you.
And then there's the sort of people who have associated themselves with AD. There are, among them, individuals for whom confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest are not sacred tenets (not that many politicians hold these principles in high regard, to be frank). Some form part of the mainstream of AD politics, others are just peripheral, but the sum total of this equation is that AD have become yet another political party striving for power in any way they can get it. They are no longer an extremely effective lobby group. OK, that's a choice they're perfectly entitled to make, but they can't turn the clock back and expect people to cut them any slack. They're in the kitchen and will have to take the heat, part of which is people like me pointing out that a vote for them is a vote for the party you don't want to govern the country.
The bottom line, which is the only line that counts, is that AD can realistically dent Gonzi's chances of being PM and all they will achieve is the satisfaction (satisfaction?) of seeing Sant running the country. The choice is yours: if you are genuinely committed to the AD cause, then I disagree with you but respect your choice. If you're not, then I have to say that I'm not impressed with the way you've decided to play games with my country's future.
RSS
Comments
In the EU parliament elections, a vote for AD gave a third MEP to Labour. In these elections a vote for AD will get Sant as PM.
The basic argument is about reality and we should not use ideals to bash realities, neither is it right to realities with ideals. Ideally the PN should ask for votes based on their own merits of the parties’ ideals and track record, as should all the other parties, which is not the case in reality. Parties will venture to put down their opposition to forward their own agenda which up to point this is acceptable and even essential in some cases, moderation is the key. The PN, in my opinion and many others like me, have ventured beyond the point of moderation when it stated that if one votes for AD you will effectively be voting for MLP. This statement was nothing but political bullying, if I may use that phrase, it goes way beyond hurting AD’s campaign and using reality as a shield, does not justify the unethical comment. If reality is to be abused in this manner, we can also say corruption is a reality, do not vote for it, we can also say change is a reality, vote for it, and so on and so forth. So while ideals, opinions and criticism may be preached, reality is to be accepted that’s all, how much reality one accepts should be at ones own discretion, dreamers are important too, they can inspire and achieve like anyone else can.
Rory O'Neill
Setting a threshold is sensible for reasons you mentioned – however increasing it eightfold is downright vile and abusive (thus duopoly).
Skewed districts? Are we to believe that the PN party of strategists allowed MLP to get away with such an alleged advantage? And if yes, what was it traded for and why?
MEP’s election? Arnold’s credentials were upheld by the electorate – the fact that Mr. Grech was elected was primarily due to the short-sighted distorted block voting instructions issued by PN – and which apparently have still not sunk in - maybe you might wish to give a fair advice on.
Thumbs down for AD for a PN bashing campaign (no Dr.Gonzi insults?) and distorted notion of confidentiality & conflict of interest. Objective criticism is crucial, and even a bit more, when conversions are made out of sensitivity to votes rather then sincere convictions (albeit still welcome). And please, the blessed Report was paid by the Public and for the ultimate benefit of the same Public – and with such a virgin entity as MEPA playing defensive, are we really flushing Transparency? There go AD’s mortal sins!
In the earlier blog Jacques articulated matters with evident sincerity….then moving to actions….unfortunately there’s little confidence that the MLPN would come round and address matters after the election, unless an essential change or message is achieved. 3500 votes (1st or other preference) in any one district are demanding, but nonetheless possible.
Closer to D-day, it’s hard to believe that notwithstanding all that have been said about Labour & Dr.Sant, this blog included, nobody has seriously evaluated exactly why Dr.Gonzi has shied away from sitting down with AD (none of AD’s core issues should be a non-starter) and AD’s EU credentials are surely better than the MLPN’s.
Maybe Dr. Borg Cardona, you may wish to give us an honest opinion….?
The beauty of democracy is that once every 5 years we have an option to kick back at the politicians. What you value as important might not be so important to me. As you highlighted last week, or the one before, none of Labour's policies touch you directly. But do you think that no one in this country will be?
A phrase in a book once said ... All animals are equal but some are more equal than others. This is the attitude I feel when I read similar posts.
True, a vote to AD this time round might harm more PN than MLP. True, you might not be affected by MLP's policies.
Still what gives you the right to think that your opinion is more important than mine? Why do you regard my opinion as a gamble (playing to quote you)? If a voter want's to protest against the establishment why can't they? Has the democratic process in Malta been reduced to this now, that keeping power is more important than expressing my freedom? Doesn't freedom of expression extend itself to the 5 mins I'm with a pencil and ballot paper in my hand too?
And, Matthew BC, I'd said that before, you clearly weren't listening.
EVERY VOTE COUNTS AND THE PN DESERVES TO CONTINUE WITH ITS HARD WORK FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
I am surprised at Gonzi's sensitivity to criticism. Surely he does not think that the PN is above criticism. Can he indicate any particular criticism which was destructive or personal? Should everybody have kept mum about the extension to the development zones, to questionable MEPA decisions? Of course not - criticism is healthy in a democratic society and political parties do well to make constructive criticism.
As for the charge that AD dents Gonzipn's chances of success - well this is the case with every other party that people vote for. If you vote for the MLP, or An or an independent candidate, you're not voting for the PN and that le4ssens their haul. Quite clear but part of the electoral game. If AD gain a critical mass of votes to obtain at least one representative, that will signify the start of a new, less divisive form of politics where we don't end up voting for the lesser of two evils at 5 year stints