As electioneering reaches its climax of bounties offered and accusations traded, it may be comforting to recall that we are not alone in the European Union in weathering such rhetorical bombardments. Electoral deadlines also loom in the countries that last raised their flag over our islands: France and Britain. Are there echoes of relevance to us in these coincidences?
From Britain, the shared vibe is of a general election being held before the full term of government is completed. The ability to call an early election is a sharp tactical tool of the executive in a Westminster system of governance. Both prime ministers Theresa May and Joseph Muscat have sprung that surprise – after proclaiming they would not do so.
Whereas in Malta this prerogative remains unconstrained, in the UK it required the assent of two-thirds of the House of Commons. This results from the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011, a step towards the electoral reform sought by the Liberal Democrats through their coalition with David Cameron’s Conservatives.
It is noteworthy, however, that May’s bid for a “strong and stable” executive power, on the crest of the Brexit wave, is based on an election manifesto that states: “We will retain the first past the post system of voting for parliamentary elections and… repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.” So much for electoral reform in what that manifesto labels as the “Home of Democracy”.
Turning to France, one may remark that the ascension of Emmanuel Macron to the presidency echoes the Tagħna Lkoll campaign led by another 39-year-old politician with roots in social democracy. The difference from our experience is that Macron mobilised his run for office outside – indeed against – the traditional political groupings either side of centre, whereas Muscat’s persuasive web was spun on a party machine and translated into a traditional partisan conclusion – “to the victor belong the spoils” – a maxim coined in the US politics of the 1830s.
The clear note coming through is the evident need for constitutional reform to restore our democracy to health
For fair comparison, though, we must wait to see whether the outcome of the French parliamentary elections willpermit a non-partisan president to govern effectively.
Another note from France is that many of Macron’s supporters in the decisive round of the presidential election were voting not for him but against Marine Le Pen. This negative blocking vote was provoked not so much by Le Pen’s critique of EU institutions – widely considered to be in need of reform and enlightened leadership – but rather by her rash economic formulae and by the xenophobia that her Front National attracted to its core.
In contrast, both candidates to head our next government can marshal sound economic sense and there is no populist movement here capable of catalysing the phobias that are more or less kept under cover within the two mainstream parties.
Nevertheless, our current situation may be expected to stir up negative protest among the significant – and possibly decisive – minority that will not vote on ‘tribal’ lines.
Normally, such floating voters would favour one or other of the competing party leaders and their programmes. Next Saturday, however, there may be many contrarian votes: either against a ‘serene’ Prime Minister who did not have the courage to separate himself from his Panamanian friends; or against an unconvincing leader of an Opposition in disarray, influenced by a blinkered blogger who considers the targets of her allegations guilty until proved innocent.
Will floaters be choosing between Joseph and Simon? Or, in essence, rejecting Daphne or Kasco? Or, reluctantly, determining which option is the lesser of two evils?
These are not good vibrations. But the clear note coming through is the evident need for constitutional reform to restore our democracy to health.
As recently highlighted – mercilessly – by Ken Mifsud Bonnici (May 7), serious constitutional revision must dare to confront Britain’s poisoned gift of a Westminster system that favours legislatures dominated by two parties and gives both of those parties a perverse incentive to refrain from reforms that would limit the power they hold or aspire to attain.
Above all, it must recognise that, in the absence of strong and trusted institutions that can check executive power and ensure the rule of law, even a system conceived in the ‘Home of Democracy’ can stray towards elective dictatorship.
Let us hope that whoever holds the reins of our government next week will not limit his agenda to the necessary pursuit of sustainable economic, social and environmental well-being.
May he also have the courage and the vision to engage all political stakeholders in a joint investment in sustainable democracy, for the benefit of present and future generations of Maltese citizens.