The political process demands that our anxieties have to be addressed or assuaged by competent persons. In other words, people need reassurances that their political leaders are able to cope with the vicissitudes of political and economic life, or rather the changes in circumstances, typically those which are unwelcome and unpleasant.
The propaganda machine of the political parties tends to arouse a mythical belief that incites strong emotions in the ability and acumen of their leaders to deal adequately with these anxieties. Political settings, usually staged and contrived, try to give a portrait of a leader endowed with the qualities of intrepidity partly restrained by an ideal dose of rationality.
In the 2013 election campaign the Nationalist Party portrayed the image of Lawrence Gonzi, the then incumbent prime minister, as the reassurance of a pair of safe hands. In its slogan for the 2017 election, after four years in opposition – Jien Nagħżel Malta (I Choose Malta) – the PN tried to convey a prospective government, with the PN at the helm, that is ‘ours’.
The Labour Party in the 2013 election, with the slogan Malta Tagħna Lkoll (Malta for All), reassured the public that they would be consulted on matters of public concern and none would be marginalised.
This slogan was mainly addressed to the group of individuals who may face difficulties in being part of society, either because of their sexual orientation or because they lack saleable skills to integrate seamlessly in the labour market. The slogan for the 2017 election, L-Aqwa Żmien (The Best of Days), aimed to give a sense of achievement, while the complement to this slogan, L-Aqwa Għadu Ġej (The Best Is Yet to Come), emphasised the need to sustain and consolidate this achievement.
The PN and PL, while detaching themselves from neo-liberal ideology, acknowledge their belief in the imperatives of the market to achieve a sustainable economy
In a small country such as Malta, these ideal values have to co-exist with political circumstances characterised by an intense and emotionally charged political climate. Just as friendships can run deep, so do enmities, involving many aspects of life.
What compounds the issue for the politician is that these aims have to be pursued in the context of a market economy. The belief that every society is, or rather should be, based on this market economy has become widely pervasive, as it has now been embraced by a very wide spectrum of the political class.
It has to be noted, however, that a market economy is based on self-interest. Left to its own devices, this market economy may become totally based on self-interest, which leads people to search for economic relations that benefit only them, without taking into consideration if or how these relations can be detrimental to others.
A free and unregulated market inspired by the neo-liberalism of Thatcher and Reagan implies that for the sustainability of a viable and competitive economy, the flow of capital must in no way be hindered from running its natural course. The mainstream political parties in the 21st century, and this applies to the PN and PL, while detaching themselves from this neo-liberal ideology, acknowledge this belief in the imperatives of the market in order to achieve a sustainable economy.
This belief, however, did not preclude them from intervening to offset the negative effects of the market. Moved by their belief in the social, market economy, they have designed policies aimed at building a coherent society based on an intercourse between its parts. What this implies is that there has been a convergence towards the centre of the political spectrum by parties holding different ideologies.
Even Jeremy Corbyn, often dubbed a radical Marxist, accepts this move towards the centre. In his keynote speech at the general conference of the Labour Party in Brighton on September 27, he admitted elections are won from the centre.
He endorses this dictum, however, as long as “the gravity of the centre is not fixed or unmoveable, nor is where the establishment pundits want it to be”.
I think that the point made by Corbyn about the manoeuvrability of the centre is valid. Each of the political parties has to choose where its respective side of the centre lies. Where the views of the electorate coincide is always moving.
This chimes very well with the thesis articulated by Anthony Giddens about The Third Way, in which he asserts that the designations of policies by the political parties have to be actuated within the context of the exigencies and ongoing changes occurring in this post-modern society and digitalised economy.
Giddens argues that the digital revolution has produced more reactive and reflexive citizens than existed before. Broadcasting and the media of the 21st century have extended people’s horizons and bred a new form of political consciousness.
It is the new political consciousness, which induces a higher level of awareness among the citizens of what is going on around them, that makes the political centre moveable.
Saviour Rizzo is a former director of the Centre for Labour Studies at the University of Malta.