Every election campaign has its buzzwords and phrases – the ones we will forever associate with that particular period of heady campaigning, mass meetings and massive billboards. Before the 1996 election, it was mostly about the ‘Ħofra’ – the Labour Party’s definition for the deficit for the common man.

The PN and the PL are treading on dangerous ground when they prize stability over other values- Claire Bonello

We heard so much about the Ħofra that it practically took on physical qualities (or the lack of them). It was an ever-deepening chasm which the Nationalists were digging out of our finances – because of their ‘money no problem’ mindset.

In this, the Nationalists were aided by the ‘barunijiet’ (barons) and ‘ħbieb tal-ħbieb’ (friends of friends) – the oligarchy that favoured the Nationalists and plundered the land to the detriment of the citizen.

Labour rallied to the defence of the citizen with the ‘Iċ-Ċittadin l-ewwel’ (Putting the citizen first) battle cry. Well, that went down quite well, and Labour won the 1996 election.

In successive campaigns, the PN trotted out ‘Il-bidla tkompli’ (The change continues) accompanied by the logo of the offspring of a snail and an arrow. That may not have set many hearts on fire, but it was pretty inoffensive.

At one point we had the Nationalist ‘Flimkien għal Uliedna’ (Together for our children’s sake), which finally developed into ‘Flimkien kollox possibli’ (Together everything is possible) in 2008.

Then of course there was the creation of GonziPN – lauded by the Nationalists, referred to with contempt by Labour exponents, but certainly scoring very high on the recognition stakes. The fact that not many Labour-inspired straplines or logos since 1996 come to mind indicates that they weren’t so attention-grabbing, though I do remember Labour’s making fun of Lawrence Gonzi’s much-hyped ‘Par idejn sodi’ (A safe pair of hands).

In every case, the phrases used reflected the concerns of the times – or what the major political parties perceived them to be. So in the late 1990s, curbing corruption and reining in the deficit were considered to be priorities.

However, in later years, appealing for unity to overcome a common threat (a Labour government or the prospect of losing out on EU accession) were deemed important enough to constitute the themes and buzzwords of the campaign.

And now, judging by the way the word is being bandied about, the latest buzzword is ‘stability’.

It’s all over the place: The need for stability, the negative repercussions of not having stability, the link between economic prosperity and stability, why democracy is a sorry second to stability and the all-important need to ensure that stability is guaranteed.

You can’t read a local newspaper or tune in to any local TV station without finding some earnest politician or party stooge hectoring on about how vital stability is for the country.

This newly-found concern about stability has – of course – been precipitated by Franco Debono’s declaration that he will not support a government headed by Lawrence Gonzi and will force an early election.

The longing for stability is justified to some extent, as the economy is negatively affected by the uncertainty that precedes every election. The normal rhythm of business is interrupted by the speculation about eventual winners and losers, and everything seems to grind to a halt. So there are quite a few arguments to be made for trying to promote stability.

However, the PN and the PL are treading on dangerous ground when they prize stability over other values – such as that of proportional representation. There have been a lot of noises from both the red and blue camp about the need to eliminate the ‘instability’ (dreaded word) that may be caused by a party having a mere one-seat majority.

A PN spokesman stated: “It is obvious that, in our system, there is the danger that a government will be held hostage by a single MP. This is not good for democracy because democracy is embodied in Parliament as a whole and not in a single MP out of 65.”

Echoing this sentiment, Labour exponents are pushing for the “majority bonus” idea, where the party with the most votes is automatically granted additional seats to be able to govern comfortably. Just to let you have an idea of how things work with the majority bonus, at the last election a slim majority of 1,500 votes would translate into three or more extra seats. Basically that would mean that votes which amount to less than one quota at district level would result in three MPs for the majority party.

It doesn’t say much for the democratic credentials of the parties, which would readily accept a system where a party which hadn’t managed to drum up a decent majority was rewarded anyway. It makes a mockery of the notion of proportional representation and representative democracy, as under this system the votes of the majority party are worth more than votes for other parties – they translate into more seats.

Going back to the 2008 scenario, had the majority bonus system been operational back then, it would have given rise to the anomalous situation where a 1,500 vote surplus of the PN was rewarded with three or more seats, whereas the 4,000 votes polled by Alternattiva Demokratika would not be recognised in any way.

The major parties should realise that if they do not manage to whip up sufficient electoral support to lead with a comfortable majority, this may be due to their failings as a party and not the electorate that has shunned them.

Tweaking our electoral laws to artificially boost their ability to govern is not the answer to that. Nor is extolling the benefits of stability to the exclusion of other considerations.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt