So Tony Blair made history by being the first Labour leader to win three consecutive terms. He won a comfortable 66 seat majority when the Labour Party secured only 37 per cent of the cast ballots. However, a relative majority decided that despite failings and misgivings it was preferable to confirm an incumbent government rather than elect a divided opposition. Others decided that a vote for the third party would be a wasted vote. Those Labour voters who switched over to the Liberals really helped the Tories.
Some may condemn the unfairness of the first-past-the-post system. But the British value their system because almost invariably it returns a strong government and, given the strength of the British economy since Margaret Thatcher, you cannot entirely fault the system. Strong governments make for stability and, as we know, nothing beats stability in investors' calculations.
According to Sophocles: "There is a point beyond which even justice becomes unjust". To my mind the same maxim is equally true about fair representation. There can be a point beyond which fair representation will not only prevent governability but in practice it may mean the tyranny of a tiny minority. Examples abound both abroad and at home.
Extremely fair representation produces an Israeli Parliament made up of more than 20 parties. Frequently the government and peace became victims to the whims and narrow-mindedness of tiny extreme right wing parties. And this for a country under permanent siege! Many assert that the country would be utterly ungovernable in time of real peace.
Nearer at home we have witnessed dozens of short-lived weak Italian coalitions. Not one single post-war Italian government has lasted a full five-year term. Not even the latest reforms have done the trick, though they have created two loosely linked opposite camps. Not even the prestige and flamboyancy of Silvio Berlusconi could defeat the weakness of the system. At the first signs of probable defeat junior partners jumped ship, thereby hoping to enhance their future chances. Let's also not forget that a series of democratic but weak governments opened the way to both fascism and nazism.
At home the proportional system, which some somewhat unfairly say was designed by the British Imperial power to produce weak governments, instead resulted in an essentially two-party system. The Maltese people, consciously or unconsciously, wisely appreciated and emulated their British masters, despite a totally different electoral framework. In fact we have experienced multi-party parliaments only in time of crisis.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s the near annihilation of the Nationalist Party and the split in the Labour Party produced rainbow parliaments. A series of weak short-lived coalitions led by George Borg Olivier at the head of a resurgent Nationalist Party probably instilled in Maltese consciousness the ineffectiveness of coalitions. The final death knell was rung with the resignation of a government minister elected on the Malta Workers' Party ticket to become once more a minister after the ensuing elections in the first Mintoff government. So much for the give and take of coalitions! Dr Borg Olivier only showed his worth and made his name when he could lead a one-party government in 1962.
That too was a time of crisis. The quarrel between the Church and the MLP as well as the determined call for independence by the PN produced a five-party hung Parliament. Only the crossing of the floor by a member elected in the interests of the splinter Democratic Nationalist Party made possible a strong Nationalist government for the first time since the war.
Have we ever weighed up the consequences on the flow of history had this not happened? Would we have achieved independence, with the ensuing highly successful restructuring of the economy from one based solely on the British armed services to one based on tourism and industrialisation? Or would it have been more likely that a weak government without a parliamentary majority would have slowly fallen victim to a slow war of attrition as had happened in the 1950s? No wonder the preference for strong governments was inculcated in the Maltese psyche!
All this is pertinent at a time when the parties are discussing ways of reforming our system and make it more representative and when the Electoral Commission has been split on the redrawing of the electoral districts. It all boils down to what we want.
Surely we do not want to adopt the British system. On the other hand, though most of us want a fairer system, only a few would want a series of unstable governments, at the mercy of a single member.
It is probable that all would finally accept a threshold. It should not be too steep so as to make it impossible for a third party to enter Parliament. On the other hand it should not be so low that single-issue parties would be easily elected. Let us not forget that we have had more than one government with a single-seat majority which, with the exception of one, lasted the full term. What will happen if Malta is put at the mercy of a member who is elected on, say, a racist ticket? Do we want that in the name of a utopian pure democracy?
Let's for the moment gloss over the Electoral Commission majority report's warped logic drawing the electoral districts on the results of the local council elections to achieve fairness. This is an abomination on a par with the strange drawing up of boundaries in the dark days, with the sole aim of giving the maximum parliamentary majority to the MLP.
Equally glaring is the proposal to carve out Ghajnsielem from Gozo and annex it to the 12th district. Is it fair that a small part of Gozo is separated from the rest of the island? Are we to become prisoners of our own Constitution? I am sure the MLP does not favour such an outcome. The true solution, not within the powers of the commission, is for both parties in Parliament to amend the Constitution so that, barring extraordinary situations, Gozo is declared as one indivisible district.
Isn't Sophocles' dictum, quoted above, quite apt in the present developments?
Dr Deguara is Minister of Health.