Aquestion while the EP election counting goes on - what was it all about? It was made to sound like a general election and the result will be similarly interpreted like that. Yet, it wasn't. So what's the difference between electing MEPs and MPs? Well, there is more than one difference at play.
Both are Members of Parliament, but MPs are part of our Parliament, the House of Representatives. MEPs are part of the European Parliament. As if you didn't know that. But not everybody knows the basic difference in the functions of the two types of Honourable Members. Nor do enough people appreciate the difference in the way they are elected.
The individuals we send to represent us at the European Parliament are, like local MPs, elected through a system based on the single transferable vote. We vote for either of the lot on the basis of our preferences among the candidates who are offered by their respective parties. First preference, second preference and so on up to the point where the voter could not be bothered anymore. Surplus votes are then transferred from candidates who gain a quota to the candidates next preferred by the vote.
Votes are similarly transferred when a candidate is knocked out of the reckoning because s/he is at the bottom of the last count. The system is the same, but when it comes to MEPs their constituency is the whole of the Maltese islands. The constituency of MPs is one-thirteenth of our islands, or two-thirteenths if they stand in two districts. The difference has two implications. The one-whole-island system favours and encourages candidates who appeal across the whole geographical mass. They stand a better chance of being elected, more so, in fact, than if they contest for an MP seat.
MPs have to make their mark in a limited area. The method of campaigning, therefore, has to be different. Both sets of candidates try to visit as many homes as they can, similarly those who become MEPs or MPs. But the MEP category can visit so many, whereas the other category can, at a demanding stretch, visit each and every home, especially in between elections in the case of those who are successfully elected.
The difference in the canvassing that can be done expresses itself in the context of our political culture. In the case of those who stand for an MP seat they have people working for them in each town and village of the constituency. Among other things these canvassers keep their MP informed of individual social events. Who gets married, who gives birth, who dies. The candidate or MP tries to follow up each case, with presence at a funeral, or at a wedding, or with a suitable note.
The effectiveness of candidates and their local machines in this regard can also be told by the mistakes they make. My mother-in-law passed on three months before her birthday. On what would have been her birthday a political personality sent her happy greetings. I'm sure she smiled in heaven. With MEPs, those elected or aspiring do try to have units in every town and village of Malta, but it is more difficult.
In a nutshell, both MPs and MEPs try to maintain personal contact, but it is not the same in both cases. There is one area where MEPs have a particular advantage. Periodically, they can invite a number of individuals to go up to Brussels to familiarise themselves with EU institutions, everything paid. MPs can offer no such perks. It is enough for them to keep up with the expense of wedding and birth presents.
MEPs, salary, allowances and all earn more than MPs. But they are subject to more stress as well. For many weeks of the year they travel twice a week, up to Brussels or Strasbourg for the sittings of the European Parliament and back to Malta for the weekend, to be with their families and also try to keep in touch with their constituencies.
There are more basic differences. MPs are our formal legislators, though the role has lost a considerable part of its meaning since EU membership means that essential legislation is drafted and passed at the EU level and becomes a directive binding each member country. Domestic legislation has to reflect these directives. Yet legislating debates in our Parliament are still important. Aside from showing the mettle or lack of it in our MPs, they set the tone for the government in some of its dealings with Brussels.
At their level, MEPs do not have absolute sway. They share their powers with the Council of Ministers. Moving away from legislating, MPs do their best to represent the interest of their constituencies in domestic bread-and-butter terms, including a street lamp here, a pot-holed road everywhere. MPs use speeches and parliamentary questions for such purposes. MEPs deal in their EP groupings with sterner stuff, but can also make representations for their constituencies, largely through parliamentary questions.
In this latter regard I have a feeling that those who are elected MEPs once the counting is completed later today will be careful to place more PQs than the average of the outgoing MEPs. One hopes that in trying to drum up a higher average they will keep away from the frivolous and concentrate on matters of deep interest to individual constituents, and in particular to the national interest.
Cynics might say that, in either case, being an MP or an MEP is a bit of game. Not quite so. We don't have the shenanigans of greed that is rocking the House of Commons. And our MPs and MEPs all remind us that we are a democratic country. Look at mighty China and the shame of the authorities suppressing those who tried to remember the small gesture towards democracy in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago.
For what we have, imperfections and all, be thankful.