And we’ll keep defeating you

Surveys show they will obtain far more votes than the Nationalist Party. As many commentors say in response to some video on corruption or threats to democracy: the answer from Labourites is “we still defeat you”.

As has happened before, that result will be followed by the general inquiry: are we now a one-party state? We forget we are the state we choose to be.

Not all democracies are pluralist. For thirty years the African National Congress overwhelmed its rivals in all of South Africa’s ballots. Their first victories were understandable. They were the people who had sacrificed so much for the liberation of black people. But after years of spectacular corruption, their continued victories became a mystery. They’re still the largest party of that country today but they are no longer a majority party.

Consider Sweden, also a democracy. The Social Democrats ruled for 45 years up to 1976. They then ruled for 35 of the last 42 years.

This shows that the fact that one party keeps winning does not mean there is no democracy. And if a party rules for 35 years and you stop to wander about its success 20 years in, it will feel to you that they can never be defeated.

After 1987 the Nationalist Party ruled for 26 years, less 22 months. When they won the 2008 elections some wondered if they were destined to rule forever.

While it is true that having a party winning over and again does not prove democracy has failed, the simple fact of having many parties does not prove you have a democracy either. There can very well be structural corruption that reduces opposition parties to the status of spectators of the ruling party’s power. This is not just about violent regimes like China and Russia who for sure have several parties, but only one is guaranteed to win.

There are benevolent regimes like Singapore that appear to be free and plural beneath a blanket of economic prosperity but where the ruling party’s power is beyond challenge. They always must win.

What’s Malta’s situation? Have we become a fake democracy where a single party always wins and the rest watch? Or is this merely Labour’s phase and like the Nationalists’ before it, this too will pass?

I will not draw conclusions in response to that question, but I will make some observations I think might help form a reasoned opinion.

Firstly, it is true that the two parties have not been neck and neck for a long time and the lead the Labour Party has over its rival – even now after so many years in government – is far wider than the Nationalists ever had over Labour, even in their best days.

But secondly, it is also true that there has never been such a level of abstention in ballots. This means there is an unprecedently large number of people who whether because they have given up, or because they could not care less, leave it up to others to decide on their behalf who should win or lose elections. It’s not necessarily true that abstainers in one election will abstain from the next. The ambivalence of Nationalists today might change to ambivalence of other people who are now voting Labour.

Thirdly, it is true that the Nationalist Party has a difficult relationship with some of its traditional supporters. But this an unstable consideration and its impact is not predictable. For example, some characters in the Parliamentary group are considered controversial by some who in the past have voted for the Nationalist Party, whether it is because of things they said or they did or did not do. But that doesn’t mean the Nationalist Party has lost these people for good. There’s still an attraction with, for example, its European Parliament candidates that remind these traditional Nationalist Party voters of the characteristics that retained their support in the first place.

This means that fourthly, the relationship between voter and party can be more complicated than a simple matter of for or against, I’ll wave the flag at the mass meeting, or I stay home on election day or even switch my vote to the other side. There are voters who think these things are a bit more nuanced than that: they agree with some policies and disagree with others; like this candidate and dislike the next one. It is, therefore, hard to predict their behaviour on voting day. Not just this week, but also with the passage of time.

Fifthly, the corruption of the last 11 years has created for some the feeling of a need for a change in politics and disappointment that change has not occurred. No doubt many of us realised just how inadequate Maltese politics is to address our problems when a journalist was killed because of the work she was doing. We of course recognise that many continue to live in denial because the truth is too uncomfortable.

Some truths we must contend with. Many of our structural problems are a legacy of the unwillingness of political parties who think they can win elections on the existing terms to change things in a way that would make their own lives harder.

No one looks keen to touch the rules on the financing of political activities (not just parties, but also candidates, and electoral campaigns). And for as long as they remain untouched the corrupt compromise at the root of all things remains the fact that people with money can control the decisions that affect everyone, including people without money.

No one looks keen to deal with public broadcasting and the political party media to ensure a genuinely free flow of information.

No one looks keen to deal with our economic dependence on other people’s cheating, living off other people’s tax evasion.

No one looks keen to address the weakness of our institutions which are permitted to function freely by the government when it is convenient to the government to do so, but are crushed when they step on some important toes.

I could go on with the list but that’s not today’s point.

Today’s point is that there are traditional Labour Party voters who are now asking themselves if their Party could seriously be expected to continue to promote their values while it’s completely distracted with protecting thieves who used politics for larceny and are now using politics to avoid consequence. There are also traditional Nationalist Party voters that have been wondering for some years if their Party is a genuinely viable alternative, committed to clean the decks, and endowed with the ability to combine competence with honesty.

And when so many people are asking themselves these questions, I come to my sixth observation of today: are Maltese voters prepared to consider, for the first time in nearly 70 years, an alternative option to the top menu items they are being served?

And what do the Maltese consider an alternative? Does it mean to them that they would choose parties and candidates they would expect to contribute from the platforms they are elected to: Local Council, European Parliament, or even Malta’s Parliament? Or do they rather understand they would be voting for someone else as a way of protesting their disappointment with the traditional parties?

And if what they’re doing is protest, how will they do it? Because they do not need to choose those who promote the environment more than traditional parties, or those who combat corruption more effectively and more determinedly than the main opposition. There are also the racists and the fascists who are an attractive form of protest because of their hatred and their anger that channels the feelings of the people who feel ignored by traditional politics.

And so, much as we’re seeing in our neighbouring countries, anger and disappointment flow into support for those whose mission it is to reduce us to live under one party, who are publicly committed to abolish democracy and deny human rights.

This too might be our future.

Those whose decade it is to win might expect they’ll always be winners, and they might find yet that they’re mistaken about that. Those who indulge the corrupt with their protection if  it helps them win elections, may be doing worse than annoying the other sides’ supporters, fuming over their defeats.

They might find, when it is too late to do anything about it, that when democratic parties did not look beyond the subsequent election and chose to defend and justify crime and corruption, they did worse than create a cause for the people who wanted to remove them. They conjured a cause for those who want to sweep democracy away alongside them and instead of our right to choose between the honest and the corrupt they would leave us with no more than the blessing of losing our rights and to live instead in the shadow of hatred and the slavery of tyranny.

MANUEL QAL, Season 1 Episode 22

Written by Manuel Delia
Video Production: Michael Kaden / NEWZ.mt