Is the co-option of Andy Ellul to parliament a sign of renewal or a symptom of a crisis? A crisis, of course, which embraces all political parties in parliament and which runs deep in our politics.
First, the obvious: Ellul’s co-option was chosen by the Labour leadership, not Labour voters. Following the resignation of Silvio Grixti, other candidates had to be persuaded not to contest the casual election. Had they contested, the winner would have reflected the secondary choices made by Grixti’s voters in 2017.
Instead of choice, what those voters got was someone who didn’t even contest the third electoral district at the last general election (though Ellul will contest it in the coming one). And the third district (comprising Żejtun, Żabbar and Marsascala) is one where Labour voters had a wide range of choice in 2017.
It’s a district where choice matters. Labour is dominant – it currently wins four out of five seats – but the stock of individual candidates can swing wildly from one general election to the next. In 2008, George Vella topped the polls; in the next election, he came third. In 2013, Owen Bonnici came first handily – only to fail to be even elected (from that district) in 2017, when Chris Fearne came first.
In 2013, it had been Helena Dalli who failed to be elected on this district; she came back in 2017. Clearly, choices matter to voters. They routinely use their vote to send a sharp message to the best-established politicians.
It’s not a singular peculiarity of the third district. In 2013, the tsunami that swept away the Nationalist Party drew attention away from the tidal wave that crashed over Labour. In that election, around half the Labour MPs elected in 2008 either lost their seat or else chose not to test the electorate.
In this year’s election, with the votes of two big, retired district politicians to play for (Dalli and Grixti), a casual election would have made a lot of difference to the hopefuls vying to represent the district in the next parliament.
Instead, the district gets Ellul – with a message that turns the meaning of representation on its head. He gets to be an MP by representing the leader’s wishes, not the people’s.
It’s the fifth co-option of a Labour MP in this parliament. In one case, where a casual election could not be avoided, it was a travesty: the winner, Gavin Gulia, resigned within moments of being sworn in as MP, to make way for the leader’s anointed choice.
It’s been an extraordinary parliament for voters’ choice and representation. The 2017-2022 legislature comes to an end with a prime minister who was voted in not by the general electorate but by Labour members. (In 2004, Lawrence Gonzi was anointed prime minister by PN councillors but, during the 2003 general election campaign, everyone in his right mind knew that Eddie Fenech Adami would retire soon after and that Gonzi would win the ensuing leadership contest. A Gonzi premiership was no surprise.)
Voters have been routinely deprived of choice. New MPs are now expected to represent their leader’s voice to the people, rather than the other way round- Ranier Fsadni
This legislature has had two opposition leaders who didn’t even contest the last general election; both were co-opted. It has another two MPs on the opposition benches, Marlene Farrugia and Godfrey Farrugia, who resigned from the political party they were elected to represent.
A crisis of representation is what you get when form is hollow, empty of meaning. Our forms of democratic representation are increasingly becoming meaningless.
Democratic representation has three components, which exist in creative tension with one another. There is the representation of the voters’ choice. Then there is the elected politician’s voicing of his or her constituents’ interests – not just as their proxy but as someone interpreting their interests against the background of the larger national drama. Finally, there is the principled representation of democratic virtues and ideals, instead of the vices that undermine them.
This legislature has seen a collapse in all three components. Voters have been routinely deprived of choice. New MPs are expected to represent their leader’s voice to the people, rather than the other way round. As for principled stands…
This legislature has seen seven ministers, including a prime minister, who have retired, resigned or been removed. All but two have been implicated in grave scandal. There are at least as many ministers, still serving, who are mired in serious scandals. Together, they make up an entire Cabinet by pre-2013 standards.
Both political parties of government are suffering from an acute crisis of representation. That of the PN is the more visible. It has lost its social intelligence. Unable to represent a wide enough spectrum of society, unable to dialogue with itself, it has lost its ability to interpret society with one plausible voice.
Labour’s crisis, however, isn’t far from the surface. It shows signs of being increasingly detached from its base. It distrusts its own voters’ choices. It’s cut off ideologically, serving fat cats and diluting workers’ rights. On equality, it pays lip service to some rights while ministers behave like feudal barons.
For the moment, what keeps the crisis from rising to the surface is power. The prospect of retaining power and distributing its prizes is enough for all the simmering anger to be held in check.
Eventually, however, power ebbs away, as it always does.