The Republic of Malta is a parliamentary democracy. The three keywords in that short sentence – republic, parliament and democracy – depend on an essential ingredient to function adequately: the voice of the people.
The more people are heard and the wider the representation of those willing to make themselves heard in matters of the state, the stronger and better functioning a democracy is likely to be.
There is again talk of a need to ‘update’ the electoral system, which served the country for many years until gerrymandering produced a ‘perverse’ result in 1981 that took the island to the brink of civil unrest. A stopgap solution was found in 1987 through the introduction of the so-called ‘absolute majority party’ clause: the party winning the absolute majority of first preference votes will be assured of governing.
A ‘relative majority party’ proviso was later inserted in 1996 to cover instances when more than two political parties contest an election but only candidates from two such parties make it to parliament.
On the eve of an election, the prime minister says it is time to discuss whether the number of electoral districts should be reduced, if technocrats should be appointed to cabinet and whether MPs should work full-time.
At the beginning of this year, Solidarity Minister Michael Falzon and Nationalist MP Hermann Schiavone, considered to be experts on the electoral system, had raised the possibility of introducing a national threshold to enable a third party to be represented in parliament. They both insisted on ensuring government stability, fearing a small party could become “government kingmaker”, as Schiavone put it.
Calls for the electoral system to be changed to make it easier for other parties to make it to parliament have long been made. The recent succession of political crises left the two main parties trying to pick up the pieces of their shattered credibility. The need for a third political force thus becomes more pronounced and urgent.
Coalitions would hopefully help us move away from tribalism and a ‘winner-takes-all’ mentality
The smaller parties are rightly wary when they hear the two main political forces speaking of opening up, fearing Greeks bearing gifts.
As things stand, it is very unlikely that a third party can be of any real threat in terms of governance. However, if the main political parties really mean what they say, they should, at least, introduce changes that make a coalition more possible.
Even under the initial proposed reforms, however, the possibility of a coalition is as remote as it is today. It is only if a small party elects an MP from a district that a coalition becomes possible, which is the situation today. If a third party gets into parliament as a result of a national threshold – which is being proposed at five per cent – then the party winning the relative majority of votes will be given an absolute majority of seats, thus entrenching our two-party system further.
Scaremongering about coalitions making for unstable governments need impress nobody any longer. It is not coalitions that cause instability but greedy, incompetent and corrupt politicians.
Even a government enjoying a strong majority and a dysfunctional opposition can cause instability in a country.
Germany, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Spain, have on the whole, shown that coalitions do work.
So, let there be a meaningful debate and, once the election is over, start implementing the necessary changes making it more possible for political coalitions to happen in Malta. It would, hopefully, help us move away from tribalism and a ‘winner-takes-all’ mentality.