The five per cent fallacy

The contributions by Godfrey Baldacchino and Michael Briguglio (June 22) and Michael Grech (July 4) ultimately turn on one question: whether Maltese politics has ever had a single dominant party, a “natural party of government”. Grech interrogates this claim most effectively and, in my view, offers the more realistic appraisal of the evidence.

Baldacchino and Briguglio argue that the Labour Party (PL) possesses a permanent structural advantage over the Nationalist Party (PN), claiming that, historically, the PL’s floor is higher and that it commands roughly five per cent more “core” allegiance. They further suggest that the PN can only win when “strongly divisive issues” disrupt the system and push Labour voters away – such as the Church-MLP conflict, the antagonistic climate of the 1980s or EU accession.

In ordinary times, they argue, floating voters drift back to the “big Labour tent”. Yet, both parties have long operated as big tents, drawing diverse segments of the electorate under their respective umbrellas.

My difficulty with the Baldacchino-Briguglio reading is that, in Maltese politics, divisive issues are almost always “big”, whatever their true nature. The introduction of Value Added Tax in the mid 1990s sharply divided society and Labour capitalised on the resulting disgruntlement to win the 1996 election at the PN’s expense. Labour did not return to government in times of tranquillity and the EU issue was already being hotly debated, which should have kept the PN in the saddle.

This exchange reminded me of what Charles Mangion, then deputy leader of the Labour Party, wrote in 2008 in another section of the press about the Nationalist Party’s claim to be the natural party of government. Mangion argued: “They (the PN) perpetuate the fallacy that, however badly they have abused people’s trust, they are still the natural party of government and that Labour cannot be trusted. They have already resumed the well-tried strategy of demonising the Labour Party leadership…”

The PN went on to win the 2008 election by a handful of votes – not because a sizeable majority believed it was the natural party of government or accepted its demonisation narrative but because incumbency allowed it to mobilise just enough support to secure a narrow victory.

Demonising rival parties and presenting one’s own as the natural party of government has been a core feature of Maltese electoral politics for decades. Both major parties routinely insist that smaller parties are unelectable and a threat to stable governance should they enter parliament. Yet, the heaviest blows are reserved for each other.

Vote majorities in past elections reveal much about the campaigns that shaped them  but they do not establish any reliable behavioural pattern that could indicate the presence of a “natural” incumbent.

The claim that the PL tends to come to power during periods of relative political tranquillity rests on very fragile ground. In 1971, Labour won for reasons that show the country was anything but tranquil: economic stagnation, rising national debt, a housing shortage (the Djar għall-Maltin campaign), the nationalistic slogan “Malta for the Maltese”, allegations of corruption and deteriorating institutions. The government had attempted to claw back support by pledging to abolish income tax over four years but the effort failed. The election result was close, yet Labour prevailed.

The PN won an absolute majority of votes in 1981 amid a failing economy, rising unemployment, troubles in the tourist sector, unprecedented political violence and accusations of corruption. As these problems persisted in the years that followed, the PN was able to enter government in 1987.  Their major pledge to apply to join the EU was not in my view the main factor of this result.

Since 1962, PN has governed for 33 years and PL for 31 years- Roderick Pace

One could summarise all major electoral shifts in similar terms. What emerges is that several factors influence change, that these factors varied along time and they converge when a majority in favour of change crystallises: corruption and institutional stability play supporting roles but have not been decisive; economic and social conditions are usually the most influential; and change tends to occur when the governing party appears tired and is seen to have lost its propulsive force.

The electorate itself has evolved so significantly that long term, linear trajectories are difficult to sustain. Malta moved from male only suffrage to the inclusion of women; the voting age fell from 21 to 18 and now 16. Demographic change matters. Political outlooks have shifted; the once dominant influence of the Catholic Church has receded; and insular attitudes have been reshaped by travel, education and the media.

The way parties communicate has also changed and one cannot overlook the impact of the parties’ own media and social media in recent campaigns.

Ideology has largely faded as a mobilising force – something that was not true for long stretches of Malta’s electoral history.

Looking at elections since 1962, the PN has governed for 33 years and the PL for 31 years, including the controversial 1981–87 period when Labour held office despite winning fewer votes than its rival.

I see no “natural” five percenter here, however, I see a hegemonic duopoly, PL-PN alternation in power and long cycles of same party rule.

In parting, politics and political outcomes are notoriously difficult to analyse and I make no claim to ‘infallibility’.

Elections are complex and their outcomes usually stem from multiple interacting factors. One pattern I have noticed is that governing parties tend to begin losing votes almost as soon as they take office. Even when they command large majorities, support eventually starts to leak for a variety of reasons and according to different time frames.

Political leadership is also a key factor to explaining party success and charismatic leaders may have had a stronger impact on outcomes than we concede.

Long cycles in government are possible as evident but political systems may also enter prolonged phases of political fragmentation. This has not been the case so far for Malta.

What worries me most at present is declining voter participation. In 2003, arguably a pivotal election that determined Malta’s EU membership, 12,808 eligible voters stayed home and 2,909 invalidated their ballot. In 2026, with a larger electorate, 44,703 did not vote and 6,093 invalidated their ballot.

A sign of indifference as to who governs? Or the early tremors of a tectonic shift?

Last June, a piece on The Wall Street Journal titled ‘Greenspan Left a Lasting Mark on America – and Me’ (by Greg Ip), cited him as having said: “Human nature is essentially immutable… People extrapolate the good times too much in booms and the bad times during busts.”

If people chronically misjudge economic cycles, they probably do worse in judging political trajectories. But when the economic lash hits their backs, they change governments.

Roderick Pace, Professor at the Institute for European Studies, University of Malta, writes in a personal capacity. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the university or the institute.