We should have two new political parties by the end of January, each hoping to rattle parliament’s duopoly. Their main challenge will not be winning over the cynics; their votes are beyond reach. It’s to persuade the well-meaning sympathisers to think more clearly. Without that, the new formations will soon join the dead and zombie third parties.
On the principles and credibility of the new parties we can reserve judgement until we see what’s on offer. Until then, everyone should be more realistic about what these parties are up against.
When news of Arnold Cassola’s plans to launch a new party broke, it was accompanied by the information that, although he won the third-highest number of (first preference) votes in the last MEP elections, he was not elected. The unstated but clear implication was that our voting system is rigged against independent and third-party candidates.
This reading turns the truth on its head. It’s actually thanks to our voting system that Cassola obtained such a creditable result. The system didn’t keep him down; it enabled him to maximise his votes. The single transferable vote (STV) enables voters to have it both ways: vote for an independent and for their preferred party.
If a different voting system had obliged them to choose between Cassola and their preferred party, the likelihood is Cassola would have done worse. I may have missed it but I don’t think I’ve heard Cassola complain about STV.
But some of his sympathisers are, and they’re doing this by judging one game (the one voters played) by the scoring rules of another. To assess Cassola’s tally, in an STV system, by using the criteria of first past the post (only counting first preferences) is like judging football by the rules of basketball. Voters played the game of STV, and voted accordingly, keeping the second and third preference votes in mind.
Why does this matter now? Because it shows a gross misjudgement of the problem facing third parties. The STV system actually has a reputation for serving them well. Lobbying for a change of system, or not lobbying for the real changes needed, will harm, not help, the prospects of third parties.
One change that’s needed is enforcement of the current electoral law. Third parties suffer because corrupt practices by the party of government are not seriously investigated, let alone punished. Candidates do not compete on a level playing field when campaign expenses are flagrantly violated with impunity – and, while this also disadvantages honest candidates of all parties, third parties are more affected.
The second change still needs to be made law. It concerns a national threshold of votes that would guarantee a proportionate number of seats. In many EU countries this threshold is set at five per cent. Implemented in Malta this would mean that if a third party failed to elect a single MP, but obtained five per cent of the first preference votes nationally, it would be guaranteed a seat.
Third parties suffer because corrupt practices by the party of government are not seriously investigated, let alone punished- Ranier Fsadni
Such a law would make a real change. Some voters would change their first-preference vote if they thought there was a realistic chance it would make a difference. This is a change to fight for.
There is more. Almost 20 years ago, agreement on its principle was reached by the two major parties. The negotiations were led by Joe Saliba, for the Nationalist Party, and (now minister) Michael Falzon for Labour. To my knowledge, what sabotaged the negotiation was that the PN believed the threshold should be five per cent (mainstream Europe) whereas Labour insisted it should be 7.5 per cent.
Both political parties should be asked where they stand on their former positions. They are, obviously, not bound by decisions taken by former party administrations four legislatures ago. But, at least, we should be told where they stand. By their answers shall we know them.
Realism about the challenges faced by third parties also needs to extend to the mistakes they’ll make initially and the splinters they’ll likely have.
If a political party goes into an election as a ramshackle outfit, speaking as a cacophony, it wouldn’t deserve our vote. But between now and the general election there is reason to be patient.
Setting up a new party to challenge the established ones is a long-term project. Initially, you will attract the disaffected from all wings.
Some will be sane but incompatible. Others will be nutcases. Most will be there because disillusioned by the compromises made by the major parties but they will need to learn to accept compromise between themselves.
That takes time. It’s never easy. The history of Alternattiva Demokratika, from its beginnings in 1989, is a history of splinters. Every past leader, prior to the current one, ended up breaking with it.
The merger with Partit Demokratiku fizzled out, leaving nothing but a change of name. That is not an indictment of AD. It’s the occupational hazard of small parties.
They must struggle not to become sectarian but also not to be co-opted by the mainstream. They are more harshly judged by voters if unprincipled; but too much insistence on principle can split them faster than breakaway churches. They pledge to bring new energy to politics but delivering it is exhausting.
It is not an impossible task. But it requires more than resolve from the politicians. It calls for resolutions by the public: to be patient, reasonable, grounded and realist.