Roamer's column

Next Sunday we will have a new government. The result will be scrutinised by psephologists self-proclaimed and otherwise. A slice of pre-emptive psephology is therefore not out of place. So, let's begin with the fact that at the start of last week, 29,000 voting documents had yet to find their owners.

When one considers that men and women all over the world have been imprisoned or put to death for trying to secure the right to vote, the right deliberately not to exercise it, for whatever reason, is surely irresponsible at best. So, it may be assumed that the possibility of 29,000 men and women refusing to vote is improbable.

Rather than the facetiousness, in a non-Maltese context, of an elderly woman's remark, "I never vote. It only encourages them", we are better off heeding Thomas Paine's assertion, made over 200 years ago that, "When moral principles... are candidates for power, to vote is to perform a moral duty, and not to vote is a neglect of duty."

It may be the case that among the 29,000, as well as among those in possession of their voting document, are men and women who feel let down, or hurt for some reason or no good reason, or who bear a grudge, for some reason or no good reason, for the party in government; that there are those who intend to abstain; that others have decided, out of a sense of caprice, that it is not a 'moral duty' to vote; that others still have reached an age, or stage in life, when they feel that politics no longer touch their lives.

Of these categories, the most selfish are surely those in the last category and the least responsible are the capricious. Abstainers, for their part, should find the courage to acknowledge the probability that their abstention will vote in by default a party they had previously voted out. A non-vote in Malta's electoral system is a vote for all that.

Those in the first category need to do the most thinking and to do so in the light of the principle of the politics of reality. This states quite simply that it is not just the mistakes committed by a party - and which party this side of heaven, in government or out of it, apart from Dr Sant, does not chalk these up? - that are to be placed on the weighing scales before making a choice as to whether to return it to power. There are objectives reached, challenges met, obstacles overcome, the vision proposed for the next five years and, vitally, the qualities of the leader whose task it will be to reach that destination to be taken to account. Do these, in conscience, not predominate?

The politics of numbers

If, in this context, you are minded to vote for a third party that is demanding to form part of a coalition government, or a coalition opposition, either party will do apparently - and you cannot get more contrary than that - consider that this makes for instability or, given the way the district boundaries have been drawn up, a result that sees the Labour Party returned with a majority of seats and less than 50 per cent of the vote. This can happen, may happen, will probably happen if the Nationalist Party does not collect 50 per cent of the votes plus one in the first count. It has happened in the past. In 1981 Labour governed with a majority of seats and a minority of the popular vote.

This led to a democratic deficit so glaringly obvious that even Dom Mintoff acknowledged, after dragging his feet for more than four years, its unacceptability. The Constitution was changed to provide a mechanism for a party collecting 50 per cent of the vote plus one and fewer seats than its opponent to be automatically compensated with enough seats to form a majority. With more than two parties contesting the elections, the Nationalist Party and a third party could land more than 50 per cent of the votes between them and still not have a majority in Parliament.

To view this outcome as a threat posed by a minority is not to sow the politics of fear but to acknowledge a psephological and, therefore, a political reality that can bring about the situation where the dictatorship of the majority, as parliamentary representation is sometimes referred to, is replaced with the dictatorship of the minority. What should be guiding voters, in other words, is the politics of numbers and, therefore, of results. Fear enters the picture only to the extent that this reality is ignored.

The argument has been made that coalition governments in Europe are the norm. In the context of local politics, in the light of the constitutional arrangements that govern an election result in Malta (and nowhere else in Europe), and in the light of the preceding paragraph, this argument is alarmingly specious. Incidentally, Carla Powell (an Italian) remarked recently, in a contribution to the Spectator about the permanent shambles Italian politics inhabit, "...we can no longer afford the self-indulgence of a multi-party system in which every small interest group can hold the government to ransom".

The political context in Malta is that a small interest group in a Parliament where a whisker majority operates is bad news and a recipe for instability. An even more sober reality is that the bid for a seat by either of the two alternatives can only militate against the Nationalist party (in terms of first count votes) and, logically, inevitably, in favour of the Labour Party.

The politics of comparison - and choice

But what emerged clearly these past three weeks was the difference in kind and in degree between the two leaders and their programmes for Malta between 2008 and 2013. Where Lawrence Gonzi demonstrated a vigorous openness to criticism and detailed questioning, Alfred Sant exhibited a quasi-Houdinesque sense of evasion and, along with other constituents in his party, a libel-prone or even a libel-seeking approach to politics; anything but the chore of discussing substance.

No political party in history has been taken to the courts for libel to the extent we have witnessed during the past few weeks. Dung-flinging, a re-run of Dr Sant's 1996 election campaign, has intentionally replaced the where-are-we-going debate; and the point about dung, especially when it misses, is that it has this mucky tendency to stick to the fingers of those who throw it.

The choice next Saturday boils down to the answer the electorate will give to two quintessential questions. Who deserves to lead this country during the crucial years ahead? Which party has presented the electoral manifesto most relevant to Malta's future in a challenging global environment? Take a few deep breaths. Who and which? The government and the man who embraced the formidable task of EU membership, or the man who was mind, body and soul against membership? The man whose party negotiated an €850 million package for Malta, or the man who would have denied the country this massive investment?

The man and the party that signed Malta into the EU, or the man who is declaring he will reopen the package with all the wrong signals this sends to member countries and investors? The man and the parliamentary secretary who knocked Malta's finances into shape and who aims to put our finances into surplus by the end of 2010, or the man who, disturbingly, will not commit himself to this laudable fiscal objective? By shrinking from this commitment, Dr Sant has opened himself up to the charge that fiscal prudence and responsibility are not a priority for his government should voters elect for a change for the worse.

Who and which? The man whose government attracted the hugest private investment in Malta's history, or the man who tried to belittle Smart City and still regards it as a speculative venture? The man and the minister who oversaw Malta's qualitative leap in information technology, or the man who wrote off MCAST? The man who is committing more than €100 million to build new premises for MCAST, or the man who - see last question? The man and the minister who has redrawn the physical profile of our schools and invested scores of millions of euros into education from kindergarten stage to tertiary levels, or - need I continue on this one? The man and the minister who oversaw the creation of Mater Dei and an upgrade in health services, or the doubting Thomas who believed it only when he saw it and then still retained a sense of disbelief? The man and the minister and the members of the Malta Tourism Authority who turned 2007 into a record year for tourism. Or the man who has finally come round to the benefits of low- cost airlines?

The man and the party who presented a manifesto bursting with ambitious initiatives and objectives aimed at achieving excellence in healthcare, technology, investment (work), the environment in its widest sense, tourism and financial services - from the removal of tax on credit cards and television licences to the refashioning of tax bands and lowering of the 35 per cent rate of income tax to 25 per cent for income and earnings below Lm25,758; from an estimated €45 million incentives scheme for industry to turning Gozo into an ecological island; from the creation of an environment in which the contribution of the financial services sector to the Gross Domestic Product will rise from 12 per cent to 25 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product and employment in the sector from 6,000 to 10,000 to the creation of 25,000 new jobs; from an increase in yacht berthing facilities by 25 per cent to a specialist school in sport - or the man who has yet to detail out just how he will be spending the €850 million he once said would never be Malta's?

The man whose aim is to create, as his government has been creating during the past four years, 5,000 new jobs a year or the man who is settling for 2,000 a year? The man who dealt with cases of corruption and passed these on to the Police Commissioner for investigation, or a wannabee prime minister who believes that the Police Commissioner and the Permanent Commission Against Corruption are the Government's paraventu, screen, who also thinks it is the duty of the prime minister, Poirot-like, to personally investigate such cases? The man who readily confessed to making mistakes - how many politicians have ever done that? - or the man who has no regrets about anything he did during his aborted 22-month premiership? The man whose manifesto was free of misprints or computer malfunctions, or the man whose manifesto was victim to computer hiccups, textual cock-ups and included programmes already carried out? And so on ad what seems to be infinitum.

The architect of Malta's economic development during the past four years, the investment his government has attracted to Malta and the impact of this on jobs and wealth creation, the vision of 2015 he holds out to youth and, therefore, for the future, lead me to believe that he deserves to finish the job he is manifestly capable of completing. This will happen if the Nationalist Party notches up a first-count vote of 50 per cent plus.

To repeat that a first-count vote for a third, fourth, fifth or sixth party is, unquestionably, a vote for the Labour Party, is not to counsel fear but to assert the mathematical infallibility of numbers.