There must have been circumstances when we had to choose between drinking Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola. The difference between the two might be in the taste even though both seem to have the same flavour and are mainly made of the same ingredients.
Given a choice between the two we may decide to consume one rather the other based on its sweetness or smoothness. This choice between two drinks promoted by a global brand promotional campaign can perhaps serve as an analogy for the choice we are faced when it comes to political parties.
This analogy is based on the premise that, in this post-industrial scenario, the right/left cleavage that traditionally structured political thought and allegiance to one party rather than the other has become inexistent. Alfred Sant, a former Maltese prime minister, in his blog in The Malta Independent recently stated that the two major Maltese political parties are competing to occupy the political centre with one leaning towards the ‘left’ and the other one towards the ’right’.
Due to this convergence towards the centre there seems to be little if any space for issues that radically differentiate one party from the other. Indeed, Sant asserts that “the programme being promoted by one could have been proposed by the other”.
I would add that this convergence is also visible in the slogans that the two mainstream parties chose for their respective electoral campaign earlier this year. Labour’s ‘Malta Flimkien’ (Malta Together) evokes the cooperative spirit and principles that guide our behaviour in various aspects of life. On the other hand, the PN’s ‘Miegħek. Għal Malta’ (With You. For Malta) appeals to the solidarity principles that bind members of society.
This convergence implies that political ideology, which has been the driving force of social and political behaviour, has lost its charm. Put simply, the grand humanistic ideologies have lost their relevance as they are no longer being used as a means to motivate people and mobilise them to action.
Given this lack of a radical differentiation between the beliefs espoused by the political parties one may ask on what grounds are elections won or lost. The analogy about the choice between Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola may be pertinent in answering this question. The preference to choose one drink rather than the other may be based on the flavour and which one of the two is smoother. By the same token, an election might be won by the party which succeeds in making the flavour more palatable by portraying a progressive image and adopting an avant-garde stance in the policies it proposes and the options it presents.
Political ideology, which has been the driving force of social and political behaviour, has lost its charm- Saviour Rizzo
Avant-garde entails a critical stance to conventionalism by showing a passion for the new and disdain of the old traditional practices that may shackle progress and stifle personal development and initiative.
This dictum chimes very well with the notion of the ‘Third Way’ as proclaimed by British sociologist, Anthony Giddens, who asserts that the designations of policies by political parties have to be actuated within the context of the exigencies and ongoing changes occurring in this post-industrial and digitalised economy.
The political process of this new economic reality demands that our anxieties are addressed or are rather being assuaged by persons who have the vision to fine-tune their beliefs and actions to the imperatives or exigencies of a postmodern society. In other words, people need reassurances that their political leaders are able to cope with the vicissitudes of political and economic life and are alert to the changes in circumstances, especially those which are unwelcome and unpleasant.
As Giddens sustains, the digital revolution has extended the people horizon and bred a new kind of political consciousness which induces a higher level of awareness. Indeed, modernism has produced a more reactive and reflexive citizen. It is the new political awareness which makes the political centre moveable rather than fixed or static.
Of course, this centrist ideology has its detractors which mainly hail from the extreme right or the radical left movements of the political spectrum. In a society dominated by consumeristic values the radical left-wing parties can hardly ever aspire to get an absolute majority of votes at the polls. If or when they manage to get a substantial support from the electorate, they still have to share power with other parties of different colour and political beliefs.
On the other hand, the rightists tend to morph into extreme conservative movements that may espouse the political beliefs that held sway in Germany and Italy during the pre-World War II period. In some countries such as Hungary a political movement embracing such extreme rightist beliefs has managed to assume power with the backing of an absolute majority.
The high polarisation that exists between the mindsets of the supporters and loyalists who back and sustain the two mainstream Maltese political parties that have dominated the political scenario for the past 70 years has given rise to a policy of entrenchment that makes constitutional change difficult to be actuated.
This polarisation, by design or default, has tacitly created a kind of a political mindset that has acted as a natural barrier for the growth and sustenance of political movements which tend to militate on the extreme left or right of the political spectrum and, therefore, cannot be an integral part of the centre stage.
For better or for worse, the choice similar to that between Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola is very likely to prevail in the Maltese political scenario for many years to come.