The people have spoken but, once more, in tongues. Saturday’s vote makes short work of just about every pet theory making the rounds.
Do you think the country has a natural Labour majority? Doesn’t square with the brute fact that only 45 per cent of eligible voters endorsed Labour.
You think this election punished the ‘Blue Heroes’, the Nationalist MPs associated with the ouster of the former leader, Adrian Delia? Please explain how both pro- and anti-Delia MPs lost seats – sometimes on the same district.
Seats were won by new pro-and anti-Delia candidates alike. One-third of the PN’s seats (nine out of the initial 27) belong to freshman MPs.
Almost all veteran Nationalist MPs saw their stock fall with voters. Part of the answer lies in the particularities of each district. A larger part rests on the strategic decision to promote new candidates relentlessly.
As for that greatest of pet theories – that this country has an absolute majority of amoral voters, happy “to vote for corruption” – how does that fare? Badly, as always. Except it’s even more clear this time.
This theory has always had a dubious appeal to intellectual authority (a facepalm-inducing reference to anthropology). More importantly, it can’t make sense of voting behaviour.
The people who accuse all Labour voters of “choosing corruption”, in 2022, said the same thing about everyone who voted Labour in 2017. Yet, some people who voted Labour five years ago didn’t do so this time.
It’s rather more than 8,200 voters. That figure is just the net difference between this time and the last. Nor does it include people who were induced to vote Labour only in the final hours – by an appeal not to their pocket but their socialist heartstrings.
What’s the deal with these voters? According to the theory, they were amoral in 2017 but, somehow, became moral in 2022. Good luck with plausibly explaining that. Don’t forget to explain how 55 per cent of eligible voters withstood all inducements.
What about Joe Debono Grech, the former minister wheeled out to boast, at a Labour political meeting during the campaign, that yes, Labour was corrupt, but at least it is the ‘good thief’ and lets ordinary Labourites get some pickings? Isn’t that proof of a blatant appeal to amoral voters?
I’m told the PN’s internal polling showed it was considered more arrogant than Labour- Ranier Fsadni
It’s the opposite. Debono Grech was addressing a meeting of people already in the Labour tank – who else but keen supporters go to those meetings? He was feeding them a line to give to Labour-leaning objectors – people who are bothered by Labour venality.
Debono Grech was trying to excuse corruption, not justify it. He reframed the voters’ choice: not one between honest and plundering government but, rather, between two gangs of thieves.
Debono Grech did not misspeak. He gave Labour’s underlying campaign message. It was important precisely because Labour knew that corruption bothered many of its voters.
It is naive to believe that, just because Labour won 55 per cent of the vote, that therefore people chose it for its corruption or that, at least, they don’t mind it. To think that is to ignore the massive inequality of resources that Labour enjoyed.
Labour disregarded freedom of information and hence controlled which corruption came to light, with what strength of evidence.
It controls public broadcasting and therefore controls what information many ordinary voters have. It violated laws governing party funding and campaign spending, and therefore could drown out alternative sources of information.
And, using its massive resources, against a much weaker rival, it also framed its opponents as immoral. If voters are amoral by nature, why does the Labour machine, with its polls and data harvests, invest so much energy into appealing to moral values and running adverts attributing viciousness to its opponents?
Labour’s negative campaigning succeeded. I’m told the PN’s internal polling showed it was considered more arrogant than Labour – a fact that frames a vote for Labour in a somewhat different moral perspective.
The PN reacted by continuing to apologise profusely for its sins in government a full decade ago. It thus confirmed Labour’s message. Meanwhile, Labour apologised for nothing. But Abela’s rhetorical emphasis on humility, after the victory, shows he’s aware Labour is perceived to be arrogant, too.
Thus far, he’s been saved by the emotional and social intelligence of the Labour machine – its ability to read voters and speak as though it recognises their aspirations. Saturday’s vote, however, shows the limits of PR. With every resource at its disposal, Labour’s absolute vote still fell.
Labour is currently an organisation of strong social intelligence but weak values. It has overwhelming power but no vision beyond enrichment. Unless it redresses the balance between intelligence and values, Labour will decline.
The PN has the opposite challenge. It has values and policy ideas but, currently, is of weak emotional and social intelligence – sometimes bordering on the illiterate. Intelligence can be developed – but it calls for real, prolonged conversation with its activists and sympathisers. It can’t decide what kind of leaders it needs until it takes full stock of its resources and weaknesses.
Here’s what the result tells me. Unless it changes its business model, Labour is in decline. People will forget the PN unless it cares for how it makes them feel.