The political history of post-Independence Malta became synonym with the PN/PL tug-of-war mode of participation, where people’s expression of participation is limited to their allegiance to one party and antagonism towards the other.
At first glance, the tug-of-war participation gives the impression of a competitive form of participation between the parties; a more profound analysis shows how the opposing forces between the two parties also offer a vital motivation for their survival and operations.
The results of the recent election – a third consecutive solid victory for the PL, poor performance of the PN, the rise of dissenting voters towards the two parties and the increase in abstention voters – are clear signs that the PN/PL tug-of-war is losing its opposing force.
In a small country like Malta, the two parties have to consider and meet these signs’ challenges. If not, then Malta is running the risk of a rapid increase in political indifference, giving way for a small autocratic group to take over the fragile democratic situation of the country.
As citizens, we vote to elect a parliament made up of an administrative side, popularly known as the government, and opposition, whose role is to perform an effective check and balance on government operations. Both government and opposition have a fundamental role in generating a government that operates on democratic values and ideals, with a strong focus on the common good.
In the present parliament, a substantial government majority and a feeble opposition run the risk of generating weak democratic citizenship participation. Since the PL and the PN exclusively represent the citizens of Malta in parliament, both these parties hold a moral and political responsibility in seeking ways to formulate a more democratic way of life and political participation.
While the PL’s responsibility for supporting democratic participation in the country is more evident – since the PL holds the majority of parliamentary seats – the PN’s responsibility should not go undervalued. The PN has played an essential role in the historical development of contemporary Malta. Two salient achievements were independence and EU accession, which for the PN meant cementing the Europeanisation of Malta.
The past two elections and the drama that the PN has undergone in these past five years clearly show that the PN’s Europeanisation objectives did not include a Europeanisation of the party. The PN has insisted on projecting a pre-EU strong and all comprehensive party with little interest in collaborating with other political parties and groups.
Ironically, post-EU Malta has drifted away from the traditional subsidiary and European coalition way of doing politics. Instead, a stronger emphasis on party leaders and more centralised government is becoming the norm. The decline of people’s interest and participation in politics – both as candidates and electors – clearly show that the Labour ‘movement’ operates like its counterpart.
Instead of encouraging the active participation of the people through its different groups and associations, the ‘movement’ became a justification for alienating local communities – which were fundamental for the development of the Labour Party – by forming an aggressive centralised party machine. In short, though the PL does not have a crisis in supporters, as in the case of the PN, it has a crisis in active participants.
Malta is running the risk of a rapid increase in political indifference- Francois Mifsud
This distinction between supporters and participation was made clear by (at that time) Edward Zammit Lewis when, during the 2020 public inquiry, he admitted that there is a distinction between candidates and “people who make policy” and his role as a candidate was not to make policy. “You have candidates and people who make policy. My role was a candidate… I can’t say I was a part of the campaign core team.”
In Zammit Lewis’s words, the candidate’s role as that of the supporter is no longer an active one but, instead, it is reduced to a mouthpiece for the centralised party machine and policy makers.
Since democracy operates through its citizens’ active participation, the rise in numbers of political indifference and the overpowering role of the party leaders is symptomatic of a weakening democracy. Both the PL and the PN need to realise that no party can satisfy all the needs emerging from the social context and life of the people.
Gifts and election promises can offer a very short-term solution.
A party paradigm shift is required to move away from the delusional grandiose and all comprehensive ambition for a more European-like party paradigm that collaborates with other parties and social groups, making way for coalitions possibilities.
Resetting the parties’ machine on a transparent collaborative and coalition European like party system, on the one hand, will bring in expertise and interests that will allow for more inclusive participation of the people. On the other hand, it will protect the parties from becoming hostage to secretive alliances with exclusive groups and interests.
Furthermore, a more subsidiary collaboration with local communities, groups and other smaller political parties offers a solid chance to kindle the interest and participation of people in politics.
François Mifsud, lecturer, Department of Inclusion, has a PhD in philosophy of education from the University of Toronto.