Alternattiva Chairperson Mike Briguglio has kindly given J’accuse permission to reproduce this article. Thanks to Mike we have to rewrite most of our Sunday contribution (can’t have too much repetition going around) – but sometimes it is reassuring that J’accuse is not the only person to see the turn of events from a certain angle. So here is the zolabyte by AD Chairperson Mike Briguglio:
Symbol of a stagnated duopoly by Michael Briguglio
The recent farce in Parliament regarding the vote on the Delimara issue serves merely as a reminder of the sad situation of Maltese politics. A human error by a Nationalist MP was not accepted by the Labour opposition but, in return, the Nationalists created a story on how a Labour MP voted. To make matters worse, the Labour Party retaliated by saying it will quit the parliamentary select committee.
How sad! MPs are being paid by the taxpayer and they resort to such immature and irresponsible behaviour, wasting everybody’s time in the process. Yet, MPs forget their differences in other instances, such as when they agreed to raise their own pensions! They also conveniently agree to exclude themselves from Malta’s Data Protection Act, thus enabling parties to get personal information on Maltese citizens. Not to mention, of course, Malta’s unique electoral system, which has been devised to maintain two-party dominance, and Malta’s very own party financing system, which is nothing other than “money laundering” in disguise, to the advantage of powerful political and business interests.
Parliament has become a symbol of a stagnated duopoly, which, unfortunately, is made legitimate by voting patterns in Malta. Yet, what are the PN and the PL really offering?
The Nationalist government has its strengths and weaknesses. Despite its seeming unpopularity, in some way or another it manages to present itself as a cohesive bloc, both among its parliamentarians as well as among its voters. Indeed, it seems to be the case that some disillusioned Nationalists do not vote in European or local elections to give a message to their party in time for the general election, or else, vote for a “rebel” candidate in the party’s ranks.
The political direction adopted by the PN unites traditional values with consumerist practices and support of big business interests while maintaining some form of welfare in place. I do not endorse this direction but recognise that, in this way, the PN has, so far, succeeded in creating a durable power structure based on the articulation of two main identities – the Catholic and the consumerist – winning support across class lines and among different social groups.
Of course, this entails contradictions, which are commonly found in Christian Democratic parties. Like a pendulum, Nationalist politics can shift from one that fosters a social market to another that moves towards the New Right and neo-liberal economics.
In recent years, liberalisation, privatisation and over-development of land have left their social and ecological impacts on the Maltese islands.
The Nationalists can save their day if the economy recovers, yet, if in government alone in the next election, we can only expect more arrogance, disregard for the environment, confessional politics and a lack of civil liberties and social rights.
Labour does not fare any better. With all the defects of Alfred Sant, the previous Labour leader did manage to make some ground-breaking feats within the party, such as cleansing it from its violent elements and projecting the image of the meritocratic citizen. Of course, Dr Sant’s Labour made a mess in its EU campaign and in its management of internal conflicts. Ultimately, however, Dr Sant’s project had already imploded in 1998 as it tried to create politics that pleases everyone.
Under Joseph Muscat, we seem to be heading back to 1996 “pleasing everyone approach” in terms of electoral strategy. Labour is resorting to catch-all strategies with the intention of appealing to everyone. Yet, as Peter Mayo put it in a recent seminar on Gramsci, Labour may well be embarking on the road of “misplaced alliances”.
Indeed, it is my conviction that, ultimately, Labour’s catch-all antics will backfire if Labour wins the next election and is in government alone. What will Labour do with regard to its simultaneous promises to hunters, trappers and environmentalists? How will Labour proceed with its newly-found environmentalist populism when the same party faces big business developers that it never criticises?
How will Labour introduce divorce if it knows that a parliamentary free-vote will have the opposite result? How will it introduce gay rights when it welcomes ultra-conservatives who make shameful parliamentary questions in its ranks?
How will Labour finance the public services it wants to defend when it is clamouring for tax cuts? How will it reconcile social justice with its rhetoric to suspend the Geneva Convention with regard to illegal immigration?
In short, how will Labour reconcile its “moderate” and “progressive” elements?
Winning an election is one thing, producing progressive social change is another. Yet, at the end of the day, does Malta have a critical mass of voters and political constituencies that really want such social change? Or is amoral familism – as depicted by Jeremy Boissevain – the most powerful value in Maltese politics? And does the public get what it wants or does it want what it gets, especially in a system where the two-party duopoly is controlling much of the public sphere and Maltese politics?
Michael Briguglio is the Chairperson of Alternattiva Demokratika and blogs at Mike’s Beat.
*****
Zolabytes is a rubrique on J’accuse – the name is a nod to the original J’accuser (Emile Zola) and a building block of the digital age (byte). Zolabytes is intended to be a collection of guest contributions in the spirit of discussion that has been promoted by J’accuse on the online Maltese political scene for 5 years.
Opinions expressed in zolabyte contributions are those of the author in question. Opinions appearing on zolabytes do not necessarily reflect the editorial line of J’accuse the blog.
***
9 replies on “Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly”
Maybe if AD offers the voters some kind of alternative to what the PN and the PL offer they’ll come in from the wilderness they find themselves in at the moment.
I have a lot of time for Michael Brigulio, having been taught by him at JC a fair few moons ago – but this article doesn’t present one single AD alternative policy as a viable alternative.
One can
Gremlins in the works, no idea where that ‘one can’ came from
That might be one of the questions AD will have to ask itself come next election. Will it be a “normal party” with policies and all – thus wearing the inevitable hat (and bearing the scrutiny of) of an alternative form of govrnment? Or will it sacrifice its aims for the greater good of being the reformist trojan horse – weighing heavily on the argument of ELECT ME FOR ELECTORAL AND SYSTEMIC REFORM?
My guess is that Mike would prefer the former but is aware of the importance of the latter. The former carries the dangers of being assessed as an incomplete party – few global policies and a track record of not being elected. The latter bears the Clegg timbre of sacrificial lamb. It’s still way ahead but a comprehensive reformist campaign must needs start soon enough to gather the necessary momentum.
You’re deluding yourself if you seriously believe that AD can get itself into parliament, let alone coalition government, simply on a platform of electoral reform.
You see the need for it, I see the need for it, and another couple of hundred might see the need for it – but there’s absolutely no way AD are going to get enough votes by simply beating that drum.
They’d have a better chance of getting into parliament if they focused SOLELY on divorce, for example – an issue which many people would be strongly in favour of. Electoral reform, despite its undoubted importance, is only really a significant issue for politicos and the ‘dispossesed’ (i.e AD sympathisers).
You’re not going to swing any PL or PN voters over by campaigning on an electoral reform platform – people simply don’t care enough about that to change their lifelong voting patterns.
Yes. I have just begun to see it as just that – a delusion. I still consider it an option though – not the most viable one of course, as you rightly point out.
Baricco wrote a great piece about the moment when ‘the unthinkable’ actually becomes reality. He asks the reader to imagine the expression on the faces of British Airways, Alitalia and Lufthansa bosses when the first low-cost airline entered the market. It’s the same kind of leap of faith moment that Malta needs to break out of its deadlock. My conclusion is that this is unlikely to happen without a sustained attack on the island’s largely perverse media landscape. Policies won’t do the trick when the system is rotten.
I think i agree with you – Malta needs its own little Watergate, a scandal that runs to the very top and which disgusts diehard blues and reds to their very core.
The dirt, no doubt, exists – the question is, is anyone willing to dig deep enough to find it?
The very thought makes me salivate, and tempts me to return to our little island from my self-imposed foreign exile
Briguglio “if they are alone in government” arguments seems to suggest that he is giving some thought to coalition politics.
This suggests a change or evolution from his previous argument that AD’s strength derives mainly from its role as a potential spoiler.
The problem with his current reasoning is that the present electoral system gives little chance to the electorate to determine whether governments are allowed to govern alone or not.
As the British experience shows electoral reform can only come as a result of a hang parliament and not vice versa.
So if nobody ever manages to enter parliament through the present system the chance of reform is zilch.
But getting there by whining on the electoral system is surely not the best strategy as this is not the most sexy issue in planet malta.
AD might explore another option. That of investing in a favourable district targeting its talent and resources to excite voters with the task of changing history and ensuring that a likely labour (and a more unlikely PN) government will have their wings clipped by AD-which in the Maltese context has the advantage of being perceived both a moderating and a radicalizing force.
It is moderating when it comes to the excesses of tribalism and confrontational politics and radicalising in opening up politics to new respectable cutting edge ideas.
Being able to talk two languages is a strength rather than a weakness in this context.
That does not mean absconding on being a national force. It is simply deciding to focus on an audience which is more receptive and more likely to vote for you. That does not necessarily mean contesting just one district. It means focusing on one district in an open and in your face approach as the British Greens did in Brighton Pavillion.
Electoral reform should be part of the package offered to these “privileged” voters alongside a commitment for civil rights and fiscal/social fairness in a message which can appeal to the entire social liberal/ center-left spectrum. Making these voters feel good about themselves that they are doing something great for their country should do the trick. The fact that they were chosen for a mission will enhance this sensation.
That should not come at the exclusion of green identity which is flexible enough to absorb that political space without losing the radical edge which appeals to grass root activists.
Obviously it might be safer for AD to simply concentrate on consolidating its core vote instead of dishing its hopes on the big moment which has eluded AD since 1989 especially in view of its chronic lack of resources and money.
But that risks setting in motion the law of inertia and wasting the opportunity presented by the present conjuncture where people want change but are not rushing in to Labour’s hands.