The Debono Damocles’ Sword still hangs on the nationalist government notwithstanding all the peace entreaties of the last hours. Lawrence Gonzi must be plucking away at his own version of “loves me – loves me not” petals while rumour has it that the strategy team at Pietà are already hard at work preparing for a tough campaign. So what we have really is speculation about the “when” of an election and the closer we get to the official expiry date of the nationalist mandate the more the “if” becomes superfluous. It’s all well and good for the punters and underground betters who would slip a euro or two on the outcome of Thursday’s confidence vote but if we were to look at the happenings from a wider point of view the importance of this moment is minor. Trivial even.
For the day will come when the election is called – with or without a Franco tantrum – and the nation will shift to election gear without as much as a by-your-leave. That day will mark the first day in the life of Franco the non-entity, relegated to the footnotes of history and the school reports of a Jesuit college. It will also be the end of speculation as to whether an election should take place and this will be replaced by speculation on who will get the most votes. We’ve seen the polls that talk of swings of point advantages and of the presumed underdogs. We are still in the realm of electioneering though – it’s all about tactic. When to call the election, what marketing and spin to push in the run up to gather people’s attention, and then we move into the appearances – the debates, the flaws and the track records.
All well and good. We are after all experts in the field. If Italy is a nation of football coaches, Malta is a nation of election supremos. Everybody knows what it takes to win an election. Or to lose it. What we do seem to be forgetting more and more – as we are all taken up with suppositions, political chess moves and admiration/scorn at the latest politician who makes his move in the arena – what we seem to be forgetting is that politics is about content. You know: the program, the manifesto, the ideas, the management plan, the principles espoused by the candidates. Yep those. Because whether Franco caves in on Thursday or whether we will have an election close to the next budget makes no difference. Theoretically we need to be voting on content.
And my friends, lend me your ears – I’ll repay you with interest – of content there does not seem to be much. Gatt, Cachia Caruana and lord knows who else might be locked in some room planning strategy but if they are going by the same measure as last time round then strategy involves packaging muck and shit and selling it as gold in the hope that enough consumers fall for it. There will also be large helpings of “the others are a crock of unelectable shite” to go around – which is short of a synoptic way of saying “hey, who cares what we have to offer – so long as you don’t get the other bunch”.
Now if I was a part of the Nationalist party with its history I would be speaking in the language of sacrifices and principles. This is the time of sackcloth and rolling up of sleeves. This is the time for the party to look inwards and ask itself who it wants to be and what principles it wants to espouse. From the social (education, pensions, solidarity) to the economic (how to run a nation responsibly, thriftily while stimulating creativity and open competition). First get your DNA in place. Then comes the all important part. Only get people on board who are willing to fight for this plan. They must believe in these principles more than they must yearn for power. For power is borrowed in trust but principles should be for life.
The sacrifice that a reformed nationalist party must be prepared to make is that it should be clear that it prefers principles over power. A minority in parliament with strong beliefs is a stronger foundation for the future than a ramshackle combination of mercenaries prepared to win the temporary vote but without a clue about the road ahead.
This is the real prep talk that should be on the lips of the nationalist party team right now. It should be obvious that power for power’s sake is a dangerous weapon indeed. And I have the feeling that the first person to notice this will be Joseph Muscat should he wake up in a Castille office the first working day after the election.
9 replies on “Prep Talk for an Election”
“…of content there does not seem to be much.” There cannot be much. We live in times of great uncertainty with the economic (and hence political) scenarios potentially changing dramatically in 24 hours. In these circumstances, any content is likely not to be worth the paper it is written on – unless the price of paper also shoots up astronomically!
One consideration we should perhaps all keep in mind before voting is to plump for the party which offers the greatest possibility for cross-party collaboration if returned to power. The troubling times ahead will call for a very wide concerted effort if problems are to be effectively tackled.
I don’t agree Manuel. With that kind of reasoning you nullify the whole rationale of voting. On what basis will people vote? Party loyalty? Change for the sake of change? It’s too aesthetic a consideration. I prefer looking at what tangible proposals (even if they are few) have been forwarded.
I still worry that I look at Labour with a pre-conceived bias but to me it is obvious that Muscat is very concerned with the packaging but absolutely unaware (or worse, uninterested) in the lack of content. I see the following news clip (see link below) and weep at the idea of how people fall for this cheap talk bull. It represents all that I cannot stand about Marketing and gimmicks.
If Labour is really acknowledging that the economic crisis is due to outside elements then it surely must know why and how it would be a better performer than the nationalist government when navigating the same storm. The whole “political instability” business is beside the point in this case. It tells me nothing about what Labour can do and only tells me a lot about what is impairing the PN government from doing.
I’m sorry I still see an overambitious “journalist” trying to become prime minister. Lawrence Gonzi’s hands might not be a par idejn sodi but the idea of Muscat gambling with the nation’s future on the basis of marketing punchlines gives me the shivers.
http://www.youtube.com/user/OneNewsBlog?blend=3&ob=video-mustangbase#p/u/14/UKNyGHbJc5c
Hi Jacques. I think that your blog will regain focus that it may have lost as it may have become a preamble to the weekly contribution. Re post, I see that your view has calicified that the Labour Party is an ex-jurnalist exclusively concerned with power. Fair enough, yet I do not, understand why one should be so anxious to know what any party says it will do. I mean, can we take seriously pre election theories and positions? The Gonzipn mantra had given letters of comfort to employees who have since lost their employment, promised a culture of meritocracy in the management of Government appointed boards, tax promises within the year, not to mention Smart Cities of thousands of jobs etc. On the other hand I do understand calls for this Government to rovide detail how it plans to reduce its expenditure by 40 million beyond a mention of overtime etc. Yes I do understand the standard Nationalist wanting detail that may pave the way to some ‘repeater class’ marketing thingy, the base line being extracted from a Labour bible-thick book, that was available for at least a couple of years and more, stating what the Labour party of Dr Sant planned doing. The major issue to my mind, therefore, is that our country lacks the ability to dedicate a section of its talk-energy to real issues. I can not see that pre-election theories have any importance in the scheme of things yet I do not see how a Labour Party that does include some serious heavyweights and middle-weights, can come to power with an empty to-do list.
@ Danny Attard:
Essentially, what you are saying is that a political party should promise nothing, so that it doesn’t have to keep promises (which it would then have to keep). And, seriously, you expect me to vote for that? Elections are not a lottery. I expect to know exactly what I am voting or not voting for.
@ Kenneth Cassar I would love to know how you can exactly know what you are voting for. The present parties have spent five years either doing things (Government) or providing support or opposition to certain issues. I would think that this behaviour and each party’s statute will tell me more than any electoral manifesto can tell. So would you believe labour that they will reduce W&E tarrifs or would you believe anything the PN says in its manifesto, given its promises/performance these last five years?
@ Danny Attard:
I read what they promise (keeping in mind what is a realistic promise and what is not), vote according to the realistic promises, and then, if they make it to government, judge them on their realization or non-realization of their promises.
One thing I certainly cannot do: Vote for a party that does not give me clear and unequivocal policies.
Agreed. Labour promises an open Government, a potentially strong cabinet, the rationalization of bureaucracy, etc etc. Dr Gonzi need not promise anything. The proof of the pudding is in its eating and i suppose we have had ample portions to sample over the past few years. The way Labour acted during the Libya crises, the Euro crises the Divorce issue etc is in its way a clear position through fact of what it stands for. I will not be too impressed by what both parties will print on glossy paper but will mostly rely on how they acted.
@ Danny Attard:
I’m not interested in slogans…I’m only interested in policies and explanations on the means to achieve them. And if I were to vote on how the parties acted during the Libya crises, then I would definitely not vote Labour. Regarding the Divorce issue, it never was a partisan issue, since Labour had no stand on the issue.
The onus is on the opposition party to show they are worthy of government. They haven’t convinced me at all. And let it be clear that I am no PN fanatic.
We all apply value judgments to events and i of course respect your judgment. Divorce as an example, the leader of the Nationalist Party had a clear position as did the leader of the Labour Party who came to occupy his office with the objective of having divorce included as part of our legal infrastructure. A look at who voted where is enough to tell me who the modernisers are. During the Libyan crises the Maltese Government obtained the support of the opposition even when old constitutional hat could have been easily drawn into the equation. On the other hand Government’s reaction to the BWSC facts in ensuring transparency and values of what is right seemed to be sorely missing. But then that is my view and it may be completely mistaken.