Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Campaign 2013

Dogs of War (DeLorean Unveiled)

They say that a week is a long time in politics. In that case twenty years must seem like an eternity. Churchill is often attributed the quote “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart, show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.” Time and experience changes people. Under normal circumstances and outside the partisan fog of war it is considered normal to weigh your options every time an election comes around. Of course your own political preferences and outlook might give you an automatic preference towards one party or another but there is no shame in changing.

It’s not change for change’s sake that I am talking about though. That’s plain stupid. Sadly many voters will be voting for change for change’s sake next Saturday and, yes, I do think that it is plain stupid to do so. What I am referring to is the possibility of having evolving politics and ideas, of having the opportunity to compare parties who in turn have evolved their ideas and projects. That is important for a healthy representative democracy. That voters get to choose between parties healthily vying for their trust by proposing good plans for the nation, its citizens, their rights – that is healthy.

For a long time this blog has advocated the idea that our bipartisan system is geared to becoming a race to the bottom. It is a race to mediocrity that promotes populism, contradictory promises to everyone and everything and – because of the inevitable entrenchment of a political elite – it weaves an intricate web of inter-dependent interests that are conducive to corruption. In short the PLPN method sanctioned and strengthened by the constitutional amendments that kicked off with a Government White Paper in 1990 is wrought in such a way as to kill off (or greatly minimise) any terzo incomodo and strengthen the stranglehold of the bipartisan duality.

The combination of a series of amendments since 1987 (1987, 1996, 2007) to the sections of the constitution has continued to strengthen the PL and PN positions to the detriment of a possible third party. This has been one of the main criticisms directed from this blog – particularly at the phenomenon called “The Wasted Vote” that ends up killing all hope for potential third party voters on the eve of elections. It’s simple really – the PL or PN spinmasters wait till the last moment and then shoot the “you’re wasting your vote” argument : from Austin Bencini’s traditional “constitutional” article to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s “setting yourselves up as objects of hate”. It’s the death knell for AD.

Back in 1991 when the proposed amendments were still under discussion we had one particular columnist who got rather hot under the collar about these changes. In an impeccably written article the columnist presciently summarised all that was wrong with the system and even managed to predict one of the inherent dangers of the system. I copied out the second half of the article yesterday as a guest post under the name DeLorean (smart geeks among you will have recognised the car from Back to the Future). You can see the full article here in “Voting like it’s 1992” – actually it’s the second half of the original article, the first half was full of not so kind descriptions of Austin Gatt and Eddie Fenech Adami.

The whole philosophy of the importance of electing a third party to government is encapsulated in the second half of this article under the subtitle “The Argument”. Gems of thought such as the importance of representation over and above governability leap at you conspicuously. The article includes a prescient worry:

What if we find ourselves, in 20 years’ time with the choice of two absolutely disreputable political parties? What if the Nationalist Party disintegrates into the kind of sagging, soggy, useless mess of the Sixties… a heap that gave rise to the joke “Tgħajjatx għax tqajjem il-gvern!”? What is a traditionally Nationalist supporter supposed to do… vote for the Labour Party, vote for a mess, or not vote at all?

20 years from 1991 … that’s just two years off the mark, yet it is still so very tangibly relevant. The complaint by the author is clear – are we to end up with a Hobson’s Choice? A gun against our head? Are we to end up being blackmailed with the haunting idea of the “wasted vote”? A Daniel I say, a Daniel.

Most intriguingly one of the most telling paragraphs remains the following – and this mainly because of the author’s subsequent metamorphosis and absorption into part of the Leviathan that is so aptly described:

Third parties cannot be created out of nothing. They must grow, and their growth must be spawned by a real need within the people. Even if this need exists – and there is no doubt at all, it does – all growth will be warped by Malta’s all-pervasive fear and ignorance, which has effects similar to that of radiation on a growing foetus. Through this fear and ignorance, the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party survive, thrive and continue to grow.

Fear and ignorance. We were so close weren’t we? Fear and loathing we described it, plus an incredible propensity to abuse of ignorance. 20 years down the line and we have observed a campaign imbued with fear and thriving on ignorance and misinformation. Half truths are mixed with political assassination of the cruellest kind and yet even when you work out your sums and eliminate the two possibilities – the two podgy kids on the see-saw – you find out that your remaining hope has been nipped in the bud. Yep. the wasted vote argument. Not only that. The moment you boldly announce that you are determined to be represented because governance is not the be all and end all, because representation is just as important – that is when the dogs of war are unleashed.

Which is where the sweet irony hits home. Yes. It is time to reveal who DeLorean, writing with so much passion against the death knell that was writ into our constitution two decades ago is. Well it is none less than Daphne Caruana Galizia – the passionate put-downer of the third party, currently engaged in a character assassination of Michael Briguglio (last time round it was Dirty Harry) through a mixture of half-truths and the usual dose of “wasted vote stupids”.

As I said in the beginning, there is nothing wrong with change in a person. Daphne has already commented on this article this week : “Probably filed with the article describing Eddie Fenech Adami as a villager lawyer in a folder called ‘Mistakes I made at 25’. There are a lot of them. Fortunately, I had the good sense not to persist in error.” (it was actually the same article but she has to feign that it is not important so she would not remember would she). Probably the folder of “Mistakes I made at 45” includes backing JPO to the hilt in the 2008 election and actually voting him number 1.

People change. Daphne has every right to change her opinion about what makes the country tick. It makes you wonder what the motivation of this change is though. From a passionate advocate for third party systems to a staunch defender of the PLPN dichotomy.  I do hope this is not considered “calling names by the AD crowd”. It is sad though to see the transition from what was evidently a motivated young liberal to a dog of war baying for Briguglio’s head – and why? Because voting Ad will get you Labour according to Daphne. But Daphne…

Alternattiva is not the crux of the problem. The hypothetical small party is. Many people might disapprove of Alternattiva, but they should not be so shortsighted as to assume that they will disapprove of any other political party that might grow out of unrest and discontent over the next two or three generations. We must be unselfish enough to think beyond the next two or three generations. We must be honest enough to admit that we do not want our children to live their adult lives as we are now living ours. We must stop thinking in terms of our immediate future, because many of us will live for a great deal longer than that, ….

Unselfish. Honest. At what point did those kind of values stop being important, I wonder. Still, I found a good maxim in that article, it fits my philosophy perfectly, and it seems of many others:

Governability is not the Holy Grail, and we should not allow the government to sell it to us as such.

And we won’t Daphne. We won’t.

 

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Cross-voting and angry voters

Let’s begin with the unequivocal points. Cross-voting, or the practice of filling your preferences in the ballot across party lines, is allowed. It is legal. It is legit. It does not nullify your vote. You can start with a 1 next to a candidate from AD, you can continue with a 2 and 3 next to PN candidates and then you can even move on to a 4 and 5 next to PL candidates. Hell, you can even go back to the PN for number 6 and back again to AD for number 7.

So you see. Do not believe the lies that are out there. You can and should cross-vote. Why? Because elections are not only about governance and governability but also about who represents you in parliament. Even if there is a remote chance that the number 5 on your ballot becomes useful to select a member from your district it is advisable to use it. Cross-voting allows you to influence not only which party goes on to govern but also allows you to select which members of the other party you would prefer to represent your district in parliament. That, my friends, is the “single-transferable vote” which is a much happier term than “cross-voting”.

In a way you could see STV as trying to make your vote as effective as possible since it keeps bouncing from one candidate to another until finally one of the candidates you chose actually gets to use it to get into parliament. As for government forming the all important number is the number 1. That is the vote that also counts for your party of choice – it allows you to say two things: (1) that you would prefer the candidate you marked number 1 as the best option to represent you in parliament and (2) that you would want his party to govern. That second assumption does not move down the lines. The governance assumption starts and stops with the number 1.

So why vote AD with a number 1 if they can never govern? Well in that case this vote takes on a new and fundamentally important meaning. Voting AD number 1 has nothing to do with if and when it will form a coalition or form part of the opposition. (It could eventually but that should not be your motivation). Voting AD number 1 is you telling the system that you want to damn well make sure that a third party gets into parliament. You are saying that you damn well want to make sure that the only open party unencumbered by private or business interests and that is honest and clear on every policy gets to have a seat in our chamber of representatives.

That, my friends is a positive vote. So here are some do’s and dont’s from J’accuse:

1. YES YOU CAN – cross-vote.

2. YES YOU CAN – move from one party to another.

3. YES YOU SHOULD – vote AD number 1 if you REALLY want to make history

4. NO YOU SHOULD NOT – scribble on the document, use X’s or any other signs that are not numbers

5. NO YOU SHOULD NOT – believe the PLPN lies.

 

Spread the word. It appears that there are quite a few who ignore these basic principles. It also appears that our two main parties who are the paladins and guardians of our democratic process are quite happy to nurture this ignorance. You need another reason to vote AD? Seriously?

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

Briguglio’s Faux Pas?

This is only the second national election being covered by this blog (which incidentally turns 8 on the day of the results). For the first time we have been ever more outright in our support for getting a third party elected into parliament particularly since alternattiva demokratika has not only proven to be a particularly apt vehicle for that process but also (and more importantly) it has proved its worth as a party with full credentials for representation. In other words it is much more than simply electing a third party for a third party’s sake.

Having said that the recent revelation regarding Michael Briguglio’s 2008 vote have caught many of the party’s supporters on the wrong foot – myself included. How can you trust a party that is led by a Chairman who openly declares not having voted for it last time round? A legitimate question if ever there was one.  Should AD have their version of Malcolm Tucker he would be down Michael Briguglio’s throat in no time. It would have much to do with the idea that there is a place and time for downright honesty and an electoral campaign is not one of them. There doesn’t seem to be a Tucker though and Briguglio seems to be happy enough with his version of “I have always been a floating voater and see no inconsistency”. Isn’t there?

Well I am not one to be satisfied by this and I have asked for a better explanation. Why did Michael Briguglio – an AD councillor in Sliema at the time – not vote for AD at the General Elections? The answer is not only comforting but also encouraging. It turns out that “AD mark 2008” run by Harry Vassallo was not turning out to be as incisive and effective as Mike Briguglio hoped. Compare that AD to today’s AD for an answer – today’s AD is confident, with a clear vision and is not into the business of begging for your number twos. Briguglio’s AD is definite about its position on everything – no half truths, no lies, no corners – just a clear “with us you know where you stand”. It also turns out that Mike had some concerns about the administrative running of the party. Mike had concerns on matters of principle.

I can understand Mike’s worry in that respect. Last time round the campaign from this corner of the blogosphere focussed on the third party for the third party’s sake and that might be a mistake. A party cannot simply be elected out of the need for a third party. It has to have clarity of vision. This might have been lacking to a point in 2008 and Mike’s contribution since his election to the chairmanship has contributed to making sure this lacuna is filled. Which brings me to the next point. Mike chose to sit back during the last election (he did NOT contest for AD – and retained his seat in the Sliema council out of respect for his voters). He did vote for Sant’s Labour given the choice. His disillusion with what was being wrought in AD at the time might have had a part in that decision.

One point that springs to mind is that Mike acted out of principle. Not agreeing with what was going on in the party at the time he stepped back. Did not campaign actively, did not contest (of course). Compare that to what was going on in the PN camp in 2008 with ghost writers and secretary general’s turning somersaults in order to sell the lie that was Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Would you barter Mike’s honest stand with that load of crap?

After that election Michael was approached by Labour to join the new movement. He turned this down. Surely if Mike wanted to be part of a Labour wave as some bad tongues are wagging right now he would have jumped on Muscat’s Train of Misfits? Surely it would have been easier for Michael to sell his progressive ideas in a Labour government than from the hypothetical partnership in a coalition? Surely. You’d have to be stupid to believe that Michael Briguglio has the Labour Party’s interests at heart.

We know what happened next. Cassola asked Mike to return to the AD fold. Vassallo was out of the picture working for the Nationalist Commissioner in the EU John Dalli (after having been hounded by the same nationalists on the eve of the election for having forgotten to file some VAT documents relating to defunct companies). Mike rejoined the new project with enthusiasm and charisma, bringing the experience garnered from years of political militancy. Sure, Mike brings a leftist touch to the Green politics of AD but anyone wanting to look at the credentials of Mike and his party need only look at the uncompromising principles in their manifesto. This is not a party that would sell its soul to the FKNK.

In the Maltese atmosphere of exploiters of ignorance and purveyors of fear it is easy to pounce on Mike’s honest answer to the question “who have you voted for in 2008?”. The gullible and the easily exploited will fall for the ruse that Mike is Labour disguised as green. Mike is none of that. Mike is one of the few honest candidates running for the election on the ticket that could make history.

For that reason and because I have full faith in Michael and his team I will be putting a number 1 next to Michael Briguglio’s name next election. (And yes, this Gozitan votes on the 10th District).

Categories
Campaign 2013

Voting like it’s 1992

What follows is a strange kind of guest post. It comes to J’accuse via a serendipitous trip through time and space. It’s the kind of post that has been just been waiting to surface and I cannot agree more with the argument being made by the guest writer whom I shall call DeLorean. It is an impassioned argument set out against the constitutional provisions that were framed in 1991 to keep the PLPN system working. It’s not pro-ad, it’s pro-democracy, representation and choice. Read it. It’s important – for you and for future generations.

The argument

Many people have been misguided into thinking that the fight over [the electoral laws] has something to do with Alternattiva Demokratika. It does not. It has everything to do with resisting the entrenchment of the two-party system.

During a discussion on broadcasting […], one prominent government minister (that was gratuitous… all ministers are prominent) remarked that he “firmly believed” in the two-party system “because this makes the country more governable”. It was all I could do to fight the urge to throw my handbag at him, and point out that, following his line of argument, the most governable countries of all should be those with one party. But that, as we all know, has failed.

Belief in a two-party state is belief in a form of totalitarianism masquerading as democracy. All we have now is a political see-saw, with a fat Nationalist boy sitting on one end, and a pudgy Socialist boy on the other. First one goes up, then the other. Is this a wonderful state of affairs, to be preserved at all costs? Should governability enter the argument at all? Who cares about governability, if in ensuring governability we strangle the democratic process? Governability is not the Holy Grail, and we should not allow the government to sell it to us as such.

Individual members of both the government and the opposition have expressed their delight in the two-party system. They have not dared express their real longing: for a one-party system. When a party believes that it fulfils all the needs of all the Maltese people – how dare anyone claim to do so, and still they do – the next step is to claim that it should govern ad aeternum. Why not, once it is so damn perfect?

Third parties cannot be created out of nothing. They must grow, and their growth must be spawned by a real need within the people. Even if this need exists – and there is no doubt at all, it does – all growth will be warped by Malta’s all-pervasive fear and ignorance, which has effects similar to that of radiation on a growing foetus. Through this fear and ignorance, the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party survive, thrive and continue to grow.

Meanwhile the Maltese population lives in an atmosphere of political instability. I define political instability as not knowing what life holds for one after each election, of the necessity of mapping one’s life in a series of five-year plans.

Austin Gatt is right: on paper, the [constitutional electoral provisions] favour the small parties. In practice, they mostly do not. It is practice that concerns us here, and not theory. Dr. Gatt is almost certainly unable to stand up and say, with his hand on his heart, that the [constitutional provisions] will not, in practice adversely affect any small party. They will be a death knell. They will also discourage the growth of political parties in the future, which is a cause for grave concern.

Alternattiva is not the crux of the problem. The hypothetical small party is. Many people might disapprove of Alternattiva, but they should not be so shortsighted as to assume that they will disapprove of any other political party that might grow out of unrest and discontent over the next two or three generations. We must be unselfish enough to think beyond the next two or three generations.

We must be honest enough to admit that we do not want our children to live their adult lives as we are now living ours. We must stop thinking in terms of our immediate future, because many of us will live for a great deal longer than that, certainly longer than most of the politicians [who are now readying themselves to vote, using a hammer and chisel, on amendments to our Constitution].

What if we find ourselves, in 20 years’ time with the choice of two absolutely disreputable political parties? What if the Nationalist Party disintegrates into the kind of sagging, soggy, useless mess of the Sixties… a heap that gave rise to the joke “Tgħajjatx għax tqajjem il-gvern!”? What is a traditionally Nationalist supporter supposed to do… vote for the Labour Party, vote for a mess, or not vote at all?

[… fragments lost]

This article originally appeared in The Sunday Times of Malta on the 3rd November 1991.

 

(To understand the future, we have to go back in time).

 

 

 

Categories
Campaign 2013

The Magritte Effect

I’ve already referred to this phenomenon earlier in the campaign. I’m calling it the Magritte Effect – the moment when you are told something but the picture and the clues before you are telling you a diametrically opposite story. This campaign more than any other has given us a steady dose of Magritte effects – your ears hear a statement, a story, a spin (or your eyes read it) but it is evident right from the start that it is a very very twisted distortion of what is reality. That’s it. This election has been one long hyperreal trip.

I cannot stand hearing any more protests about the “Wasted Vote” particularly when a vote for AD is practically the only vote that goes to a party that is not twisting truths or bending reality in order to seem to accomodate everything and everyone. A vote is a positive vote and that’s what you would be exercising should you chose to vote for Briguglio & Co. You’d be saying – “yes, there is one party that has given me a clear picture of what it wants and what it will do. I’m trusting them with my vote because they are not in bed with businessmen and other centres of interest, they have not sold their soul to any interest group that comes knocking. Yes, I hope they will get a seat in parliament – even in opposition – because I can trust them with representing my interests.”

As for the PLPN and their Magritte effect… where to start? How about funding? The ears hear Gonzi and Muscat waxing lyrical about party funding. We are told that both parties are fully accountable and don’t owe anyone any favours. Then our eyes see the PN getting a loan from businessman Nazzareno Vassallo and they insist (Look into my eyes, look into my eyes) that there are no obligations there. Labour speak as though they are the pauperissimi of the nation yet they are very evidently subsidised by big money – no obligations there either? Pull the other one. Let’s not forget Paul Borg Olivier’s infamous “we barter for our goods” statement and Labour’s never ending flow of cash with no real audited accounts. Then we are supposed to believe that these parties would self-discipline themselves should they be elected? Ha!

How about environment? The two main parties claim to be greener than an illicit hash deposit yet their wheelings and dealings with the hunting and squatting communities openly betray this deceit. Armier. Just one word should have you holding your noses and looking at the PLPN lists with disgust. It’s public land that will be given away there. Green public land in Armier, not that far away from JPO’s Mistra (remember that one). Then you see Labour all bla bla about being the best in Europe, better than Europe but when it comes to all the gas plans by Konrad Mizzi they seem to be more than prepared to ignore Environmental Assessments and safety directives. It’s their costings (coooostings) not mine you know. Magritte… we are green but we’ll be buggered if we’ll lose a few votes by staying green.

Then there’s the positive campaign business. A load of bollocks really. The last thing that Labour’s campaign has been is non-divisive. Rarely has Labour held back from slinging the mud even where it was evident that evidence was lacking. As for the PN. Ah, the masters of negative spin probably still hold some bombs in their arsenal. The apex of Magritt-ism was reached on the Runs the day the PN denied the persistent rumour that it had any dirt to bring out on Muscat’s personal life. Just look at this farce:

Ah good. I’m tired of being asked about this. Daphne Caruana Galizia

 

It couldn’t be more obviously comical and sad at the same time. The blogger is actually putting up the PN denial “No we don’t have any rumour on Muscat’s private life” then illustrates the blog with pictures that tell a different story – unattributed pics with unknown persons photographed with Muscat. There’s no better way to not kill a rumour than by adding more fuel to the rumour. A masterpiece from the blog that excels in tailoring, bespoke suits, funny hairlines and other such morass from the area of politics of taste.

The Magritte effect. It’s all over the place. PLPN are now busy trying to be what they are not. They need to be pleasant to anyone who could promise them a vote. Labour was busy rewriting history throughout the campaign – with a “we legalised homosexuality” lie here to a “we introduced stipends and opened university” lie there… the lie found fertile ground with the enthusiastic purveyors of non-change.

I’ve said it before and will say it again. Voting labour for change is like turning your underwear inside out and putting it on again. As for PN. Well PM Gonzi’s last displays of “trust us because there is nothing better than us” is the usual case of too little too late in many fields. It’s 2008 all over again. Vote for us to keep out the unelectable dinosaur that is labour. While there’s no denying at this point that the mascara riddled Labour party is a disaster in waiting, there’s also no denying that Gonzi’s PN failed on many counts to deal with the issues that were already pressing in 2008 – topmost among which is the issue of proportional representation in parliament.

Had these issues been dealt with we would not be speaking of wasted votes and insulting thousands of voters who could be about to vote positively (and not for the lesser evil default) with more confidence. 5 years ago they were busy backing up JPO to the hilt in order to scrape as many votes as possible (which they did). They told many to put their priorities of representation to the side and get the PN in – their priorities would be dealt with later.

Here we are again. 2013. This time voters have a clear and open opportunity to show that they see through the Magritte effect. They have a chance to use their vote positively and elect someone who can guarantee he will represent their interests even from the benches of the opposition.

In a campaign that is bereft with lies and faux promises the only party that has shown consistency and a consistency that yearns to be at your service is alternattiva demokratika.

A vote for alternattiva is a vote for real representation. It is a vote for change.

Don’t waste yours on fake effects. Don’t waste your vote. Vote AD.

Categories
Campaign 2013

The Coalition Lie

As I said, it was inevitable that the attacks on Alternattiva would take a turn for the worse as the election got closer. The inevitability is also the result of two particular traits of the main parties. The Nationalist party thrives on the belief of being the “obvious” choice and therefore that most voters voting AD (who are somehow intelligent but not intelligent enough) are lost votes. Labour on the other hand still believes that everyone is against it and that every vote has to be “won” from elsewhere. In short the Nationalist party wins elections if it does not lose votes, Labour wins them if it gains them – at least by their reasoning where votes are “owned” from the start.

The latest attacks on AD come in the form of the “governance vs coalition” and at least they spare us the insult of considering a vote for AD as a lost or wasted vote. What they do instead is remind the voter of the total and absolute flop of the last PN government insofar as infighting was concerned and what that did to the stability of government. Well here’s the hitch… or more than one…

It’s not a coalition, stupid.

We dealt with this and nipped it in the bud. The PN machine tried all that it could to call the PN-JPO settlement a coalition. It was anything but that. Neither was the uncomfortable entente moins que cordiale with Franco Debono. You’d have to be stupid, blinkered or partisan to call it a coalition. It was a cohabitation of sorts. The main reason is simple – JPO, Debono and the rest of the PN members ran on the same party ticket. When Lawrence Gonzi went to the President with the confident assertion that he could form a majority (relative majority) government in parliament he went with the knowledge that a majority of parliamentarians had run on the same ticket with the same promises and the same projects in mind. You cannot form a coalition with yourself. Simples. You can call it a coalition. You can illude yourself with the terminology but the truth is that Debono and JPO came through last elections with the full backing and support of the PN vote winning machine. Your party, your members, your problem. Do not dare compare them to a fledgling party with clear and precise policies and conditions for a coalition.

How real coalitions are built.

First of all it’s an interesting sign that neither Gonzi nor Muscat dared deny the possibility of a coalition – 11 days before the election. I don’t believe them one bit. Neither of them. But publicly they cannot afford to seem intransigent with a potential third party in parliament before the eggs are hatched. In practice though they will unleash the negative campaign because they cannot afford to share their precioussss with someone else. Which is ridiculous.

Coalitions are not a zero-sum game. They are built on compromise. An interesting question that has not been asked (but should be asked) of Michael Briguglio is what part of the Alternattiva Demokratika manifesto is not subject to discussion. As in which part of the AD manifesto would be a deal-breaker in the eventual discussions for the setting up of a coalition? Would AD insist on gay marriages or nothing for example? Are there parts of the PN/PL manifestos that AD would be intransigent on – as in they would not accept to be part of the government vote in those cases? There are multiple solutions. A coalition could agree to a free vote on the more controversial aspects of legislation – thus the coalition partners can vote in accordance to their manifesto.

Mike Briguglio will not need to stamp his feet, fake a sickie in bed or call press conferences from a field with a tea cup in hand. He will negotiate a reasonable coalition roadmap with whichever party is mature enough to listen. With luck they’ll last the full five years.

The thing is that this is a matter of negotiation based on votes and principles found in the respective manifestos – it is representative democracy in action. It is nothing like the whims and fancies of renegade PN elected members of parliament where we had power for power’s sake being at stake. Don’t swallow the lies of the Daphnes of this world who would love to atone for their sins of voting in irresponsible representatives by spreading the curse to the small party with a big heart.

And another thing. They say coalitions don’t work. I would not be surprised if a coalition with the PN or PL does not work but not for the reasons that they try to scare you with. It’s simpler. From day one the PL or PN would do their damnedest to see that the coalition does not work in the hope of forcing a new vote and winning the preciousss all for themselves. It’s in their nature. It’s in their instinct for survival.

The Anti-politics Instinct

Finally AD is not an antipolitical movement like Grillo’s M5S. It is a completely different reality. True, it can and will be used as a vehicle in Malta for those votes that are fed up with the old style politics that gives you “coalitions” with JPO but that is not the be all and end all of Malta’s green movement. AD has shown to have clear policies which are based on the citizen’s interest and not polluted with the interests of circles of power and businessmen. That alone should suffice as an incentive to vote for change and go for the AD coalition.

This election is not about choosing between the PL and PN. It’s about voting for a better, more representative parliament. This election you can be part of the vote for change.

It’s not a vote for PN or PL.

It’s a vote that’s a part of the change, stupid.