Tag: coalitions

Categories
Campaign 2017

The Coalition Conundrum

History was made. Marlene Farrugia, elected on a PN ticket for reasons we shall delve into later, will, once this session of Parliament commences, become the first member of a third party to sit in a parliamentary session from the start. The constitutional repercussions of this matter are still unfolding and require careful analysis. I hasten to add at the start that the analysis goes above the person and candidate but looks rather at the wider picture – the possible implications of what just happened and the conclusions that can be drawn.

Let us take a quick look at what happened.

Getting into Parliament

On the 28th of April this year, the PD and PN announced what both sides referred to as a ‘coalition agreement’. The coalition between the two parties would be known as Forza Nazzjonali, however for electoral purposes the PD agreed to contest the election under the PN banner and list. PD candidates would be identified as tal-orangjo on the ballot sheet. Crucially on a political level it was immediately clear that the PD was retaining a form of autonomy within the ‘coalition’ – the orange party kept the right to choose which candidates to field on which district, it made it clear from the start that it would be working with the PN (with not within) to present one electoral programme. The parties also declared that each candidate would remain under the responsibility of the respective party.

Was this clear at the time? I reacted with the post Coalitions in the time of cholera. I was clear from the start – this was not really a coalition, at least not in the pure sense of the word. As I already stated in that post, the main purpose of this ‘coalition’ was to get the necessary numbers to vote corruption out of government. The legal constraints posed by article 52 of the constitution only allowed for a workaround that would give a sporting chance to a group of parties to be elected with a pre-electoral arrangement in place. To be clear, had the parties chosen to run on their separate lists they very well risked not triggering article 52(1)(ii) thus leaving them without the proportional compensation. That was not their main concern though – their main concern was pooling all their votes to count for the much needed majority they were hoping to achieve.

Given the circumstances the workaround was a brilliant move. PN and PD would run under one party list. For the election any votes each party would get would contribute to that list. Could it have been done better? Maybe. With hindsight a third ‘mega-party’ could have been registered with candidates from the two parties pooled within this mega-party. Still one list, still two parties in one. This was a snap-election though and practicality trumped aesthetics. This is also the official reason given why AD dropped out of the anti-corruption coalition.

There are a few matters to bear in mind at this juncture:

(1) The how and why of the ‘coalition’ was openly declared before the election – this was no secret negotiation. This is important because when it comes to political loyalty and responsibility what the parties did next once the election was over should have come as no surprise to anyone. It should not have surprised the hardcore PN member who cried ‘foul’ when they interpreted the PD success as a PN loss. Not only should it not have come as a surprise but they should have been content with the result since the Forza Nazzjonali theme was what everybody had rallied behind before the election. It should not have surprised the Labour party either. They had capitalised on the idea of ‘A Coalition of Confusion’ and suddenly were u-turning their spin and claiming that the PD was never elected to parliament. That spin is understandable, it is not in Labour’s interests to see a ‘coalition’ work as much as it is to the distaste of PN hardliners.

(2) The autonomy of the PD within the PN list was clear. Persons who were voting for Marlene Farrugia and her team were voting to get a PD candidate in parliament while ensuring that their number one choice is not wasted. One did not preclude the other. In fact, it worked. Here is how J’accuse was suggesting to vote before the election (The change we need and how to vote it in):

On June 3rd my number 1 vote will go for the PD candidate in my district. I chose the PD candidate because they are our Trojan horse to bringing about this change. By accepting the difficult conditions of a coalition with terms dictated by the current electoral laws they were prepared to sacrifice the party for the good of the country.  I will continue on the nationalist and alternattiva candidates. 

PD was prepared to drop the logo and drop their individual list. It was a small price to pay to contribute to a possible victory against corruption. In the end corruption still won but it does not change the rules of the game.

In Parliament

So once the result was known and once it was clear that Marlene Farrugia had been elected from the 10th district, the Labour Party decided to play the usual games which have long been in the PLPN style.  We had a protest before the Electoral Commission and then before the Constitutional Court. For all intents and purposes this was a stillborn case. Any interpretation of the rules drafted to safeguard the interests of the two big parties could not have been otherwise. The infamous provisos to article 52(1) are supposedly written into the Constitution to ensure some form of governability. Labour was hoping to trigger 52(1)(ii) by claiming that more than two parties had been elected to parliament.

You see the trouble with the article 52 provisos is that they ‘reason’ in terms of political parties. Before the PL and PN played around with the constitution to suit their needs and continue to undermine our representative democracy, political parties had no mention in the constitution. It did not need to mention them. Just take a look at article 80 that deals with the appointment of the Prime Minister. You would be forgiven if you assumed that our Constitution says that the leader of the party with more votes becomes Prime Minister (or something of that sort). Instead the Constitution states that “the President shall appoint as Prime Minister the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgment, is best able to command the support of a majority of the members of that House”. See that? Majority of the members of that House. They could be 67 individual independent MPs and a potential PM would have to meet each and every one of them after an election and convince a majority of them to support him to form a government.

PLPN did away with these complications. With the proviso articles they also made damn sure it would be darn difficult for any third party to convince people to ‘waste’ their vote and get them into parliament. Which is why when the PD and PN sat at that table discussing the coalition there was only one way to go: form one party list under one banner and logo.

But. And here is the groundbreaking moment the Labour lawyers missed (or didn’t but what the heck), the rules on getting into parliament stop just there… getting into parliament. Once you are in parliament you are no longer obliged to stick to your party. One reason that happens is precisely because our constitution views parliament as a house of elected representatives not as a house of party representatives. We have all seen members of parliament switch allegiance or leave their party half way through a session of parliament. Marlene Farrugia and Giovanna Debono sat as independents in the last parliament. AD briefly had two MPs when they switched from being Labour MPs. The nationalist party once formed a government when one member of another party switched allegiance on the first day of parliament.

So. To end this post (others will follow), the rules applying to how many parties are elected to parliament stop applying once the election is over. That is what just happened. As per agreement for the Forza Nazzjonali declared back on the 28th April, Marlene Farrugia is free to be a PD MP as from day one of the Parliament. Elected on a PN ticket as a workaround for electoral purposes she is now able to sit in parliament in representation of her party. She can still fall under the opposition whip though this would be the first time I believe that this happens with a second party in opposition.

There was no betrayal, no secret deal that was suddenly uncovered. The PN and PD may have lost the election but they still managed to break important constitutional ground. If anything this success exposes the inconsistencies of a system that for too long has nurtured the race to mediocrity between two outdated behemoths. What we do with this newly gained knowledge remains to be seen.

Categories
Mediawatch

Coalitions in the time of cholera

Coalitions and how to build them in times of trouble 

Let’s begin by stating the obvious. What the PN (Nationalist Party) and the PD (Democratic Party) have going on between them is not a coalition. It cannot be. The reason it cannot be a coalition in the real sense of the term is the same reason why AD (Democratic Alternative) are finding it hard to get on the same page in what is after all a grouping that is intent on cleaning up the nation’s politics. How have we got to this point of a coalition that is not a coalition? Why are we even discussing these options? What is keeping AD back and what else could be done? This post tries to answer a few of these questions while at the same time we are fully conscious of the poisonous environment that is out there. In order to examine the coalition situation we will use two premises that we take as read.

Premise Number 1: We are living in times of a constitutional crisis. We believe that there is a complete institutional breakdown that has led to a crisis of representation and governance. The main political parties have proven that they serve not the nation but themselves. Individuals within these parties have used them as vehicles to control power and in the meantime they have abused of the large leeway afforded by the law to these parties in order to weaken the inbuilt mechanisms of the system that are supposed to function as a watchdog and monitor. The crisis of representation and governance leads inevitably to corruption and later on there will be a complete systemic breakdown.

Premise Number 2: The PLPN party system is at the core of the systemic breakdown. Over five decades the two main parties consolidated legislation in such a way so as to ensure that they hold the reins of power. It is nigh impossible for their stranglehold on the system to be broken – because they wrote the rules that way. In the last decade this has become more and more apparent until the implosion of one of the two parties has exposed their dependence on a system of bartering and trading in power to the detriment of representation and governance. The rule of law was only secondary to partitocracy. A corollary to all this is that the party system was only a breeding ground of a generation of politicians who kick-started and ran the race to mediocrity. Political parties no longer generated politicians at the service of the nation but career-driven narcissists only interested in the alternation of power, the parliamentary seat and perks. To get there they had to feed a support system of sycophants and creditors who always were ready to cash their cheque in favours and favouritisms when necessary.

Which brings us to the coalitions and now. The Labour Party is in government. It has presided over the rapid descent into a constitutional and institutional crisis. It – or parts thereof – has been the main protagonist in the weakening of the institutions and it has been the subject of scandal after scandal of misgovernance and corruption. The Nationalist party still smarting from a record loss last time round has had to try to regroup quickly. The precipitation of recent events has only meant that it has to act even faster in order to propose itself as the “clean” alternative to Labour. The last years have seen the birth of the Democratic Party as a fourth force apart from Alternattiva Demokratika. The coalition idea begins because the PN wants to create a mass of opposition that will wipe out what many see as a corrupt government that has lost the moral right to govern. With an election looming we once again have to face one of the crucial article of our constitution. The PLPN article par excellence:

52. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the House of Representatives shall consist of such number of members, being an odd number and divisible by the number of electoral divisions, as Parliament shall from time to time by law determine. Such members shall be elected in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in Malta in equal proportions from
the electoral divisions referred to in article 56 of this Constitution, each division returning such number of members, being not less than five and not more than seven as Parliament shall from time to time by law determine; and such members shall be known as “Members of Parliament”:

Provided that where –

(i) at any general election, a political party obtains in the aggregate more than fifty per centum of all the valid votes cast at that election, as credited to its candidates by the Electoral Commission at the first count of all the votes, but the number of its candidates elected at such election is less than the total of all the other candidates so elected;

or
(ii) at a general election which is contested by more than two political parties and in which only candidates of two of such parties are elected, a political party obtains a percentage of all the valid votes cast at such election, as credited to its candidates by the Electoral Commission at the first count of all the votes, which is greater than that obtained by any one other party, but the number of its candidates elected at such election is less than the number of the other candidates so elected,

the number of members of the House of Representatives shall be increased by as many members as may be necessary in order that the party obtaining more than fifty per centum, or the larger percentage, of all the valid votes, as the case may be, shall have one member more than the total of the other candidates elected at that election; and, in any such case, such persons shall be declared by the Electoral Commission to be elected to fill the additional seats created by this proviso who, being candidates of the party last mentioned at such elections, were credited by the Electoral Commission at the last count, with the highest or next higher number of votes without being elected, irrespective of the division in which such highest or higher number of votes occurs.

At the heart of this article lies the reason for the much discusses “Wasted Vote”. It is the reason why on the eve of an election you are told that no matter how much you might not be satisfied with the works of the PN for example, voting for a third party that is not the PN is tantamount to wasting your vote. The race is essentially a two horse race that in many ways fails to respect the choice of the voter and his right to have a party of his own choosing to represent him in parliament.

When it came to creating an anti-corrupt government movement this had to be borne in mind. It explains why the candidates of the PN and PD will be in one list under one name. In that manner the first-count votes of the united parties will go towards the same party and will count for Article 52 purposes of forming a majority in parliament. Had the lists remained separate on the ballot paper this could not happen. A common list is normally a clear sign of a coalition but for one specific point. The PD has accepted to appear on a list that is marked with the PN logo and the PN name. In their negotiations the PD were content enough for that to happen so long as they got the guarantees that they wished for from the PN should they get elected to government.

AD have hit this brick wall. As willing as they may be to join forces with that is being described (but not for ballot purposes) as the National Force (Forza Nazzjonali) they are reluctant to run under the PN name with the PN logo appearing near their names. One has to see first of all the history of AD’s entreaties with the PN. It is a history of backstabbing, most times by the PN who either at the last minute or a little after chose to ditch AD and any help it might have given. It is the old PN, the arrogant PN (some vestiges of which can still be heard today – like when journalist Ivan Camilleri asks ADs Cassola pointedly whether he is aware that AD are small) that we are hopefully talking about. It is the PN that would hang on to the system as it is because it is a system in which it is geared to survive and hopefully for them rule.

Today’s PN should be different. Today’s PN should be genuinely concerned about the state of the nation. Aside from bearing the responsibility of having contributed to this sorry state of affairs by having been a wilful partner for many years in the partitioning of power, the PN should be working actively to prove its contrition and willingness to change. Part of that willingness to change should be humility in its actions where it should be prepared to put the pressing need of the nation before those of its own survival.

Malta does not need the nationalist party. Especially not the nationalist party that tries to survive in the ways of the old republic. Malta needs a coalition for change, a coalition of the willing, a coalition of parts that make a strong whole. The nationalist party has a duty to make this happen and step again onto the right side of history as it had done years ago with the call of Work, Justice and Freedom. That party would seem ridiculous if it should stick to its guns and pride by hoisting its name and logo on groupings who still associate it with its past work of division and arrogance. If the nationalist party realises the priority that we have today then it should have no qualms in forming a real coalition under an umbrella name – Marlene Farrugia has already suggested Partit Nazzjonali – with a logo that reflects that this is a common enterprise.

A real coalition is needed. True it would be a “coalition” created as a workaround to the article 51 constrictions where three parties act as one for a short period of time leading to the important institutional reforms and mending that must take place urgently. That coalition is a coalition not only against the corruption that exists today but also against the old way of doing politics. The PN must realise this. It will only do so when it realises that it too has to change and stop clinging to past images of itself.

There is no shame in embracing this first step to change. It should be a step to greater change. One that involves the creation of a new republic with new values and new rules. A system of constitutional democracy based on the rule of law and proper representation with strong watchdogs and checks and balances.  Malta needs a smaller parliament, less electoral districts, proportional representation, a technical cabinet of ministers from outside parliament, a stronger and more independent judiciary, a revived police force, a stronger office of the attorney general. Democracy and its operation needs to fall back into the background while the nation goes about its life normally again.

Is it really so much to ask?

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Luxembourg’s new coat

So the election came and went. Luxembourg’s that is. It came early – some unfathomable scandal to do with phone tapping and the sorts led to the precipitating of ballot consultations – and finished quickly. For southerners like myself who are used to elections being dealt with like some enormous football match complete with hooligan behaviour on the stands, Luxembourg’s national elections was an exercise in sanitised efficiency of the most yawn-inducing kind.

The elections were held on Sunday (yesterday) which also happened to be Mantelsonndag (literally Coat Sunday). Mantelsonndag is the day in which Luxembourgers go out and buy their new winter coat – which means that all the shops have another excuse to open on Sunday. Did this interfere with the fervour of the electoral consultation? Not one bit. Those entitled to vote (it’s less of an entitlement more of an obligation here – you HAVE to vote in Luxembourg) had six hours to go to their allocated booth and pick their candidates of choice in one of four districts (North, South, Centre and East). Polls opened at 8 a.m. and were shut by two in the afternoon, which means you could only just make it for the last order in a restaurant in the city.

With many more parties contesting the elections than in our notoriously bipartisan (+1) home nation you’d expect an interesting level of tension – to say the least. Nothing. At least not outwardly so. Not even the hundreds of billboards (in wood I noticed, très environmentally friendly) with the robotic expressionless faces were subjected to the least of political vandalism. Police on the roads? Are you kidding? People just rushed to the sales in the great shopping centres and forked out some money from Europe’s highest wage packets to update their ski gear and buy the new manteaux. Silence. The four (yes, four) Fiorentina supporters at the Italian joint where we get our weekly fix of calcio probably made the most noise in the whole of Luxembourg on Sunday – and their purple was not for the Pirate Party.

By seven in the evening results started to trickle out and they all but confirmed the predictions with the ruling CSV losing three of its seats in the Luxembourg 60-member parliament and the Greens losing another. The big winners were the Democratic Party who had caused what one of the papers (wort.lu) enthusiastically described as a “wave of blue” (plus four more seats in parliament). Led by the erstwhile Mayor of Luxembour Xavier Bettel the liberal-democrat party made some substantial gains that would give them a strong hand at the negotiating table as Jean-Claude Junker will form a new coalition government – extending his party’s (and his) stay in power beyond the current 18 year record.

The socialist party and left did not make any particular gains while a very interesting development occurred with the newly formed Pirate Party which managed to garner close to 3% of the vote on the first attempt. No seats in parliament for the swashbuckling heroes of liberty but the amount of votes they obtained guarantees them state financing for their next attempt (are you watching Malta?).

Thusly, without too much of a fuss and without any excessive drama, the Grand Duchy got its new coat. The multi-party politics formula seems to work  – and work well – for this tiny nation. Not for them the mass meetings and the carcades… the only time Luxembourg gets to see those is during a World or European cup… then again there’s no Luxembourgers in those carcades – just those noisy southern guests from Portugal, Italy or Greece.

Ah Europe, Unity in Diversity.

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.