Tag: duopoly

Categories
Panamagate Politics

No flowers in Panama (I – the seeds)

filpanama_akkuza

It’s Sunday morning and the nationalist party is gearing up for what it dubs a national protest against corruption. The Sunday papers are full to the brim with opinion articles, spin and (if you look really hard) factual reports about the issue that has a name: Panamagate. Over the week the men in Castille shifted through deny, downplay, riposte and finally deflect and distract motions. Nothing seems to work, and rightly so, because the issue is national, important and immediate. Mark Anthony Falzon’s column in the Sunday Times best explains why in the small picture Konrad Mizzi’s position is untenable. Falzon’s column can be added on to an earlier post in this blog explaining why even before delving deeply into Mizzi’s doings we could conclude that he was unfit for purpose. Mizzi, not Falzon.

I did say small picture though and I was careful when I said that. Don’t get me wrong, Panamagate is a scandal of gargantuan proportions. We are still coming to terms with the ramifications of what it all really means in terms of this government’s general program. Indian frauds and Azeri business deals have only just been brought into the fray while the feeble counter-ripostes from the government side have included reminders of how ex-Nationalist ministers (Ninu Zammit in particular) held millions in accounts abroad before being granted an amnesty by Joseph Muscat’s government. So yes, of itself and within its confines Panamagate is huge and insofar as the story of this bumbling government is concerned it should be a huge blow to its overall credentials for governance.

There is a bigger picture that we should objectively be looking at. It’s a wider look at the nature and workings of our body politic as a whole – beyond Panamagate, beyond the other PL government scandals, beyond the cases of corruption of ex-PN ministers that have come to surface and might yet surface. The bigger picture should be what the whole business of running our democracy is all about and understanding how it could be improved – not for the sakes and interests of the duopoly and a bit (I’ll get to that “bit” later) but for the sakes of a young Republic that needs renewal and revival.

Sunday’s protest is supposed to be a national one against corruption in politics. J’accuse is taking this cue in this time when trust in politics and politicians to take a wider angle look at what is happening, at how we got to Panamagate and the options of where we can go from here.

Getting to Panamagate

sowing the seeds of bad governance

Corruption. It did not start with Konrad Mizzi. It will not stop with Konrad Mizzi. At the heart of corruption is the misuse of the powers that have been entrusted in the hands of those chosen to administer the state on behalf of the people. This is, in essence, why and how corruption exists. Do not only see it in monetary terms – the pilfering of funds isn’t half the full story. Corruption is the abuse of trust pure and simple. It is the use of powers that have been lent to you in order to give, grant or allow things to people who do not deserve or would not have deserved such things had they gone through the right channel. Corruption is nepotism. Corruption is legislating as a favour for an interest group. Corruption is closing one eye. Corruption is abusing of the rules in order to get your way. Corruption is the conscious fettering of one’s discretion. Corruption is the creaton of networks that favour closed groups without transparency or merit.

The structures of a democratic state are intended to counter, as far as possible, the possibilities of corruption. Furthermore, when such preventive methods fail, the same structures should be able to counter with a remedy – investigation, prosecution and more. The Maltese Constitution, sovereign in 1964 and republican in 1974, was built around the concept of a sovereign parliament as inherited from our colonial rulers. It is clear from a reading of the constitution that with all the mechanisms of checks and balances in place, with all the power afforded to the head of state, the main engine of the system is the parliament. It may be fettered by a few absolute majority clauses but there is no doubt that parliament reigns supreme. The power of the people lies in parliament. It’s not exactly “if parliament wills pigs can fly” but it’s pretty damn close.

Over the sixty odd years of sovereign existence our parliament evolved into a two-party structure with more and more importance given to the main parties concerned. Laws were written, amended and “abused” in favour of this dual perversion – comfortable with the notion that if the world’s oldest liberal democracy can live with dualism then so can we. While China and Soviet Russia could work with the one party system (factoid: China actually has thousands of parties but only one counts) we developed a perverse system in which the constitution and all laws enacted would be subservient to the needs of the duopoly’s concept of power. Even notions of Equity and Justice had to be based on the notion of par condicio. The PLPN behemoth was born. Electoral laws would be drafted to ensure that as far as is humanly possible only two types of interests would be represented in parliament and the rest of the laws requiring political distribution would follow suit – government and opposition making up the numbers.

Many moons ago this blog was not alone among a movement of people warning that not all is right under the PN government. Our main argument at the time was that the PN government had lost its sense of purpose – from the 1987 calls of Work, Justice, Liberty to the 90s reconstruction and growth , to the push to join the European Union in 2004, the nationalist’s had a clear direction in their mind. They were driven with that purpose and their role in governing the country was underpinned by that purpose. Once Malta had joined the EU that sense of purpose and rive was lost. The PN was doomed to falter from then on. It’s unwillingness to engage on social issues would not be the first petard with which it would be hoist. The PN would fail to admit that the system that fed the two-party alternation was eroding the nation’s backbone from within. The next decade from 2004 would be spent with the Gonzi government suffering the rot that would ensue. Left to their own devices politicians without a cause beyond their district duties and obligations end up doing what they know best – peddling in influence and toying with power.

It is not surprising that the John Dalli’s and the Pullicino Orlando’s of this world were born under a nationalist administration. In a panicked attempt to hold on to the reigns of power the PN turned a twisted form of populist – hoisting upon the electors a pick and mix of politicians that were anything but while failing to see where the real remedy lay: tackling the source of our ills – the magnet of corruption that was our political structure of networks, friends of friends and die-hard flag wavers.

Which is when Joseph Muscat stepped in. On paper it was all promise of transparency, meritocracy and a battle on corruption. The sovereign power of the people was supposed to revert to the Maltese- Taghna Lkoll. On paper. Yet Muscat operated within the same parameters as had the previous government. Worse still the new Labour team has shown that it has no capacity for self-restraint. The trough was thrown out in the middle of the brand new Castlile square and the nation could only stand back gobsmacked watching the pigs feast on it day after day. Meritocracy? Spare me. Transparency? Say what? Corruption? Ouch. Muscat’s finely honed electoral campaign was meant to work under the current parameters of electoral mediocrity. Those same parameters encourage the development of corrupt networks of dependency and trading in power. In a twisted chicken and egg conundrum it became evident that in order to take a big slice of the power cake, the networks of dependencies and IOUs had to be in place BEFORE even getting elected. The government promising transparency, meritocracy and an end to corruption had set the mold for a corrupt system before it was elected.

Meanwhile, calls by (admittedly small) sectors of society to elect the third party into parliament and break the power mold fell on deaf ears. Most times it was derided as madness and as a failure to understand that the rules only allow one winner and one runner-up. Critics missed the point. They still miss the point today when they speak of the “need of redemption” for what was done by third-way enthusiasts at the time. It is only ignorance of the system and a blind affiliation to the idea of alternation that can foment such ideas.

In 2016 this blog will be among the first to say that the third way is not the way to break the system and change it. It cannot be any longer. Change must perforce come from elsewhere. more about this in the next posts. Keep reading. And you might still be in time to get to Valletta for the protest.

 

 

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Paragon of Democracy

Lights are out or returning back on this morning in Malta. It’s long past being a funny situation – the power station business that is – and the blackout will ironically throw more fuel into the incandescent fire that is every discussion about power stations, government contracts and governmental mismanagement.

While Malta floundered around in the dark UK Deputy PM Nick Clegg was busy reassuring his voters that the forthcoming government programme will include “the “biggest shake-up of our democracy” in 178 years”. This includes fixed-term parliaments, a fully elected House of Lords and a referendum on electoral reform.

The Liberal leader is in charge of the reform plans and has stated that he wants to “transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state”. Centralised states were on the mind of Clegg throughout his presentation and at one point he stated:

Britain was once the cradle of modern democracy. We are now, on some measures, the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta.

Now that’s a bugger innit? The contrast being made is obvious. Britain has relinquished its past as a “cradle of modern democracy” and having done so has approached – what? – Malta. Ouch. That hurts. It’s painful. But there must be a reason why Nick’s first thought when thinking of a decentralised (and consequentially distant from being a cradle of modern democracy) country leaps to Malta.

House of Lords Chamber
Image by UK Parliament via Flickr

My bet is that if any repercussions will be had in Malta all blame will fall squarely on the nutjobs at the Alleanza Liberali who have carried the “Liberal” name for quite some time now – with dire consequences on any chances that name might have if taken up by normal minded people. There might even be a photo of Nick with John Zammit (who is currently busy working on www.freewebs.com/mintoffjani) as part of his Mintoffjan/Liberal project.

It would be too easy though to blame it on the nutjobs though. Nick Clegg, deputy PM of one of the largest political realities in Europe does not think highly of our political system – were it just a voice out of the blue it would be something we could easily ignore. Instead, Clegg is simply confirming what this forum has said for ages – the PLPN duopoly has much to answer for in this respect.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Articles

J'accuse: Stable government and its price

So David Cameron got to move to number 10 after all. With a little help from his new-found friends, Cameron (and Clegg) ushered in an era of “collaborative politics” that promises to combine effective representation with reasoned administration for the greater good of the people. The much-maligned monster that is coalition government settled in and is already working on an Emergency Budget to tackle the continuing ails of the economy (British, European and worldwide). And there we were thinking that pesky third parties would ruin the show.

When the pros and cons of coalition governments are being discussed, the question of stable government always figures as one of primary concern. The fear of government breaking down or collapsing mid-term and of provoking multiple elections over short spans of time have been one of the main arguments against the possibility of coalition governments – that and the ugly duckling of a “kingmaker” party – a minor party able to call the shots on who gets to form a government.

Whenever such considerations are made we are making implied choices between stronger representation and stable government. The implication seems to be that perfect, proportional representation is not conducive to stable government. In a way that is because, given our “black or white” bipartisan all-or-nothing approach, we are automatically suspicious of compromise politics and confidence building. But is our “stable government” system really so perfect after all?

Stable or bust

Speaking to the party faithful at the PN General Council on Friday, minister Tonio Borg reassured those present that “the government will be safeguarding the people’s clear verdict given in the general election two years ago which was for the Nationalist Party to govern the country for five years.” This was Tonio’s summary refusal of the PL thesis of a government hanging onto power by its talons. Forget Auditor General investigations, forget disquisitions on Erskine-May and forget companies with ugly acronyms like BWSC.

It’s all about who is in power for five years. The reverse side of the coin is the same. Look at the fracas in parliament – the yelling, the motions, counter-motions, the childish insults and defences (you’re drunk and she’s pregnant – oh the shame) – it all boils down to one thing and one thing only: the PL wanted so desperately to bring this one seat-majority government crumbling down (on a vote which technically does not do that) and to undermine whatever sense of legitimacy GonziPN still has to govern.

gonzidhondt

When the results of the last election were out, our Bertoon had Gonzi celebrating on a small bucket representing his “relative majority”. A party that garnered less than 50 per cent of the vote in the country would govern, thanks to a constitutional mechanism of seat compensation. Our caption read: “D’hondt worry, we’re happy” – a nod to the D’hondt system of calculation in elections – invented by a Belgian (Belgian? now that’s a sure source for stable governments). The toon was our way of saying “at least someone’s happy”. Sure. GonziPN had every right to be happy as the next legitimate government of the nation, having snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. But was the voter really getting a good deal in constitutional and representative terms?

The cost of ‘stable government’

Two years ago a party that had a 1,500 vote advantage over the next party that had failed to get to the 50 per cent threshold could claim two extra seats in “constitutional compensation”. Those two extra seats (voting value approximately 7,000) are given to the party with the relative majority in order to ensure that it can govern for the next five or so years – assuming that all the members on its side of the House will vote in its favour.

So we have constructed our “stable government” around a fictive majority that in effect exercises something akin to absolute legislative power in parliament. If government wills it, anything becomes law – unless its bench members decide (knowingly or out of fatigue) to vote against it. The Opposition may – rightly or wrongly – yell, cry, perform its least flattering resurrection of 80’s parliamentary thuggery, walk out in indignation and shout “foul” to an angry nation. It may do all that and more but, barring a revolution, the government is as firmly in place as a limpet – crisis averted, n’est-ce pas?

There is no coalition partner forced upon a party that has not obtained the majority of national votes. No coalition partner to act as a moderator of the more radical of the government policies that might only have enjoyed the favour of a national minority (relative majority it well may be, but it is still a government by national minority). The closest we can get to the coalition partner scenario is in the infamous “rebel backbenchers” picture where, for reasons that can be highly volatile (not as clear as those of an elected coalition partner), a fraction of the party in government decides to make use of his newfound disproportionate weight.

I don’t know about you but if that’s stability, then give me instability any day. Not that I would want instability, but this kind of conundrum really makes the examination of an alternative scenario with coalition partner worth revisiting. AD chairman Mike Briguglio wrote of the current state of affairs in an article that also appeared in J’accuse (Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly). At one point Mike suggests that the Nationalist Party might even pull off a victory at the next general election. What then?

Mike wrote: “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.” The “if in government alone” bit did not escape me. It is obvious that AD of all parties would entertain thoughts of coalitions in Clegg style and Briguglio’s message is clear – if the Nationalists were to be part of the next government it would best be with a check and balance system guaranteed by a coalition partner.

bert4j_100516
Cleggmania?

The problem in Malta is that voters will weigh this option with the usual suspicion. Elections are depicted as an all or nothing battle themselves. The rules are such that – as I have shown – the trophy of governance is intricately merged with the trophy of absolute power at all costs. Even in such telling times as these, when the bipartisan representation exposes all its ugly warts, messengers like Briguglio will find it incredibly hard to sell the idea of a different form of “collaborative government” that has just been launched in the UK. Selling the idea might not be enough – without electoral reform, laws on party financing and a clear awareness among the voting population, we are far, very far, from being anywhere near the kind of movement that brought the UK Cleggmania.

Meanwhile the BWSC saga with all the parliamentary repercussions rolls on. Joseph Muscat of the Same, Same but Different Party has just presented his 15 points to battle corruption. The monster, once defined, failed to bring the PN government down. So now Don Quixote invents a few swords and sabres and bandies them about. We shall see how gullible the voters can be by the way they accept this new set of “promises”. In our analysis of the 15 points on the blog we point out (among other things) that:

(a) promising a working electricity system is just the mediocre kind of electoral gimmick you can expect from our bipartisan stable system in the 21st century; (b) you cannot fight corruption if you are unable to define it legally; (c) there is no such thing as retroactive application of criminal law; (d) when Joseph Muscat promises to implement a directive he is stating the obvious – he will have to implement directives when in government whether he likes it or not; and (e) a law on party financing must not be limited to “corruption” whatever that means – transparency means knowing even what are the “legitimate” sources of party funds.

Somebody stabilise that euro

I know it’s egoistic of me but I have begun to notice that ever since I booked a June trip to New York, there seems to be a general conspiracy to threaten my holiday. As if Iceland’s bucolic volcano and its random outbursts of paralytic ash were not enough, the combined effect of Greek woes and economic disaster on the continent have daily gnawed away at the purchasing power of the beloved euro, once I cross the pond to the other side. Also, if you please, those bigoted maniacs that fabricate religious excuses at the same rate as they strap bombs to their chests have upped the ante once again in the city that never sleeps.

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, I have “New York or Burst” (as Balki Bartokamous would have it) tattooed on my brain. No volcano, euro devaluation or fanatic terrorist will come between me and the joys of the 24-hour Apple Store on Fifth Avenue – open 24/365… beat that GRTU! How’s that for stable determination?

www.akkuza.com has been on a go-slow this Ascension Long Weekend in Luxembourg. We’ll be discussing stable governments all next week so do not miss out on the action.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Categories
Zolabytes

Symbol of a Stagnated Duopoly

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.
***

Categories
Articles Mediawatch

Never mind the tiddlers (2)

As I said in the previous post, speculation on Cleggmania is ripe in the papers. I just came across another article as I ran through today’s Times. Incidentally, for an election that is only ten days away it is incredible how (proportionally) little newspaper space it takes up. The front page of the printed Times has news items on Thai revolts(main article), oil spill in Mexico and the London Marathon. A reference to the election can only be found in the “In the news” section (Labour in turmoil).

Back to Cleggmania though. Here is columnist Martin Bell interpreting Cleggmania  in his article “This is more than a revolt against the big two” (subtitled, for good measure , “Voters want to loosen the grip of political parties on the windpipe of democracy”):

Many people who were previously indifferent to politics, and especially to party politics, are finding a sense of wonder and excitement in this the most enigmatic election of modern times. Something extraordinary is churning out there. The immediate casualty is two-party politics and the pendulum-swinging assumptions that go with it: first one major party holds office for a while, and then the other, and no one else gets much of a look in. This is beginning to seem as out of date as the competition between two superpowers.

My friends in the old order, and their cheerleaders in the press, have long been assuring me that the public revulsion against MPs’ expenses was a passing phase that would have lost its momentum by the election. They believed that once the obvious miscreants had been purged (though many remain, including certain absolute crooks), the politics of the status quo would return, slightly purged but still intact.

This has not happened.

Not bad for a starter. But Bell is not rooting for the LibDems. He declares his interest as adviser to the Independent Network – “a loose coaltion that helps Independents to help each other.”

I believe that we are witnesses of a phenomenon that goes beyond the Lib Dems’ traditional election pitch of a-plague-on-both-your-houses. Anti-politics as usual would not work in the way that Nick Clegg’s campaign has if it did not connect with a wider belief that our system of government has fallen sick; and that a gap has opened up between the politicians and the people that only the people can close through act of democratic insurgency.

The insurgents on May 6 will include 315 Independent candidates — twice the number who stood in 2005. Most will fail. Some will lose their deposits. But others are serious challengers.

So the thesis here is slightly nuanced. It is not the LibDems that are breaking the strnaglehold of the two main parties. It can only happen if the disillusioned voters transform their disillusionment into effective votes. And yes… there is the danger of their being “wasted” thanks to the outdated electoral system. Martin Bell has something to say on that too:

The Lib Dem surge may make it harder for them, but the Independent appeal is still a strong one.

And this is just the start of it. This election will surely be the last under the first-past-the-post system. Its result will be such a distorted reflection of the popular will, in the ratio of seats gained to votes cast, that it can hardly be called democratic. Any future, fairer system will remove the bias against Independents, who may well be the voters’ second choice if not their first.

The Independents are back — and here to stay. They should be welcomed.

Finally, here is Peter Riddell on Election Briefing (also the Times) explaining why talks on coalitions and other solutions to hung parliaments are useless until after the election:

The talks are speculative rather than substantive, for three reasons. First, we still live in a winner-takes-all culture at Westminster, unlike most of the rest of the EU, Scotland and Wales where, under proportional representation, it is assumed that an election will result in a coalition or minority administration. The main parties, therefore, say that they are fighting to win outright, since any hint of pre-election talks would be seen as weakness. Moreover, in PR systems, talks invariably take place after rather than before elections, producing an average 40-day delay between polling and the formation of a government, unlike the familiar changing of prime minister the day after polling day in Britain.

Second, the parties are not remotely prepared for a hung Parliament. The leaders’ advisers are belatedly starting to think out the options. But their main focus is still on the final ten days before May 6. The Lib Dems have considered hung Parliament scenarios since the early 1980s, but these have mainly highlighted the awkward dilemmas of which party to back — which have now been exposed.

Third, the parties are divided about what to do. What happens is crucial for the careers of individual politicians. Whatever their private conversations, Cabinet ministers are not going to say anything firm about negotiating positions before the polls close. But some are preparing to go public immediately afterwards.

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Never mind the tiddlers

Cleggmania is generating a huge amount of literature (is it too big a word?) on the subject of third way politics. I came across this article by David Mitchell in the Observer (David Cameron feels the hand of history where it hurts) and it was one of those articles that you read while constantly nodding your head in agreement.

You see the LibDem breakthrough is an interesting phenomenon for those of us who have long been advocating about the harm of duopolistic scenarios. One of the strongest arguments, at least in our opinion, is the lack of incentive for new ideas when the battle is shorn down to a two-way race. Opposition by default has a nasty habit of just creating two clones with different names in the long-run – a very unhealthy prospect for healthy development. Here is Mitchell’s (part of ) take on the issue (my highlights):

“You’re sick of the government, aren’t you? So vote for me!” is how British opposition leaders have always addressed the electorate. It’s usually enough. “Why commit to policies in advance when I can win just by not being Gordon Brown?” Cameron must have thought. It doesn’t exactly make him a statesman but doesn’t mean he’s an idiot either. He analysed his strategic objective and, in time-honoured fashion, organised a perfectly competent cavalry charge. It had always worked in the past. And then history opened up on him with a machine-gun.

It feels like something may be changing, and this could be real change rather than the mere alternative that Cameron offers. The apathy and disillusionment of the electorate may be turning into something more constructive than moaning about politicians being the same, not bothering to vote or telling ourselves that Ukip isn’t racist. Instead people are beginning seriously to question the two-party system. That’s why Cameron’s strategy, to everyone’s surprise, isn’t working.

The public’s reasoning may have gone like this: “The Tories represent change, in that electing them would result in a change of government. But somehow I’m not sure they’d be a better government, just a different one. And, in fact, there’s something eerily familiar about them. Big business seems to back them. Does that mean they’re nice? Hmm.

“Oh, it doesn’t make any difference who you vote for, does it? They all use the same platitudes. I wish they could all lose. I suppose that means I want a hung parliament? People seem to think that could happen. And everyone says Nick Clegg won the first leadership debate. I only saw a bit of it myself, but I’m quite glad – he was the underdog. Maybe I’ll vote for him? That might give the LibDems a bit more influence if there’s a hung parliament. Also, it might keep the Labour/Tory [delete as applicable] candidate out in my constituency.

“Actually, wait a minute! I feel quite good about Nick Clegg now! Nick Clegg and a hung parliament! And the LibDems want proportional representation which would mean there’d always be a hung parliament. Would that matter? It seems interesting.”

I hope people have been thinking along those lines because I believe that that’s the sort of typically British, ponderous and cynical reasoning that could bring about proper reform. Historically, we don’t change things out of ideological zeal – we change them when enough is enough. We’re sick of a system where all a party leader needs to do to win power is convince us that he’s not as bad as his rival. In a proportionally representative hung parliament, politicians may have to win arguments, talk about all their policies, not just scaremonger about the taxes or cuts that they claim their opponents are planning.

I’m speaking too soon but all this makes me optimistic. The savage and irresponsible response from the Tories and the right-wing press to Clegg’s popularity boost reinforces my belief that something might be happening. Otherwise the Tory papers wouldn’t be using words like “Nazi” and even more damaging ones like “donations”. And senior Conservatives wouldn’t imply that a hung parliament would usher in a sort of governmental apocalypse.

The truth is, for them, it might. No party has done better under the old system than the Conservatives – they’ve enjoyed decades in office. But a hung parliament resulting in electoral reform could mean they never form a majority government again. They’re feeling the hand of history where it hurts.

That’s more than an nutshell quote. We are familiar with “the savage and irresponsible responses” (cue Stephen Calleja’s tiddlers). We are familiar with the perception of disgruntlement with two -party politics (I H8 PLPN). What description will the Maltese voting public fit into? Are they prepared to “seriously question the two-party system”? Are they also sick of the system where “all a party leader needs to do to win power is convince us that he is not as bad as his rival”?

Will there be anyone prepared to harness this momentum and transform it into the necessary third party? The LibDems in the UK also face an “unfair” electoral system. In the UK there seems to be a growing consensus for the need to change electoral law. There will of course always be those who are against such a change – particularly those who (like the Tories in Mitchell’s account) can only stand to gain by preserving the status quo.

There are Faustos in the UK who will answer that it is not the system but the voters who need to change. Would our system allow a series of three way televised debates? Would it give PN, PL and a third party equal exposure? That validation was a huge step for Nick Clegg.

Something is telling me that in Malta the tiddlers will have to swim against the current for a while longer.