|
Karl Schembri
What have we actually voted for? Nice rhetorical question to ask the morning after an election, but it was only in the silence following some weeks of regurgitated slogans and invasive Family Adams-like billboards that I could come up with this afterthought.
So with the benefit of hindsight, looking back at the campaign slogans adopted by the three parties, it struck me that the Nationalists, the Labourites and the Greens agree perfectly on one very important pledge: the national interest.
Pure rhetoric, one might say, another cliché, a vague generality that commits them on nothing. Not quite, however, because the three of them have committed themselves on one very particular upcoming vote at the European Parliament, that is on the opt-out clause to the Working Time Directive.
In fact, all the three parties have argued that, in the national interest, Maltese MEPs should vote for the opt-out clause to the Working Time Directive. This basically means that the three parties agree that it should be up to the workers to decide whether they want to work more than the maximum 48-hour-week as stipulated by the European directive.
This was no big deal for the Nationalists, as the EP group they belong to, the European Popular Party, is all out in favour of the opt-out clause. On the other hand, the MLP and Alternattiva will be taking a different stand to that taken by their European counterparts, who insist on keeping the 48-hour maximum working week as a safeguard to workers’ rights.
Labour candidate Wenzu Mintoff argued that while the European Socialists’ insistence on workers’ rights was “excellent on paper,” for a developing country like Malta this “will not mean more workers’ rights but jobless workers.” On the same wavelength, Alternattiva says that overtime is a safety net for many Maltese families, so while workers cannot be obliged by employers to work more hours than stipulated by the directive, they should also remain able to choose to work longer hours if they decide to do so.
So there is consensus; when it comes to issues of national interest as declared by the parties themselves, the three of them agree. This means that, irrespective of their party, all the Maltese MEPs will vote together on this one. So, at least theoretically, when it comes to the national interest it makes no difference who gets elected.
But is an MEP expected to work in the national interest? Obviously none of the candidates would say they would work against the national interest, but when you think about it, representation at the European Parliament is not really about representing nations. That’s the role of government ministers. It is actually about representing sectors of society, with specific constituents rallying behind parliamentarians, as happens with all other normal parliaments, lobbying for their share of power. So much so that to ask parliamentary questions and intervene “in Malta’s national interests” in Brussels, Arnold Cassola used to exert his influence on Green MEPs from all over Europe – because nationality is not important. Also, Maltese interest groups should find no difficulty lobbying with foreign MEPs who advocate their interests, and seek representation through them.
Indeed, if the three parties agree about what is and what should be done in the national interest, an important distinguishing feature between their candidates should be their pledge to represent sectorial interests – a pledge which none of them made explicitly in their campaign. Which candidate will represent business interests as opposed to workers in divisive issues to crop up in Brussels? Who is going to represent pensioners as opposed to employers, consumers as opposed to manufacturers, hunters as opposed to environmentalists? Incidentally, it is the independent candidates who are explicitly committed on this level, while the three political parties keep harping on the myth of nation-wide representation.
It is a myth that should have been shattered immediately after last year’s general election, as soon as Malta’s EU membership was secured. Former Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami managed to rally the famous “31 institutions” behind him in a national alliance of sorts to secure a ‘yes’ vote. It was, much as I hate the cliché, a historic moment for Malta, paralleled only by the hegemonic bloc the same Fenech Adami managed to rally behind him when still in Opposition back in the eighties in that other crucial political moment.
But that is all history now. The eighties are far behind, the European ‘mission’ has been accomplished, and its author, Fenech Adami, is comfortable in his presidential armchair. European membership itself should only be expected to fragment Maltese society into a multitude of interest groups that can appeal to an international reference point that is higher than the nation state. Possibly, this will lead to the public’s disenchantment not only from government but from party politics in general, with diverse interest groups seeking their reference points abroad in a bid for representation at a Europe-wide level. As Alternattiva Chairman Harry Vassallo once put it, “parties are a political reality but not a political necessity.”
We might have missed this point in this election, but this was only our first experience at electing our representatives to the European Parliament. We have five full years to realise that European democracy, at its best, is made of a diversity of interests clamouring for representation; that a good part of these interests have nothing to do with the national interest; and that the answer to ‘who makes the best MEP?’ depends pretty much on what your personal interests are and who can best articulate them in Brussels.
karl@newsworksltd.com
|
